To Clarify

18 Sep

The Bluff Beacon has this ‘column’ which needs clarification as it contains extremely misleading information

Neglected to point out she was invited and CHOSE not to attend

Neglected to point out she was invited and CHOSE not to attend

This was the meeting I discussed in this earlier post.  ALL CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS and candidates were invited along with the rezoning committee.  For those outside of Bluff and unaware, the Chair of the community board is the editor of the Beacon.  She did not wish to have a meeting or consult on the District Plan.  “We’ll just have to make the best of a bad situation”.  That response does not cut it for me on a once in every ten years document.  Charlie (Te Au) and Ram (Laidlaw) obviously felt the same and decided to consult with interested parties.  The Chair seems pipped that they did not obey BUT she was able and entitled to attend as was Procter and Coote.  Cllr Lewis (council appointed board member) put in apologies as did Wyma Glassey and Cherie Chapman (both candidates).

I did not blog this yesterday, I was angry and disgusted.  It is an obvious attempt to trivialise and put down the members.  Worse than that is, it opposes the principles of consultation, the effectiveness of the Board and relevance of even having a board.  If they can’t serve us on a document that is once in ten years because it was inconvenient why do they bother taking $82K out of the Bluff community each year?  And nor was the district plan review unforeseen though.  Mitchell chose not to be involved or attend and should not be circulating hearsay under the heading local body elections.  If the Beacon wants to be reporting on the local body elections, where was she last night?  Troughing with other career politicians in Invercargill.

So, to clarify…an attendee did not leave in disgust and I will not elaborate on that here (some of us put respect for others over and above our own interests and agendas) and what was the ‘particularly unusual claim!’?  Attendees I have spoken to don’t know.  It’s a bit like telling a joke and not offering the punch line.  What is it the chair finds so unusual?  I am happy to provide a list of those who attended by phone or email if requested so you can work out who (out of the nine attendees) was Mitchell’s ‘mole.  I suggest not casting your vote in their direction.

And when you see the candidate statements in the Beacon and notice the statement “Charles Te Au and Graham Laidlaw did not respond to our request for information” emblazoned in bold you can appreciate why…

Advertisements

2 Responses to “To Clarify”

  1. Graham Lewis September 18, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    Was working that evening, hence the apology, Graham 🙂

    • Kylie September 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm #

      Fully understandable. That is the purpose of ‘apologies’ and it is appreciated. To have incumbent members ignore and the chair to put it down is abhorrent. Anyone with enough intelligence and decency can see it was done to ensure the community were represented and continuity during the election period.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: