Newpapers
Sue Brooks May 19th, 2008
Today I am the target of an inaccurate opinion piece by Nancy in her editorial. Am I surprised? Not in the slightest. Am I annoyed? Yes I am. Nancy is unfair and inaccurate in her statements and I will be asking for a retraction first thing this morning.
Now for the facts.
1 My behaviour is NEVER out of kilter with my ethics. Firstly I don’t peddle nasty unfounded opinions about other people. I do not publicly speak of anything that I am not prepared to say directly to someone face to face. This is my brand of ethics.
2 I don’t knock developers when they develop in sympathy with our Planning Scheme and produce good quality developments. I will never support development which is designed simply to return the biggest profit possible to the developer. I do not want our city to grow in that way.
3 I have only once ever been asked by my fellow Councillors to leave a discussion about a retail development and that discussion was to do with Centro well over a year ago. I did leave the discussion and did not participate in the debate, or vote, for that particular application when it came to Council. Feel free to check the minutes. At other times my fellow Councillors have welcomed my input and my very strong arguments to provide more not less retail development in our city. I supported the extensions to Pialba Place (with reservations due to the design) but because people told me they wanted ‘more shopping choice’. The new Big W is the biggest competitor in town to our own business Mind Games! If I was trying to protect my own business why would I be lobbying against the Planning Scheme that restricts the ability of large retailers to set up shop here? I want more shops not less and have supported all applications for ‘retail shops’ anywhere in the city to my recollection.
4 My colleagues have not directly intimated to me that they are concerned with my conflict of interest so why did they not do this? Who are my colleagues who are complaining? I would like to know. Maybe this comment is as a result of a decision at our last Council Meeting to give delegated authority to the staff, to make a decision on a commercial application at Bay Central, which is across the road from Centro? Maybe the Chronicle is confused and can’t understand the difference between making a decision about how an application is dealt with by Council, and actually making the decision itself? My involvement was simply about a procedural matter NOT about deciding on the extension to the centre, which I would most likely support anyway! Maybe this perceived ‘conflict of interest’ (according to Nancy) arose because the Mayor Ted Sorrenson wrote to the Acting CEO asking that the decision on this application be made by staff and not be brought to the public arena at a full Council or DSC meeting. Myself and Cr Belinda McNeven both thought that the application should be decided by Council so both of us voted against the recommendation. All this is recorded in the Council minutes on Council web site. To put it simply, all the other Councillors wanted the application to be decided by the staff and I. along with Cr McNeven, thought that this was inappropriate and voted accordingly.
5 The blog that Nancy refers to published peoples opinions about other people just as Nancy is doing herself in her editorial today. I agree that some of the published material is unflattering but much of it was accurate. I have information about Council that is private and personal and I am duty bound by Law to respect confidentiality. I have never broken that confidentiality via any web site anywhere.
6 The reporter when interviewing me last week did not ask me if I had posted to the blog site anonymously. On this web site I declared that my very FIRST postings were under a pseudonym called ‘babbling’ as I was defending information written about myself on the blog. What I do like about the Internet is that we can say what we like unedited, as I am doing here. I contributed to the strewth blog site when I knew that information being posted was incorrect and I will maintain that attitude and continue to do so. Do we shoot the messenger when we don’t like the message?
7 May I enquire as to whether the editor feels that she is defaming me via her editorial today?
8 If anyone should learn to ‘walk the talk’ it is not myself!
Please find here extracts direct from the Council Minutes and Agenda. All available via Council web site!
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 3 held on Wednesday 27 February 2008
ORD 10 OFFICERS’ REPORTS
ORD 10.5 Application for Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for Shops and Offices – CRI Australia Pty Ltd C/- Ken Hicks and Associates – Located at 135-143 Boat Harbour Drive; 7 and 15 Central Avenue; 6, 8, 12 and 14 Bay Drive; and 122 Beach Road, Urraween
MOVED ( Campbell / Dalgleish )
That:
1. Council delegate its power to determine development application 513/3-
071176 to the Acting Chief Executive Officer under section 472 of the
Local Government Act.
2. The register of delegation be updated to record this specific delegation.
AMENDMENT ( McNeven / Brooks )
That:
1. Council delegate its power to determine development application 513/3- 071176 to the Acting Chief Executive Officer under section 472 of the Local Government Act.
2. The register of delegation be updated to record this specific delegation.
3. Any planning issues or conflicts with Planning Scheme Policies that arise in the assessment process will cause the application to be brought to Council for determination.
The AMENDMENT was PUT and LOST (1/7). Upon a Division being called the following voting resulted:
FOR: Councillor McNeven
AGAINST: Councillor McDonald
Councillor MucKan
Counicllor Brooks
Councillor Kruger
Councillor Sorensen
Councillor Campbell
Councillor Dalgleish
The MOTION was PUT and CARRIED (6/2). Upon a Division being
called the following voting resulted:
FOR: Councillor McDonald
Councillor MucKan
Councillor Kruger
Councillor Sorensen
Councillor Campbell
Councillor Dalgleish
AGAINST: Councillor McNeven
Councillor Brooks
- Uncategorized
- Comments(0)