Coun­cil­lor with prin­ci­ple

South Waikato News - - OPINION -

Con­grat­u­la­tions to Lyn Cor­ban for re­fus­ing the pay­ment of­fered to the coun­cil­lors from the bal­ance of Bar­rie Her­lihy’s salary.

She is an hon­est coun­cil­lor that we can be proud of.

Could the bal­ance of re­mu­ner­a­tion sit­ting in the funds af­ter the pass­ing of Cr Her­lihy be re-al­lo­cated to his widow. 2. Do­nated to char­i­ties. 3. Con­trib­ute to the costly $80,000 on-go­ing court case over dog ver­sus coun­cil. Plus pound fees for the same dog.

4. Re­fund to the ac­count that paid out when the coun­cil was sued by RAL for $380,000 plus costs?

5. Re­im­burse $250,000 for the blowout.

How can pay in­creases be jus­ti­fied when we have wit­nessed so many costly er­rors made by pub­lic ser­vants.

Twenty fam­i­lies are go­ing to be strug­gling af­ter be­ing made re­dun­dant with more next year. How do they feel about coun­cil­lors get­ting a pay in­crease while un­em­ploy­ment is ripe in South Waikato?

Had th­ese costly er­rors made by coun­cil­lors, or those em­ployed by the coun­cil, oc­curred in a pri­vate en­ter­prise, those re­spon­si­ble would not be em­ployed. Per­haps the con­sumer needs to have more say in the use of the sur­plus funds.

I am sure there are a lot of ques­tions that need to be asked by the pub­lic as to why, when funds can be moved around to fund costly er­rors, that a Christ­mas box to the coun­cil­lors from a de­ceased per­son’s re­mu­ner­a­tion can­not be used for the town’s bet­ter­ment. S Chris­tensen


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.