ELEC­TION CHANGE WORTH STUDY­ING

Western Suburbs Weekly - - Western Opinion -

LO­CAL gov­ern­ment re­form used to al­lude to amal­ga­ma­tions but now those three words are more rel­e­vant to lo­cal gov­ern­ment elec­tions. Over the past few weeks, may­ors and ousted coun­cil­lors have flagged chang­ing dates and may­oral elec­tion pro­cesses. Th­ese changes need to be in­ves­ti­gated. A change of date is worth a try. Any­thing to get the com­mu­nity more en­gaged with the elected mem­bers who rep­re­sent them is worth tri­alling. The re­cent elec­tions failed to pro­vide a clear ad­van­tage or dis­ad­van­tage be­tween ratepayer elected may­ors and those cho­sen by coun­cil­lors. In the City of Stir­ling, in­cum­bent Mayor Gio­vanni Italiano had two cam­paigns on his hands; one to get re-elected to coun­cil and an­other to gain the sup­port of his col­leagues in a may­oral vote. At Bayswa­ter, Syl­van Al­bert lost that first bat­tle. But in the Town of Cam­bridge, ratepay­ers over­whelm­ingly sup­ported new may­oral can­di­date Keri Shan­non over in­cum­bent Si­mon Withers. What­ever the bet­ter process, it should be uni­form across the state.

Denise S. Cahill - editor

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.