Piss Poor

26 Apr

At 3.30 today I forced myself to sit down and do my submission.  I need to take my meds every day or else I become a procrastinator of mammoth proportions!  So here’s all I came up with (and submitted):

I wish to submit the following
That the figures displayed on page 202 (in regard to Bluff Town Hall) are misleading as they imply a larger increase than requested by the Bluff Community Charitable Trust (.30 cents per property increase requested).  Page 202 shows it to be increasing from 6.33 to 7.59.  My calculations have 6.33 as an ex GST figure and 7.59 as an Inc GST figure.  It seems inappropriate and confusing to list the two differing figures next to each other when consulting the general public.  Councils have a bad name because of their ability to corrupt figures to suit their agenda and this reinforces that view.  K.I.S.S.
I do not support our council allowing or supporting Venture Southland to become a CCO.  ICC already have a gamut of ‘arrangements’ with different groups, all with some sort of connection or affiliation with council.  Council need to allow more involvement by the public rather than appointing various people to groups.  It is my understanding that the museum is owned by a CCO which has a management contract with ICC.  I am skeptical whether this arrangement is intended to reduce costs or ratepayer oversight.  All ratepayers see is a lump sum and no transparency exists.  Wastenet and the current Venture Southland arrangement have had to be forced to publish information and so much is still not known.  Residents can not take ICC’s word for this being a more effective arrangement nor should we.  Currently I can attend a VS meeting, will this be allowed as a CCO?  I suspect it would not be.
I do not support funding the ‘upgrade’ of the skate park.  If a skate park exists and an upgrade is wanted they should fund it themselves.  Bluff Pool was in the same situation but ICC did not borrow $300,000 to contribute toward the upgrade (precedence has been set)therefore they should not for the skate park.
It seems as if South Alive is being treated as the ‘favourite child’ by being provided a consultant and regular ICC promotion of their group and assistance for the office set up whereas Glengarry and Bluff are being left to fend for themselves to a degree.  I believe ICC should put their focus in assisting Urban Rejuvenation by remedying infrastructure issues, I.e., Martin Street has down pipes emptying across footpath under eaves.
Having no seats in bus shelters does not seem very family or child friendly (or friendly at all) to me.  To provide benches (albeit low) at a pedestrian crossing on Elles Road and not to provide them in bus stops makes little sense to me.
I would like to submit more but annual plan time is also when I am involved in the Bluff Oyster & Food Festival and would therefore like to submit that community groups running these sorts of events be supported by council waiving fees for things such as signage space and/or consents and road closures etc. 
I would like to reassert my long held views that ICC comply to Schedule 7, Section 38 of the LGA
Provision of administrative and other facilities for community boards
  • A territorial authority within whose district the community of a community board is situated must provide the necessary administrative and other facilities for that community board.

Postage/courier and photocopying costs of board business should be provided under this clause by ICC not under section 39 (targeted rate on community).  I would also add that legal opinions would come under this section in my view.  
I would also remind council that it is the CEO’s responsibility to advise the Board and there have been mammoth failures by the CEO, lawyer and chairperson.  I remind ICC that these failures do not mean Bluff should not have a board but that it needs to be done properly. 
Finally I respectfully ask for more transparency and less public excluded and that workshops me (oops – BE) made open to the public.
Kylie Fowler
And for the Venture Southland CCO scam:
I do not support our council allowing or supporting Venture Southland to become a CCO.
I believe it will make it less transparent and allowing the CCO to pay Director’s fees means less oversight for the rate payer.
I would like to know if meetings and/or workshops would be open to the public if this is approved?
Will agenda and minutes be available to the public?
Will everything held by Venture Southland staff be subject to LGOIMA?
Without assurances that this a) saves money and b) improves transparency and effectiveness I vehemently OPPOSE it.
Kylie Fowler
I am very annoyed with myself but sometimes I’m just not myself.  I think I said the basics but that’s it.  I’m getting cynical though…will it matter what I submit?

One Response to “Piss Poor”

  1. cracker666 April 26, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

    Bravo. Good job, even if they ignore it. Let’s just keep reposting our submissions till they listen…oh hang on, we do that every day anyway 😉

Got something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: