Why doesn’t Council want a PIO?

When I first read of the (Local Government) Minister’s restrictions on the new Central Coast Council’s options, I thought that this was an example of political overreach.

Then, I saw the names of the new councillors and I now feel that the Minister perhaps hasn’t gone far enough in putting a review system in place, to protect us from the sort of irrational behaviour that got us into desperate trouble last time.

It is notable that the Local Government Conference, not known for its support of the Minister, has rejected the Central Coast Motion, calling for the withdrawal of the Performance Improvement Order imposed on it (Conference backs order on Council to improve, CCN 465), and, in fact, that speakers to the Motion were strongly in favour of the Order, defeating the Motion 60-40 per cent.

It would be interesting to know why the Council thinks it is going to have trouble meeting the Minister’s requirements which, on the face of it, are only what one would expect from any well-run Council.

It is, possibly, significant that the two grounds on which Council opposed the order were: the Council would be unable to sack the general manager without cause; and the Council would be unable to change budget priorities, unless the changes met proper criteria.

Let us leave aside the fact that the general manager has a five-year contract, extending beyond the term of the present Council, so that termination of his agreement would be a highly costly procedure, and ask how the councillors came to the conclusion, before even one meeting, that this was a first-priority concern.

Furthermore, one might ask why the Council does not want the Minister scrutinising budget changes: what redistribution of the budget does the Council not want the Minister (or ratepayers) to see?

Although not mentioned in the Council’s submission, could it also be that anticipated acts of disorder weigh on the councillors’ minds and should, preferably, be kept under wraps?

Those few optimists amongst us had hoped that a new Council, with new members, might set off on a new collegiate administrative path, but it seems that we are going to see a re-enactment of the same old political manoeuvring and point-scoring that we are regrettably familiar with.

At the next election, it seems that we shall have even fewer choices than we have now and that any holding-to-account of the Council will become practically impossible.

Why do most ratepayers feel that having fewer voices on Council is a good thing: we have just had experience of only one voice in charge, and does anyone think that this “efficiency of decision-making” was a good thing?

I don’t recall anything but complaints about the Administrator’s lack of responsiveness to ratepayer concerns, while he was in office, so why should we expect different behaviour from a small cabal of councillors?

Email, Nov 24
Bruce Hyland, Woy Woy