I am moving my blog to a new site for various reasons. I have a number of profiles, running three different blogs and would like to keep my councillor blog separate from my other two blogs.
The new address is:
http://crmegan.blogspot.com
I will be deleting this current blog and will, unfortunately, lose some of the data such as the poll. This is the nature of blogs!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Response to Katanning Submission from Gnowangerup
The President of Gnowangerup Shire, Cr Ken Pech, has issued a media statement in response to the Shire of Katanning's aggressive approach to reform. To read more about the Shire of Katanning's submission, click here and scroll down.
Below is Cr Pech's statement:
'The Shire of Gnowangerup is incredulous at the reported outpourings (ABC Radio and Great Southern Herald) that have been emanating from the President of the Shire of Katanning and Mayor of the Town of Narrogin, regarding Local Government Reform.
Surely, Katanning Council must realise that this type of behaviour and attitude to its surrounding Shires has contributed to them not having many “Local Government Friends” – they just don’t get it. They may class themselves as a regional centre, but they certainly don’t behave as such. They enjoy regional advantages such as big business, high schools and health services, all of which create considerable activity that doesn’t cost their Local Government one red cent. The services that their Council maintain are no different to those of outlying councils such as ours; to suggest they need a bigger mass of broad acre agricultural land to remain viable, suggests that they should review their financial and asset management. If they rated these regional businesses appropriately, perhaps they wouldn’t be on a land grab. We will deal with the State Government in our way; not be dictated to by a council that clearly has difficulty managing its own affairs.
The Shire of Gnowangerup is going through its Reform process with like minded councils who we know understand the requirements of their people and will look after their small towns. For the Katanning Council to berate other Shires because they don’t agree with our approach smacks of dictatorship such as we see in third world countries. We can and will work with like minded shires.
I am not sure who the Katanning Shire President thinks runs small councils but, in our case, it’s the elected members; maybe other attitudes exist in regional centres such as Katanning. To imply that Chief Executive Officers are manipulating reform for their own self interest is tantamount to slander.
We suggest Katanning improves its own performance: we will continue to run our Council in a way that suits our electors and community.'
I say, "Hear, hear!"
Below is Cr Pech's statement:
'The Shire of Gnowangerup is incredulous at the reported outpourings (ABC Radio and Great Southern Herald) that have been emanating from the President of the Shire of Katanning and Mayor of the Town of Narrogin, regarding Local Government Reform.
Surely, Katanning Council must realise that this type of behaviour and attitude to its surrounding Shires has contributed to them not having many “Local Government Friends” – they just don’t get it. They may class themselves as a regional centre, but they certainly don’t behave as such. They enjoy regional advantages such as big business, high schools and health services, all of which create considerable activity that doesn’t cost their Local Government one red cent. The services that their Council maintain are no different to those of outlying councils such as ours; to suggest they need a bigger mass of broad acre agricultural land to remain viable, suggests that they should review their financial and asset management. If they rated these regional businesses appropriately, perhaps they wouldn’t be on a land grab. We will deal with the State Government in our way; not be dictated to by a council that clearly has difficulty managing its own affairs.
The Shire of Gnowangerup is going through its Reform process with like minded councils who we know understand the requirements of their people and will look after their small towns. For the Katanning Council to berate other Shires because they don’t agree with our approach smacks of dictatorship such as we see in third world countries. We can and will work with like minded shires.
I am not sure who the Katanning Shire President thinks runs small councils but, in our case, it’s the elected members; maybe other attitudes exist in regional centres such as Katanning. To imply that Chief Executive Officers are manipulating reform for their own self interest is tantamount to slander.
We suggest Katanning improves its own performance: we will continue to run our Council in a way that suits our electors and community.'
I say, "Hear, hear!"
How to work with your neighbours
The Shire of Brookton understands how important it is to work with your neighbours when discussing reforms such as amalgamation, unlike the Shire of Katanning (see following post).
Here is a media release issued by Acting CEO, Stan Kocian and Cr Barry Coote, Shire President on the 4th September:
'BROOKTON COMMUNITY ACCEPTS EXPANDED LOCAL MODEL
Approximately 90 Brookton residents turned out for what was a constructive and positive community meeting to discuss amalgamations and structural reform, with over 75% supporting an amalgamation model of Beverley, Brookton, Pingelly and Wandering.
This preference was also strongly supported in a community survey that shows 64% agreeing with this model.
The resultant amalgamated group would have total revenue of $14.7 million and a growing population of about 4,300, with 2,224 electors.
President Barry Coote noted that “as in any marriage, we all bring something to the partnership. We all have our strengths, but it is the sum of those that adds real strength to this model.”
A concern of smaller shires is the potential loss of staff and their families to regional centres and the flow-on effects within the local economy – a major plus of this model will be the retention of a local presence due to housing availability.
Also highlighted were the similarities in our demographics, recent population growth, and impact of our peri-urban location. Along with interests in common we also share community values and methods of operation.
This has been demonstrated in a variety of resource sharing projects over an extended period of time – this has included Town Planners, Building Surveyors/Environmental Health Officers, contract service providers and specific initiatives like the shared speed trailer.
