Aside from the term shire having a long tradition in Australia to denote local government, it has a more human feeling about it that is particularly rural and country.  On the other hand, LGA, standing for Local Government Area began usage late last century as a drive for standardisation of accounting and control reforms.  The cog structure of the state was on the way in and the human fluidity that built the community in the first place was on the way out.  LGA after LGA across the state have serious failing issues, and I attribute that to no small degree on the dehumanising, cog accounting machines that councils have become. That deserves pushback. Machines, if you filled them up with raw materials could not create a community. People do that. Making a broken council whole and healthy again, requires more respect for humans and less on all the other stuff.  We have a broken council, machine-cog thinking will not fix it, only human thinking will do that. That’s why I use the term shire.

There are few enterprises, private or public, whom with the right motivation and focus cannot reduce their costs by 10 to 15 percent and come out of that process with a better product and better team spirit.  Most corporations require their managers to do this multiple times per decade while also increasing on productivity and other key metrics.  This is generally called Tasking.

In my first year as a councillor, it took me a while to realise that council bureaucracy prefer to have finance appear a bit opaque to councillors.  “Independent” consultants who earn their fees from the bureaucracy were often engaged as intermediaries to tell the councillors how well the bureaucracy was doing and how hard they were doing it. That worked for a while and for the few newbie councillors such independent assurances took them off the hook for digging deeper and engaging the bureaucracy to do it better.

QPRC is like other councils, its rather opaque in ways that count. It has also some contradictions that raise questions about just how impoverished it actually is.  During the IPART process it claimed it needed a 97% rise just to provide the same services, and anything less than 97% the bureaucracy would “have to” cut services.  However, in recent council meetings I’ve attended, the bureaucracy recommended, and councillors approved brand new capital and operational expenditures.  How does that work?  Either they are out of money to keep their basic social contract with the residents, or they are not out of money and can do new loss-making activities.  They can’t have it both ways.  From their own actions after the huge rate rise, they are saying what you’ve been told isn’t so.

So, the best answer I can offer you this side of being back on council is its only knowable once the books are transparently opened. But enterprise after enterprise, the 10-15% is always there. Often more.

All heads of household pay rates, it’s only a matter as to where they pay them.  For residents who purchased their home or place of work, they get the rates and charges bills directly from Council and pay them directly.  For residents who rent their home or place of work they have the rates rolled up into the rental charge.  In fact, for renters the impact can be worse as it is typical for a landlord to add a few percent more to such expenses.  So, by the time the third year comes around a renter could be paying (built into their rent) 75% or 80% more, rather than the 64% ratepayers will be paying.

What I write isn’t negative, its realistic.  The Council is either economically broken, or it isn’t telling the truth, but what we absolutely know for certain is that renters and ratepayers just received the first invoice of what will be a 64% rise in rates.  This at a time when households are doing it tough with inflation hitting food, accommodation, transportation, and virtually everything else one needs.  What is something nice? A $75,000 report about town feelings; a $50,000 donation to a club, a multimillion-dollar ratepayer cinema, 7-storey all-glass building that we will have to pay to heat and cool as energy prices are going only one way – up,  a 22% pay raise for Councillors; something else?

In my view, something nice would be to put hundreds of dollars back into renters and ratepayers’ wallets so they can choose what is nice for themselves, which in today’s economy might simply be to eat a bit better.

Mayor Winchester, Councillors Biscotti, Livermore, Preston, Taskovski, Webster, Willis, Wilson voted FOR.

From the 8 Feb 2023 meeting of Council, Resolution 023/23 item 9.1. to approve a submission to IPART to request a special rate rise of 64.3% over 3 years.
Voting FOR:  Winchester, Biscotti, Livermore, Preston, Taskovski, Webster, Willis, Wilson
Voting AGAINST: Burton, Grundy and Macdonald

From the 18 December 2019 meeting of Council, Resolution 437/19 (item 9.12) resolved to proceed with the DA for the Queanbeyan Civic and Cultural Precinct (QCCP) building.

Voting FOR :  Overall, Winchester, Biscotti, Bray, Brown, Harrison, Hicks, Marshall, Noveska, Schweikert and Taylor.

