Public deserves greater clarity
THE public bill of $23,000 for the three administrators for travel and accomodation seems, to put it mildly, a little steep.
Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the bill which will ultimately fall at the feet of local ratepayers.
But if there is the administrators and City Hall are not making it.
Since it’s the public’s money shouldn’t the public be entitled to a detailed account of how their money has been spent? Which flights if any? Which hotels? For what civic purpose? How much publicly subsidised travel has there been from homes in Melbourne to Geelong?
If there was a good explanation you would think the administrators and the council’s communications team would be keen to make it.
In the absence of detail or explanation, the perception is created that there is something to hide — that there is detail in there that the public will dislike even more than the $23,000 bill.
As they’ve said in politics since Watergate: “It’s not the crime. It’s the cover up.” In a similar way the refusal to detail to the public how the public’s money is being spent will undoubtedly make people even more suspect of the spend.
The administrators have not had an easy time at the helm.
They seem to have been accutely aware of potential attacks that they were not elected, and — Peter Dorling aside — that due to not being locals they may not properly understand our city or our region.
As a result they have committed a lot of energy to consult broadly.
But popular rebellions — particularly on the mooted sale of the three libraries — have taken off like wildfire and left them shocked and seemingly bereft.
But a hunker-down approach in terms of communication on matters of public interest does them no favours and will empower critics who would compare the leadership style to Marie Antoinette.
The public is entitled to a few traditional civic gestures of accountability and transparency.