Our communities are also well integrated with inter-school sporting groupings as well as most of the wider sporting associations and Local Drug Action Group.
The Brookton Shire Council will be formally finalising its position at the September meeting, based on community views provided at both the town hall meeting and the survey.
The Councils of Beverley, Pingelly and Wandering have given in-principle support for Brookton to include this model in our submission, and further talks will be taking place following scheduled community meetings in Beverley and Pingelly next week.'
Now, that seems like a sensible way to talk to your neighbours about local government reform.
Here is a media release issued by Acting CEO, Stan Kocian and Cr Barry Coote, Shire President on the 4th September:
'BROOKTON COMMUNITY ACCEPTS EXPANDED LOCAL MODEL
Approximately 90 Brookton residents turned out for what was a constructive and positive community meeting to discuss amalgamations and structural reform, with over 75% supporting an amalgamation model of Beverley, Brookton, Pingelly and Wandering.
This preference was also strongly supported in a community survey that shows 64% agreeing with this model.
The resultant amalgamated group would have total revenue of $14.7 million and a growing population of about 4,300, with 2,224 electors.
President Barry Coote noted that “as in any marriage, we all bring something to the partnership. We all have our strengths, but it is the sum of those that adds real strength to this model.”
A concern of smaller shires is the potential loss of staff and their families to regional centres and the flow-on effects within the local economy – a major plus of this model will be the retention of a local presence due to housing availability.
Also highlighted were the similarities in our demographics, recent population growth, and impact of our peri-urban location. Along with interests in common we also share community values and methods of operation.
This has been demonstrated in a variety of resource sharing projects over an extended period of time – this has included Town Planners, Building Surveyors/Environmental Health Officers, contract service providers and specific initiatives like the shared speed trailer.
Our communities are also well integrated with inter-school sporting groupings as well as most of the wider sporting associations and Local Drug Action Group.
The Brookton Shire Council will be formally finalising its position at the September meeting, based on community views provided at both the town hall meeting and the survey.
The Councils of Beverley, Pingelly and Wandering have given in-principle support for Brookton to include this model in our submission, and further talks will be taking place following scheduled community meetings in Beverley and Pingelly next week.'
Now, that seems like a sensible way to talk to your neighbours about local government reform.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Independent Public Schools Opportunity Lost
Last night, the Nyabing School Council voted on the option to become a pilot school in the Education Department's Independent Public School programme.
Over the time I've been discussing this issue with parents and community members, I felt that most people were in favour of this exciting opportunity. Some had a couple of reservations, but could see the benefits of becoming an IPS due to ample consultation and information being provided by the administration staff at Nyabing Primary School.
This feeling has since changed since the State School Teachers Union campaigned P & C's with their own special brand of scare-mongering. The SSTU's comments played on people's fear of change and uncertainty in the future. A very one sided notice went out to parents with no time for the Department or the school to counter their argument before the final decision had to be made by School Council on Monday night.
The vote last night had to be an absolute majority. With a couple of members abstaining, this already made a positive outcome less likely. The final vote was a 'no'.
I'm very disappointed in the result as I thought we had a proactive parent community. The School Council had a really difficult time deciding which way they should vote due to the lack of response from the parent community. I don't envy them in having to make this choice and I imagine that they chose 'no', as it was a safe choice.
It appears that less than half of the families even bothered to complete a survey, which is disappointing in itself. Does this show apathy? I believe so. Some people feel it shows that people don't understand the concept or didn't have enough information, so didn't want to complete a survey. Information was readily available from the website, the registrar and the principal at school. No one rang or emailed for more information.
I certainly hope that this apathy doesn't exist in the wider community when it comes to our Local Government Survey. I'm hoping that people will see this as an important decision to make and will help Council in making that decision.
Over the time I've been discussing this issue with parents and community members, I felt that most people were in favour of this exciting opportunity. Some had a couple of reservations, but could see the benefits of becoming an IPS due to ample consultation and information being provided by the administration staff at Nyabing Primary School.
This feeling has since changed since the State School Teachers Union campaigned P & C's with their own special brand of scare-mongering. The SSTU's comments played on people's fear of change and uncertainty in the future. A very one sided notice went out to parents with no time for the Department or the school to counter their argument before the final decision had to be made by School Council on Monday night.
The vote last night had to be an absolute majority. With a couple of members abstaining, this already made a positive outcome less likely. The final vote was a 'no'.
I'm very disappointed in the result as I thought we had a proactive parent community. The School Council had a really difficult time deciding which way they should vote due to the lack of response from the parent community. I don't envy them in having to make this choice and I imagine that they chose 'no', as it was a safe choice.
It appears that less than half of the families even bothered to complete a survey, which is disappointing in itself. Does this show apathy? I believe so. Some people feel it shows that people don't understand the concept or didn't have enough information, so didn't want to complete a survey. Information was readily available from the website, the registrar and the principal at school. No one rang or emailed for more information.
I certainly hope that this apathy doesn't exist in the wider community when it comes to our Local Government Survey. I'm hoping that people will see this as an important decision to make and will help Council in making that decision.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