Voting FOR :  Mayor Winchester, Councillors Livermore, Preston, Taskovski, Webster, Willis, Wilson

Voting AGAINST: Councillors Biscotti, Burton, Grundy, Ternouth

From the 12 Jan 2022 meeting of Council, Resolution 012/22 item 6.12.  approved superannuation payments for the Mayor and Councillor allowance from 1 July 2022.  Prior to that, Councillors did not receive superannuation on their allowances as they are not considered Council employees.

Voting FOR:  Biscotti, Burton, Livermore, Preston, Taskovski, Ternouth,  Webster, Willis, Wilson and Winchester

Voting AGAINST: Grundy

No. The frontline staff are good people doing good work. They are not what is broken at Council.   The problems of Council lay with the decision-making processes that prioritise appearances over substance.  ‘Leaders’ who spend renter’s and ratepayer’s rates on $80,000,000+ office buildings where something for 1/10^th of the price would have supported the needs for years to come. Or a $100,000 report from overseas nerds to tell us that people in Bungendore like flowers planted around the streets.  Or who grant themselves a 33% pay rise shortly before raising all our rates by 64%.

I respect the men and women who serve us on the crews, over the counters, in the offices, and in the fields. Is there room for improvement?  In any enterprise there always is, and the first place that improvement always starts is from the top.  From our own life experiences, we know, if the people at the top are wasteful, self-absorbed, and lack natural skill they will not be respected, will not gain our full support, and we will withhold our job creativity from them – “they don’t deserve it”.

It is consistent with my years in enterprise leadership to say, better and more inspiring heads at the top will blossom job satisfaction and contribution throughout the ranks.  That is as true as night follows day.

There is one missing R in that alliteration which is traditionally a core deliverable of a community shire and that is Recreation. Recreation encompasses parks, pools, libraries, and halls. I support Council doing core services, so as such I support these. I do not view that council core services extend to art galleries, art awards, donations or grants. Contrary to Ms Willis’s statement in the recent Braidwood Meet the Candidate event, most ratepaying residents do not require ‘the arts to interpret the world’ for them.

I’ve worked in the creative arts for all my adult life, including product design, theatre and television, and I know to get the best from arts, including performing arts, they need to be self-sustaining. In other words, voyeurs want to contribute or pay for them.  As soon as subsidy is introduced into art there is no obligation on the part of the artist to provide something that is appreciated, as would normally be determined by patronage.  Without patronage appreciation, what then is the purpose of the art aside from some form of therapy for the artist, in which case Medicare should be paying for it, not ratepayers.

I support Council getting its financial house in order and to stop engaging in practices that do not provide the best value for renters’ and ratepayers’ lives’ outcomes.  While as noble as the question’s bias intends to sound, it does not stand-up on either a GHG or cost to user assessment. For example:

The question implies that electricity for cooking is better than gas. Why and based on what?  My research doesn’t support that assumption.

When boiling a liter of water, natural gas typically emits around 56g of CO2 per MJ of energy used. In contrast, fossil-fuel-generated electricity can produce up to 250g of CO2 per MJ, including generation and transmission losses of about 5-10% over a 60km distance. This makes natural gas nearly 5 times more efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions compared to electricity from fossil fuels for cooking applications, and its much cheaper for families.

An efficient wood-burning stove is generally better for the environment than an electric radiant heater. To heat a 50-cubic meter space, wood emits roughly 0.016 kg of CO₂ per MJ, while coal-sourced electricity can emit about 0.22 kg per MJ. Over an hour, the wood stove produces around 0.032 kg of CO₂, while electric heating could generate up to 0.44 kg, 14 times more CO₂, making the wood furnace far more efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

As for Council getting into the electric vehicle charging business, I’m absolutely against it, despite owning an EV myself. Charging stations are commercial enterprises and should be run by the market.  Presently they are HUGE loss-making activities, which Council should not move money from struggling families’ rates to the pockets of well-off EV owners.

I think Council has a significant role to play in creating the conditions within which affordable housing has better potential to come into existence, but not actually providing it.  Council should not be in the real-estate development business.

One primary issue is a matter of development density.  For a very long time the community has spoken out against developments outside the traditional single-family home on a large town block.  Both of those two conditions are contradictory to anything affordable. Any real progress in the matter will come by increasing the density of housing both horizontally and vertically.

If I were on council addressing this matter, I would only tackle that by reopening the Local Environment Plan (LEP) to fully engaged public participation, as we did with the Palerang 2012 LEP, and let the public direct Council’s actions on the matter.

