After reading an article about council’s review of its fi rst hundred days of operation, I suggest that the editor seriously consider a Fact or Fiction page for the Central Coast Council’s media reports.
All the residents fighting for action on the landfill, water quality, water protection, sale of community land, flooding and drainage, leasing of community halls, Gosford waterfront, etc, will disagree that the Central Coast Council has ‘a real focus on customer service and engaging in our community’. The media unit has failed to accurately describe engaging as negative. Who are the trainees of the media unit? Which state government authority is responsible for projects requiring higher assessment than ‘shared pathways’? Completion of a portion of a shared pathway on the Peninsula is rated as a “major project.” Based on the council’s low profile project capability, Masterplans for the Gosford Waterfront and CBD are beyond the Central Coast Council’s administrator.
The media release also states ‘The Executive Team have been getting around to all staff in the past two weeks to touch base, share good news stories’, the good news stories will not be about landfill, water quality, water protection, sale of community land, flooding and drainage, leasing of community halls, Gosford Waterfront etc. When the Central Coast Council has had the opportunity to improve the environmental and social character of the LGA, it has chosen otherwise, thus negatively engaging the community. Does the low grade quality of the Central Coast Council’s media release mirror the council’s administration? The council’s hybrid administration has failed to impress during its introductory stage, I expect more of the same. Is this the model for the next 300 days?
Letter, September 27 2016 Norman Harris, Umina