Sue Brooks December 2nd, 2009
Or should I say who is right and who is wrong? It is a difficult job being a politician. There I have said it… I detest using the word ‘politician’ to describe myself as the word brings up such negative connotations but in reality all elected members are politicians.
When we ‘sign on’ or swear to abide by the rules as per the Local Government Act we all make a public declaration to, and I quote, ” faithfully and impartially fulfil the duties of the office…’ we do this under the regulations of the Local Government Act. We also swear to abide by the rules of conduct for Councillors.
I take this declaration very seriously and endeavour to do my very best to abide by it. I believe I honestly work to deliver a representative view whenever I am called upon to make decisions on behalf of you, the residents and voters of this community within Council.
What is very difficult however is translating that effort or the results of ones efforts to the public realm. Just by using this web site I am criticised by some people for speaking publicly. If I am photographed and/or interviewed too often by the press or TV media I am seen by some to be a ‘media tart’. If I am never seen or heard of via the media some people think I’m doing nothing!
How then does a Councillor balance these conflicting messages. Personally I keep reminding myself that I must abide by the rules and I must always promote the decisions taken by Council even if I don’t personally agree with them. This is the basis by which I believe all Councillors should behave. While all Councillors don’t always agree on everything (and thank goodness for the differences in opinion..) once Council has made a decision by majority vote we are all bound to support that decision. I try to always do this to the best of my ability but I am also quite prepared to state when I have a personal point of view that is different from the decision of Council. I believe I have a right to have an opinion and am forever thankful that I live in a democracy that allows me to have this personal freedom to ‘have and voice an opinion’.
For example I am on the public record as not being supportive of the water park. I voted against the park being located where it is. I also recently voted against Council providing some financial assistance to the operation of the park. People can see my ‘no’ vote as it is noted in the minutes of the relevant meeting. But now that Council has made the decision (by majority vote) to support the park I will do whatever I can to see that the park is successful. It is a huge investment, an absolutely wonderful concept and I hope with every fibre of my being that it is successful and that residents and visitors alike throng to it and enjoy it.
So back to the media. I don’t try to attract media attention but I have a portfolio that involves many issues that are good media fodder. Dead fish, foreshore debates, recycling and sustainability issues, trees or no trees, Traveston Dam etc, etc are all issues that are directly related to my portfolio responsibilities. I’m also appreciative that our Mayor has always supported portfolio Councillors speaking on items relating to their portfolio rather than being the sole media spokesperson himself.
When the Mayor is absent the Deputy Mayor becomes for all intents and purposes the Mayor. Decisions, signatures and media opportunities are always greater for the Mayor than for individual Councillors. The Mayor is regularly invited to events that the rest of the Councillors are not invited to. This is as it should be. In the last few weeks Cr McNeven has been in every way describable the Mayor. Yes we refer to her as our ‘Acting Mayor’ but what we mean is that she has assumed all the duties and responsibilities of the Mayor.
It is unfortunate then to find that her responsibilities and her appearance in the media have been called into question via the Chronicle speaking to another Councillor. What should remain an internal issue about roles and responsibilities has become media fodder. So I would like firstly to express my disapointment at that happening and then to say that I totally agree with the editorial written yesterday by Mr Peter Chapman. Thank you Peter for a succinct description of what should not have even been a story.
Now I am sure I will be criticised for commenting publicly about a media article but if I don’t comment I am criticised for not being communicative. I can’t win it seems.
The media have a difficult job of reporting newsworthy items of interest accurately and with very few words. Reporters and journalists have to pump out regular stories on an hourly basis. They don’t work 9-5 they work much longer hours than that. Sometimes they hit the nail on the head and get a story just right, sometimes they miss the full picture by a country mile but the vast majority of the time they represent differing points of view and teach us something we may not have known. If it was not for our media I’m not sure we would have ended up with a pleasing decision re Traveston Dam.
So the lesson here is be truthful and accurate in what you say, behave professionally, treat your colleagues with respect, apologise when you throw the inevitable dummy spit and behave like adults not children. Then again sometimes I think children often behave better than some adults…. See what I mean!
Oh well back to balancing on that tightrope, trying to be communicative without being negative, vindictive and/or misrepresenting anyone or anything…. and looking to the skies for some more rain so we don’t have more fish kills. Cheers, Sue