In my view, affordable housing is readily attainable, but Planning change is needed to facilitate it.

Hi Gerard, thanks for commenting and saying what you want.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, I understand the term “post-truth” refers to a situation or environment where emotional appeals, personal beliefs, or opinions have more influence on public opinion and political discourse than objective facts and evidence. In a “post-truth” world, people are more likely to accept information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, even if that information is not true, and to dismiss or ignore factual information that contradicts their views.

Given that, have a scan again over my website if you would.  Both my professional career and elected service has been just as you describe, someone who will push back on the “post truth” rhetoric.  Have a look at my Pledge page on this site and the Issues page too.  My underlying proposition is that not only have the majority of councillors not pushed back in the face of hallow and flawed economic and social data, but they were in fact the cheerleaders for the profligate spending.  This is why Council’s debts and our rates have never been higher.

I think the basic costs of entry for the post-truth-pushback councillors you are looking for is a) they don’t have a conflict of interest and b) they are bright enough to know the difference between propaganda and facts.  IMHO, the very nature of political parties is their oligarchs want conflicted, not too bright yes-men who hope to climb the ranks or would just be happy with the pay that they would never hope to get in the market, and b) they are the number 1 spewers of Post Truth; it’s how they maintain control.  It doesn’t matter the party, they are all doing it.  For whom they are doing it is perhaps the more enlightened question.  It’s certainly not for the citizens, and I’m speaking about all levels of government.

Gerard, regarding winning, I’m not in a contest.  I’m offering, as I have twice before, to do community service.  I’m not looking for some extra income to supplement my day job.  I’m not looking to do the right things for the party bosses hoping I might be the next Steve Whan or John Barilaro.  I’ve served on council from 2008 through 2016 with some other excellent non-aligned people, Harrison, Raynolds, Goonan, Hicks, and a few who left their party allegiances at the door, like Schwikert and Marshall.  For 8 years we led a successful council that kept its social contract with the residents, without any rate rises above CPI.

Contrary to your aversion to post-truth, the ‘contest’ metaphor for election to public service is just that.  Contest sets up the attraction for emotional appeal over facts, for erosion of trust in institutions, and for disregarding the welfare of oneself and their family for a belief that they are a member of something they can never hope to be on the inside track with.

So, mate, with eyes wide open I’ll keep mine as an invitation to you for your vote and affirm to you that, from what you have said, I’m your councillor.

Richard

Martin commented on Facebook:  Makes little difference who gets a spot on council. They are all there to either gain some advantage and/or give themselves a leg up into state or federal politics. No matter who you elect rates will continue to rise and money will continue to be wasted. It’s just how things work. Every time there is a council election the same people make the same empty promises and when the dust settles absolutely nothing changes. It will be no different this time around.

My Reply:

Andrew asked on Facebook: We (and anyone who gets voted in) will still have pretty limited control over the actions of council. Staff will remain quarantined from councillor or mayoral control. I’m still yet to have anyone give a clear and understandable explanation of the limits of powers that councillors/mayor have, what they can and can’t do and what they can and can’t decide, versus how much is simply a fait accompli that we (and they) are saddled with.

My Reply:

Andrew, here is a thumbnail of how local governance is designed to hold together:

• the elected members (councillors) have full and exclusive authority to set all policies, goals, and objectives of council, except of matters reserved to the State,
• councillors consider and approve or put in abeyance near term and long-term works. These are informed from electoral mandates, genuine community consultation, asset renewal assessments, availability of funding, and other practical measurements,
• councillors have full control over the budget allocation to the line item level,
• councillors have no role in the management or giving directions to council personnel aside from the General Manager,
• the General Manager serves at the pleasure of the elected members, who assess the GM’s performance through its achievement of the policies, goals, and objectives set by the councillors.

Given an elected body that upholds its duties and doesn’t just let non-elected people provide them with their policies, goals and objectives, or gives them an opaque budget to approve, then the system can work well.  Quarantining councillors from staff isn’t an issue.  The performance of the GM in achieving what the elected members set out in policy, for the budget that they approve, is the pertinent issue.  The elected members also need to provide the GM with political capital to do what is needed to achieve the policies.   This completes the process with a full circle return to the authority of the electorate.  It’s not that complicated.

David, Winchester has been on Council since prior to the amalgamation, including during the administrative period as one of the so-called community advisors to the Administrator.  I don’t recall him speaking against the $86M Ellerton Drive Extension, when he was in a position to do so.

