Last night in the Town Hall of Meander Valley, an audience of 250 angry ratepayers listened while their Mayor and Council cynically executed the last remaining shreds of their democratic rights.
Seven council members voted to trash 15 unanimous motions by three hundred participants at a public council meeting, they chose to ignore a petition signed by 1 400 residents, they ignored the results of a private meeting attended by 650 people, they ignored the room audience of 250 people, they abandoned all the written objections they had received and just dumped dozens of tabled motions, the results of two previous council meetings. They attempted to prevent public question time at a public meeting and when pushed to the limit, allowed a mere 15 minutes to debate the fate of the community.
The subject of this was the new draft PAL Act Amendment, which still no member of the public has seen, and this is to be submitted to the RPDC at the end of the week. Despite the fact that this date coincides with the election of possibly four new councillors at the end of this week, attempts to delay the presentation of the document to the RPDC were overruled, even by those members who are retiring and will play no further part in the council.
It is an unprecedented rush to file this ultimate piece of treachery, seven out of the nine councillors concurred with what can only be seen as a preconceived plan.
It is remarkable that during the entire fiery proceedings, that three of the members did not utter one single word, yet consistently used their monotonous vote to defeat at least forty motions. The results of each motion were projected on a screen behind the councillors, and the secretary recording the events merely duplicated all the names of the for and against members as they rubber-stamped the results.
In a heart-breaking debate, the Deputy Mayor and one councillor consistently reminded the rest of the councillors they were there to represent and carry out the will of the electorate, and the electorate was there in sufficient numbers to cheer, and stomp feet, yell imprecations at the council members and raise their individual voices when a particular nasty piece of chicanery was voiced. There were slogans held up throughout the meeting condemning the attitude of the council, but they pressed on with their private agenda regardless of the mounting anger of every person in the room and voted to subscribe or remove the fundamental rights of the very people who had elected them.
It is difficult to imagine a more disgraceful performance.
During the performance, a member of the audience seized the floor and demanded a vote of 'no confidence' in the council, and asked the audience to demonstrate their support by standing up. With four exceptions, the entire audience rose to its feet, and with typical disregard, the Mayor and Council ignore it as though it had not happened.
At one point, the aerial spraying and pollution of the water supply with poisonous chemicals was raised, and the donkey-vote in the council was seven to two to allow it to continue.
At one point, a member of the audience pointed out the number of known objections that had been received exceeded 2 000, and that this was opposed by a mere seven people. It made no difference, Business as usual. When the next motion was raised, the same seven hands were raised in opposition and the secretary duplicated the result once more.
This is the bottom end of the political ladder, and even here, the political masters rule in a Totalitarian manner.
What hope have we?
Barnaby Drake
Meander Valley Councillor's conflict of interest?
At the beginning of the council meeting in Meander Valley, the Mayor asked all the councillors if they had and conflict of interest and if they had, they were to declare them.
There was a deafening silence!
A few voices from the audience highlighted a couple of well-known instances, but those remarks went unheeded.
If the Councillors that had an interest in forestry or plantations had declared their interests and were excluded from voting, the entire proceeding would have been reversed and the PAL Amendment would have run into serious trouble and would not have been forwarded to the RPDC. All the unanimous public motions could have been passed, instead of being trashed, and the decisions would have been held over until the newly elected members could see and have some input to the Amendment.
This is a total miscarriage of justice.
I myself contacted the RPDC in advance and was told by Carol Hughes that they could have requested a further delay, and even had they not, if they merely failed to submit, there was nothing the RPDC could do about it and the whole proceedings would have to wait until they got ALL the replies from all the councils.
They would not listen. They insisted on rushing it through and passing it to the RPDC without delay.
I believe that there are sufficient grounds for a legal challenge, but as I am not a lawyer, I could not say this with any certainty.
Is there anybody out there?
------------------------------------------------------
Barnaby Drake