With power comes re­spon­si­bil­ity

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION -


Oh no, Liz Kelly strikes again where she ver­bally abuses and bul­lies a younger fe­male mem­ber of the pub­lic and then pro­fesses in­no­cence [KMN, July 12].

It is the sec­ond time an in­ci­dent such as this in­volv­ing Ms Kelly has come to the pub­lic at­ten­tion through your pa­per but un­for­tu­nately not the first or sec­ond time she has been in­volved in a sim­i­lar in­ci­dent and I have no doubt it will not be the last. In De­cem­ber 2009 my then 14-yearold niece was also a vic­tim of the rage and wrath of Ms Kelly.

Once again, Ms Kelly placed the blame on my niece. This seems to be a sim­i­lar view in all con­fronta­tions Ms Kelly ap­pears to ini­ti­ate.

Some­one says some­thing she does not like or she is not ac­corded the re­spect she thinks she de­serves, or she does not like the ac­tions some­one takes then she ex­plodes with a tirade of abuse.

Ms Kelly, you should be ashamed of the way you bully, in­tim­i­date and ver­bally abuse the es­pe­cially younger con­stituents of this city, not least be­cause you are an elected of­fi­cial of our city and as such should con­duct your­self ac­cord­ingly and with­out re­proach.

With the al­ready some­times neg­a­tive con­no­ta­tions aimed at our city is it fit­ting to have a city of­fi­cial in power that can­not con­trol her rage and once brought to task says the only rea­son it is brought to pub­lic at­ten­tion is be­cause of the po­si­tion she holds?

Of course it is brought to pub­lic at­ten­tion be­cause your po­si­tion is some­thing you should well re­mem­ber next time you de­cide that you are above ac­cepted so­ci­ety prac­tices and norms, and de­cide to lash out at some­one who should dis­please you.

Have you ever con­sid­ered tak­ing some anger man­age­ment or be­hav­iour mod­i­fi­ca­tion cour­ses if you feel so un­able to con­trol your be­hav­iour or step­ping down from your po­si­tion so that your dis­gust­ing be­hav­iour is not drawn to the pub­lic’s at­ten­tion? SE­LENA LU­CAS, Taka­puwahia.

(Letter abridged)

Liz Kelly re­sponds: Thank you for the op­por­tu­nity to re­spond, but I am con­cerned that you in­tend to pub­lish the letter in the first place.

The pub­li­ca­tion of this kind of one-sided char­ac­ter as­sault can only be in­ju­ri­ous to my pub­lic stand­ing whether or not I re­spond. Hu­man na­ture is such that peo­ple al­ways re­mem­ber the ac­cu­sa­tion and not the ex­pla­na­tion that fol­lows.

In my view, pub­li­ca­tion of this kind of defam­a­tory con­tent on the ba­sis of one highly sub­jec­tive ac­count – and I can scarcely imag­ine a more sub­jec­tive set­ting than a stu­dent’s game – sets a poor prece­dent.

Will it now be pos­si­ble for any reader of the Kapi-Mana to vent their dis­plea­sure with pub­lic fig­ures in this way, any time they see fit? If the word of one per­son re­lat­ing to an in­ci­dent that oc­curred out­side of my of­fi­cial du­ties is enough to cre­ate an in­deli­ble stain on my rep­u­ta­tion, what pos­si­ble pro­tec­tion can any­one in pub­lic life have from vendetta and vin­dic­tive­ness?

Edi­tor’s note: Elected of­fi­cials rep­re­sent the city. I be­lieve how they con­duct them­selves in all walks of life re­flects upon their pub­lic po­si­tion and the city it­self, and thus is of pub­lic in­ter­est. The claims of Ms Lu­cas are sup­ported by po­lice doc­u­men­ta­tion and Ms Kelly has been given the op­por­tu­nity to tell her side of the story. in­fra­struc­ture, like wa­ter, sew­er­age, storm wa­ter and roads?

A coun­cil that con­tin­ues to spend on non-es­sen­tial projects, like a new head of­fice, a per­form­ing arts cen­tre, buy­ing ex­pen­sive houses for fu­ture re­serves, buy­ing up busi­ness prop­er­ties, re-de­vel­op­ing the cen­tral busi­ness district when the pri­vate sec­tor see no ben­e­fits, etc.