He voted for the white-elephant vanity building that ratepayers and renters are now paying for to the tune of $82M so far, and still counting.

He fails to lead Council on behalf of the electorate, and instead leads the electorate on behalf of the management, regularly referring to the General Manager as “The Boss”.  This was exhibited to the max during strong protests from the residents as the “three option” rate increase was being proposed, when Winchester was promoting the maximum hike of 97%.

And then to top it all off, he increased his pay and applied superannuation to it (even though councillors are not employees), giving himself an effective 44% pay rise ($88,000+ pa for a part time gig and maintaining his regular job) at the same time he was promoting the largest rate rise ever for the rest of us.

Is that objectionable enough?

Hi Linda, thanks for speaking up. Appreciated.

I don’t know what has informed your view but regrettably I need to say that none of it is accurate.

The Palerang LEP was an extensive collaborative work that evolved over two council elections, involving 14 councillors, thousands of community submissions, and the most in-depth and publicly participatory LEP ever in recent times.  At the start of the process, it was me who put to the councillors and management that we should not just adopt a LEP behind closed doors, made for us by the State and council managers, but we should, 1) only deliberate on the LEP in open to the public sessions, 2) every clause be discussed and debated, 3) the public be notified in advance of the meetings which parts of the LEP would be discussed so they could prepare their input beforehand, 4) every resident who wanted to speak to a clause was given time to do that.  Mayor Walter Raynolds’ goal in chairing the LEP drafting meetings was to obtain unanimous consent in as many votes as possible.  He said that he would take as much time as necessary to give everyone their say and to discuss and debate each item.

There were 269 LEP associated votes made by councillors on matters of substance to drafting the LEP.  95.2 % of the 269 items voted on, passed with a two-thirds majority, with 72.5% passing unanimously by all councillors present. That’s hardly a result representative of failure to address concerns around governance and developers.

During the 2012 council election, the Community Voice (Wamboin) group and the Greens asserted that the LEP process had been “dominated by a minority of councillors” but neither the openness of the forums nor the voting results provide any substantiation to such election puffery.

More than once during the years long process, the State told Council that our community openness and participation wasn’t supported by them and to get the process wrapped up.  But Council held its ground keeping its open process, lodging the final LEP on time.

As equally misguided as your view on the LEP is the view you express regarding managing the Palerang Council budget.  To the contrary, for all the 8 years I was one of the 9 elected councillors, the budget was always balanced, kept all its social contracts with the community, maintained its assets, had good industrial relations, had (I recall) $65M in cash reserve deposits, and did all this with no more than maintaining rates at CPI growth.

There is nothing about Palerang Council that is the contributing factor of the recent hurtful QPRC rate rises.  The genesis of that lays with the State and with its overlord Administrator who within weeks of taking over committed the whole shire into $86,000,000+ of debt for a developer-welfare project called the Ellerton Drive Extension and then later as Mayor with a green council double-down committing to the white-elephant Council building, which now is approaching $90,000,000 costs and still counting.

Linda, I, like you also want a council that has the best interest of the community, not self-interest.  That is why I am raising my hand to serve again.  What we have witnessed through their actual votes and actions, rather than their ideological rhetoric, is that the majority of the departing council didn’t put the community’s interest above their own dogmas and party mercenary ambitions.  That, Linda, is why our rates are slated to rise by 64%.

I invite you to read in detail my website and in particular the Pledge, Issues, and Blog sections if you want to see what committed community action from an unconflicted  councillor looks like.

Keep well.

Richard Graham

Ray commented on Facebook:

Two questions that will determine where my vote goes:

What is your position on this wood fire ban? Do we have your unequivocal commitment to vote against it or are you, like the greens and other loopy lefts, confused between Urban Areas (the subject of the NSW report) and areas like Bungendore?

Why does it take more than seven days to approve a standard single level house construction on land already approved for development (or give a list of legally defensible reasons why it cannot be approved)? Current expectations seem to be 12 months.

My Reply:

Hi Ray, thanks for the questions. I am against the wood fire ban and would vote against it based on my present understanding which includes the following key points.

