A lack of openness by councilDuring the public forum session at the extraordinary council meeting of June 16, I argued council should not endorse any increase in rates.
It resulted in the general manager publicly making an unfounded personal attack on me, which was right out of line with the focus and serious tone of the meeting.
He did not address the substance of the issues I raised, particularly the lack of credence given to the difficult financial circumstances of ratepayers.
Instead, he sought to divert the focus on to me, and away from council’s history of mis-spending of scarce ratepayers’ funds.
Although he was not in office at the time, he implied, surprisingly, that my past support for the spine road disqualified me from commenting on the excessive over-budget expenditures by council on that half-completed project.
He used strong language to infer the budgeted loss of $600,000 a year from the Walker Corporation withdrawal was my fault, when the evidence clearly points to council’s deficiencies and Walkers’ tight financial controls, being the main factors.
Last Friday, I referred my objection to this behaviour to the mayor and councillors, all of whom were present at the meeting. It included a background description and a copy of my submission to council.
Since the incident happened in public, I copied it to some media organisations who may or may not express some views about the matter.
This letter was not contemplated until receipt of an email from a councillor requesting the matter be dealt with confidentially within the Code of Conduct.
But, is that a further step to obfuscation and diversion? Should council officials be so protected?
Those officials, including councillors, have spent months working to justify their case for increasing rates. Since, only one councillor voted against, can the eight consider my complaint impartially?
Neville Hughes, Surf Beach
War service or aged pension
I refer to the article in the Bay Post dated June 19, 2009 and, in response to questions, I advise as follows: whether your service or aged pension is assessed on your assets or income, it is important to check the difference between an insurance replacement value and that of a current sale price.
The insurance payout value of household furniture, fittings, and motor vehicles, etc, is vastly different to what you would receive from a second-hand dealer if you said, “I want cash in hand for the lot today and not tomorrow”.
This is defined as a Fire Sale value.
From my experiences in recent cases, valuations on household effects were less than $10,000 and as low as $4000. Motor vehicle second-hand prices are falling monthly and can be checked with the NRMA.
This Fire Sale value will reduce that total value of your assets and increase your pension if on the assets test.
If you are tested on your income, the deeming income (2 per cent or 3 per cent) on your asset valuation will again increase pension.
I strongly recommend that you frequently review your assets and even discuss your situation with your bank’s financial adviser or in a private enterprise if you are asset rich with cash. Another way to reduce it is to invest in a prepaid funeral plan, where up to $10,000 can be invested for each man and partner.
This will have an asset value of $0 for pension assessment.
Frank Hawdon, Malua Bay
Living in the land of Eu-rob-a-dolla
Recently, Eurobodalla Shire general manager Paul Anderson, with regard to the 135 coupons returned, complained they were somehow “anonymous” as they were not signed.
We were not asked to sign them, just put an “X” in the box to support or not support the rate rise.
Apparently 97.3 per cent were opposed. What louder message of opposition does council need?
As for Fergus Thomson’s claim that “the silent majority of ratepayers are unopposed to the 8.5 per cent rate rise” - that is ridiculous!
Is he now inferring that those who submitted their views somehow rigged that poll? Just because some people choose not to speak up, does not mean they automatically agree with council’s views and so lose by default.
Council’s modus operandi is clear to all and it’s this: (a) It doesn’t care how much people hurt financially. (b) revenue-raising and rail-roading its own agenda seems paramount.
Since council appears to suffer defective hearing, let me spell it out to them, so there’s no mistake: “We don’t want your lousy rate hikes”!
We can tolerate a few more potholes in our roads, or close some libraries one day a week, etc. How about reducing staff and salaries too? I don’t see Thomson or Mr Anderson’s hands up for that one.
The public cannot tolerate this any longer, this unmitigated greed and grab for cash in this recession time.
Mark my words Mr Mayor and Mr Anderson and councillors. Since you have flatly refused to listen to overall public opinion, your days on council are strictly numbered.
The ratepayers voted you in; we will soon vote you out - and good riddance.
Council is certainly living up to its alternative title, that of the Shire of Eu-rob-a-dolla.
Shane McNevin, Narooma
Silent making noise
It would appear we of the Eurobodalla Shire are blessed with having a mayor who is also a mind reader in that he blandly states (Bay Post June 17): “The silent majority” are not against the proposed rate increase.
It would be callous to ask how he knows what the “silent majority” want - if they are indeed “silent”.
It would be even more callous to believe that Cr Thomson and Co are going to increase the rate - regardless of what the ratepayers want - for it would smack of the Nuremberg Defence of “Just following orders’ (in this case from the Labor wastrels in Sydney).
Max Tickner, Bergalia
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff
Twitter