A coun­cil that is set­ting rates which are driv­ing away ex­ist­ing and prospec­tive busi­nesses, and with it lo­cal em­ploy­ment?

A coun­cil that is set­ting rates driv­ing away first-home-buy­ers and the el­derly?

A coun­cil that has only re­cently dis­cov­ered, re­luc­tantly (the threat of a Welling­ton Su­per City), the ben­e­fits of shar­ing as­sets and ser­vices?

Goods Cents Porirua. Great idea. Can the Good Cents team de­velop a course for PCC coun­cil­lors and se­nior man­agers?

[Mean­while] I don’t un­der­stand how car­ry­ing out ba­sic, long over­due in­fra­struc­ture re­newal, sav­ing money that’s been wasted for years, de­serves congratulations (KMN July 5 – page 5)?

Re­duc­ing wa­ter pres­sure just con­ceals a leaky net­work.

If it’s been fixed, wa­ter pres­sure can be re­stored in the CBD, Els­don, etc.

Or can it? Per­haps the other rea­son wa­ter pres­sure has been re­duced is due to in­ad­e­quate wa­ter stor­age. More wa­ter in reser­voirs equals more pres­sure. The only other way to cre­ate pres­sure, is to in­stall more pumps.

So un­til the new Els­don wa­ter reser­voir is built and in use, and all pipes re­placed, wa­ter pres­sure can­not be re­stored in the CBD.

So a bou­quet to the wa­ter as­sets team.

But no praise for coun­cil­lors and se­nior man­age­ment, who have, and con­tinue to un­der­in­vest in wa­ter, sew­er­age, storm wa­ter and roads, and over-in­vest in prop­erty and ego projects. ANDREW WEL­LUM, Cam­borne.

(Two let­ters abridged)

About eight weeks ago my black fe­male labrador was bit­ten on Ti­tahi Bay beach by a black male dog called Char­lie.

Un­for­tu­nately I didn’t ask the own­ers, a cou­ple, their name in case of vet bills. Three days later I paid Rap­paw $150 to fix an ab­scess caused by a deep dog bite.

I am for­tu­nate to be­long to Mana-Tawa Grey Power, so got a dis­count; also my dog didn’t need se­da­tion which would have upped the cost con­sid­er­ably.

I am ask­ing Char­lie’s own­ers if they would be hon­est enough to con­tact me through Kapi-Mana News to help with the cost of this dog at­tack (it was not a dog fight). I am a pen­sioner and Char­lie’s un­pro­voked at­tack has cost me nearly a week of my Na­tional Su­per.

R VIN­CENT, Ti­tahi Bay. elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives. It is not a red her­ring to ask how the plan process can be deemed to be con­sul­ta­tive when the coun­cil adds ex­pen­di­ture be­tween draft and fi­nal plans, with­out any con­sul­ta­tion on the sub­ject.

The fact that the fi­nal plan has in­creased loans to be raised by the ap­prox­i­mate amount of the Steyne Ave pur­chases but left the other $6 mil­lion of prop­erty pur­chases un­funded sug­gests strongly that, de­spite his protes­ta­tions other­wise, the mayor has a clear plan to buy $6 mil­lion more prop­erty this year.

I have not sug­gested that he in­form the peo­ple of the pre­cise prop­erty in­tended to be pur­chased. How­ever, the plan should clearly state the in­tent to pur­chase prop­erty of this value and the con­se­quences of such ac­tion, so that the com­mu­nity can see where our fi­nances are head­ing, par­tic­u­larly when in­creased debt and pass­ing the bur­den to fu­ture gen­er­a­tions is the ob­vi­ous out­come.

Sadly, un­less our Mayor can con­cen­trate on the is­sues rather than hop­ing those who ac­tu­ally an­a­lyse the fi­nan­cial state­ments will go away, our over­bur­dened low in­come ratepay­ers are go­ing to have to put up with an­other two years of this non­sense. BRIAN COLLINS, Pa­pakowhai.

(Letter abridged)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.