From an energy production perspective comparing a wood-burning heater to a gas convection heater, both operating at 80% efficiency, about 1.25 BTUs of wood or gas respectively will produce 1BTU of heat. While the CO2 emissions of wood burning is approximately 213 pounds per million BTUs compared to gas emissions of 117 pounds, wood burning is considered carbon neutral over the long term because the CO2 emitted is balanced by the CO2 absorbed during the tree’s growth, whereas gas and electrical heating is not neutral.

Furthermore, a wood-burning heater equipped with a hot water jacket generally outperforms a gas convection heater in terms of overall efficiency and energy use, as it provides both space heating and hot water from a single energy source and reduces the need for additional fossil fuel consumption. This means families save money while at the same time being environmentally conscious.

Regarding the Particulate Emissions (PE) argument it has some merits, particularly when compared to open fires and decades old wood-burning stoves. However, these issues can be mitigated through the use of certified equipment, proper operation and maintenance, and advanced combustion technologies. By addressing these factors, it’s possible to enjoy the benefits of wood heat while minimising its environmental and health impacts.

Lastly, I would point to the heritage and cultural nature of wood heating, especially in the rural Australian setting which can be reasonably said to include Queanbeyan and its surrounds, (despite certain factions in local and State government wanting to propel it to become the Chatswood of Canberra). For centuries humans have lived with and been comforted with the aromatic presents of fireplaces. Aside from the issues Greens need to hang their franchise on, this is nothing more than their smoke and mirrors.

If you want to make a difference, its’ not just a matter of voting for someone like me, you need to get out the vote to replace the faction that would do away with your rights and enjoyments, while raising your cost-of-living in the process. These are Winchester, Wilson, Willis, Preston, Livermore, and Taskovski.

Regarding your second question, you can see on my website www.RichardGraham.com.au, this is one of my key focuses. There is NOTHING about the DA process that should see approvals (or for that matter refusals) take longer than 40 days. The ramifications of Council’s failure to adhere to the State’s timetable, and manipulate it with ‘stop the clock’ actions, are huge and costly to both the home building applicate and the community at large.

The consequences of the long approval delays for mom and pop who want to build a new home include: 1) having to get new building quotes at higher prices as the offer expires, 2) having to refinance as the offer expires, 3) paying interest on the loan for land and the builder’s deposit while receiving no accommodation benefit, 4) having to pay for a rental property longer than expected after selling their current home as part of arranging finance for the new one.

Consequences for the community are big too. Top of the list is that Council’s failure fuels the unaffordable housing crisis in many ways: 1) the new home builder takes up rental accommodation longer than needed, 2) the long delays, I’m told by builders, result in families throwing their arms up and just buying an existing house, resulting in no new stock being added to the community, and 3) the significate charges that Council pumps into a DA approval raise the cost of housing.

For all the Greens and Labor councillors and the State shout about affordable housing, they don’t have a clue and are incapable of making a difference. The recent $750k donation from the State (of money that was taken from our taxes in the first place) to do a study is BS, pure BS, but it is where Labor and the Greens live and lie. Affordable housing doesn’t happen because politicians take selfies with a cheque! Given a Council with real heart and real concern about affordable housing, it is within the scope of their authorities to make a positive difference quicker and without increasing local taxation to do it, starting with getting DA’s process much, much faster.

As a voter, you don’t get a change without making a change. The power IS in your vote.

From: [Sender Name Suppressed]
Sent: Friday, 6 September 2024 7:57 AM
To: Richard Graham <[email protected]>
Subject: Election – Feral animals

Hi,

Whilst your policies look good, they rely on getting the other councillors on board, and being able to get them to work as a team will be challenging regardless of your stance. But at initial glance at your page, I am keen, but not yet committed to vote for you.

One of my biggest concerns, and, as Palerang is predominantly a rural or semi-rural area, is feral animals, mainly feral cats, feral dogs and feral pigs. We also get a few deer, but they seem less destructive.

These animals not only destroy native flora and fauna, but can also be a danger to livestock. At my last property (near Bungendore) I lost a number of new born calves to feral’s.

I have moved now to a smaller 2 acres, but still have issues and I am concerned about the growing population of Feral animals in the region. What is your stance/policy on implementing a program to reduce numbers of feral animals?

Thanks

[Sender Name]

Queanbeyan East

REPLY:

Hi [ Sender Name ].

Thanks for taking the time to write and pose your question.

