Several ratepayers chose to speak to their submissions in the recent budget s233 process. This process is a legal requirement under the Local Government Act. Council cannot approve a Budget until they have given, AND CONSIDERED, responses from ratepayers.
After reviewing the live stream of this meeting I felt compelled to write a letter of complaint to the Administrators since in my opinion, and it should be self-evident from watching the 5 minutes that I spoke for, that at least two of the 3 administrators were not listening.
EDITORIAL OPINION PIECE.
The Budget Public Submission Hearings at Council.
Several ratepayers chose to speak to their submissions in the recent budget s233 process. This process is a legal requirement under the Local Government Act. Council cannot approve a Budget until they have given, AND CONSIDERED, responses from ratepayers.
After reviewing the live stream of this meeting I felt compelled to write a letter of complaint to the Administrators since in my opinion, and it should be self-evident from watching the 5 minutes that I spoke for, that at least two of the 3 administrators were not listening. Preferring to give attention to their own affairs rather than give the required respect to those who took the opportunity to be “heard”
Administrator Brown-Listening? Administrator Zahra-Listening? Administrator Eisenbise is Listening. CEO-working on task
Complaint Letter to Administrators.
I viewed my presentation to the s233 process and it seems that Administrator Eisenbise “appears” to be listening to my 5 minutes talk, Administrator Zahra “appeared” to be more interested in his computer rather than listening, and Administrator Brown “clearly” made not the slightest effort to even appear to be listening as he played with his own paperwork and notebook.
This is appalling disrespect and it wasn’t really confined just to my contribution.
Not only had Administrators Brown and Zahra, in my opinion, excluded themselves from this process by indicating in advance of the s233 process, their views that rate reduction was not acceptable, but they had clearly formed a predetermined conclusion before I and others submitted to have a rate reduction considered.
I spoke to 3 submissions. The third was on making the monthly public presentations live streamed. Despite this, the response later in the day to this was referenced only to the s233 process just concluded. Clearly, not one of the three listeners heard me since the answer supplied failed to address the matter raised in my 5-minute chat.
I look forward to receiving an explanation and apology for the shabby treatment of not only me, but others on the day who also appeared to be given less than due consideration and certainly little respect shown. I would also like a comment as to why the monthly public presentation sessions (currently banned) are not able to be live streamed so the public can see the presentations too.
The 5-minute section from the Council meeting is here for you to review.
Look at the Administrators while you listen to the audio and decide for yourself if they were behaving appropriately towards the submitters.
You must be logged in to post a comment.