Residents deserve better than this

THE ratepayers of Glenorchy deserve much, much better.

So do the hard-working staff at the Glenorchy City Council.

This issue simply has to be resolved.

We now face the farcical situation that ongoing Supreme Court action means a suspended council could be returned in August before a Board of Inquiry report into allegations of dysfunction and bad behaviour is publicly released.

This would make the past six months a complete waste of time, money, resources and energy. This is surely not something the State Government will abide. It can’t. This situation must be resolved and it must be resolved now. Hence our decision today to report some of the contents of the report. Under the Local Government Act, the minister has the power to remove the council. If there is no end in sight to the legal action and the inquiry report continues to be delayed, Mr Gutwein should pull this trigger and extend the tenure of commissioner Sue Smith, who is doing an excellent job in extremely trying circumstances. The ratepayers of Glenorchy have been through more than enough already, both in terms of the hit to their hip pockets and the service they should rightly

expect to receive from the people they have elected to represent them.

The final inquiry bill could be well in excess of $1 million. Heaven knows what the eventual impact will be on rates and services. Whatever occurs, it will not be pretty. And it is not fair.

This council has become lost in a fog of claims and counter claims, personal differences and vendettas, and self interest. On any measure, it has lost its right, its privilege, to govern.

If even a small percentage of what is alleged in the draft Board of Inquiry report is true, it is indefensible.

Some will argue at this point it is a case of merely trying to protect individual reputations. That may well be true. There is anger from within sections of the council at the actions of the State Govern- ment and the way the Board of Inquiry has been established.

There is anger members were not allowed individual legal representation.

There is anger at a system which allows mayors to be elected from outside the council.

Yes, there is logic in the case that people have a right to pro-

At this very moment there is no imaginable scenario upon which this council can or should be returned. None. They must be removed for at least the next 12 months.

tect reputations.

But those at the coal face must remember that absolutely none of this — the inquiry, the adverse media coverage, the court action — would have occurred if the council was functional.

They can blame whomever they like but, ultimately, there is no else to blame but themselves.

If there are court cases and appeals to be had, let them be heard in the passage of time.

But at this very moment there is no imaginable scenario upon which this council can or should be returned. None.

They must be removed for at least the next 12 months.

From here, some key questions have to be made public to restore the community’s faith in its local council and they are questions the Mercury will continue to pursue until all avenues are exhausted.

What is the cost to ratepayers both in terms of inquiry costs and legal action launched by council staff and elected members?

Why on earth should ratepayers in one of our most hard working regions be forced to pay for this out of their own pockets?

What impact will this have on rates?

What impact will this have on core service?

What impact will this whole process have on a budget that, in the space of just 12 months, has gone from forecasting a healthy surplus to a major debt — a turnaround of $3 million?

Why are senior staff, including the general manager, still on extended leave?

What is the basis of the latest legal action? And that’s just a start. It is time for this fiasco to end.

Now.