Yes, you are right, rolling back rates and other undertakings I’m committed to will require cooperation with other new councillors.  Being unaligned to a party gives me a little bit more potential to do that than were I aligned.  This isn’t a new handicap for the course, as the same dynamics existed in Palerang Council where I led the rollback of a special rate rise that had been approved prior to my election.  Council then went on to perform all its obligations, for the 8 years before the forced amalgamation, with only CPI rate rises.

To directly answer your question, I have no specific policy regarding feral animals.

As a primary producer, I too have had direct exposure to foxes, wild and stray domestic dogs, bores, and deer.  One or more of these has killed livestock at my farm.  An unattached Mārama dog, was in a full flight attack of my farm manager, who luckily had his shotgun with him and was able to load and fire it, killing the dog literally in flight as it leaped for the attack.  In terms of control for these ferals, the State has various programs from baiting for foxes and wild dogs, to shooting programs for wild boar.   Wild deer, while a nuisance, are not generally threatening to livestock and humans, nor do they breed in large numbers. Food hunters seem to keep the numbers in check.

Regarding cats that are feral, that’s a more complex issue due to the sheer numbers, the stealth of feral cats, and the cultural/social issues between humans and non-feral cats.  Cats that are feral killers in rural and peri-urban areas should be controlled just as dogs and foxes are.  I understand there are trapping and removal programs that do operate, especially near sensitive environments like nature reserves.  If your question comes about because of the recent discussion of locking up non-feral domestic cats, I’m not up to speed on that debate, but I would probably be reluctant to support it based on my current understanding.  It seems such an action would put undue stress on both non-feral animals and their owners.

I trust that provides you enough feedback to better consider my candidacy.

Thanks again, and best regards,

Richard

Richard Graham

RESPONSE:

From: [Sender Name Suppressed]
Sent: Saturday, 7 September 2024 5:15 PM
To: Richard Graham <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Election – Feral animals

Thanks for the straight answer.

A number of other candidates I asked were quite cagey in their response, and didn’t really answer the question. Even though you have no specific policy, hopefully it is something you can look into in the future should you be elected.

No, it is not in response to the “lock up your cats”. I have a cat who is indoors at most times in any case (too old and lazy to venture far from his food), so I see the need for that kind of approach. My concern stems mainly from my concern for natives. Also with all of the development towards our South (Googong, Jumping Creek), it is pushing far more into our area in the Ridgeway.

By no means am I a greenie, who wants to ban many things for the sake of ideology, but I do care that our natives and their habitat are at risk. Whilst baiting is keeping numbers lower, it by no means is alleviating the problem.  I am about to retire, and caring for small natives is a path I will be endeavouring to follow, with wildcare.

Again thanks for the response, and good luck. Short of some left field response from someone else, you’ll have my vote.

From: [Sender Name Suppressed]
Sent: Friday, 6 September 2024 7:12 AM
To: Richard Graham <[email protected]>
Subject: QPRC Election

Hi Richard, many thanks for your presence at last nights’ Braidwood gathering.

I just want to say I fully support your efforts to check the expenditure of this council.

In the lead up to the previous election the council had an income of near on $40 million p.a. and a salary budget about the same. Stated they rely on grants to get work done 🤷‍♂️.

We also saw recently they received a grant of $720,000 to provide information on Queanbeyan in-fill housing.  An outrageous waste of money which could employ 10 people for a year to provide an answer?

And yet, I would think QPRC would already have the knowledge as to where they could place this housing?

Again, QPRC has announced a consultancy to review flood waters in Braidwood. This was already done in 2019, to which end no positive action has been taken – just another consultancy… And I have attended council meetings and listened to the time wasting talk fests. When I would prefer to hear how they are reviewing projects with a view to checking contract breaches or project blow-outs (there have been many). Rather, they talk at length about trimming grass on road verges or curtailing wood heaters – not the primary issues that council should be concerned with.

The present council is lazy, rather than rein in excessive expenditure they simply raise the rates.

So I wish you well with your run, and recognise it is never easy.

Good luck,

[Sender Name]

REPLY:

[Sender Name], many thanks for writing and your words of encouragement.

I agree 100% with what you have said.   It’s as if going in circles was a requirement of the local government legislation.

Like the Braidwood flood waters consultancy, they just spent $70,000 on a so-called Bungendore ‘Place Plan’, to find out people like flowers in flower beds, but nothing actionable.  The same kind of exercise was done 10 years ago by skillful community people, at no cost to council, with actionable items, but nothing came of it.

My anxiety is being elected without a majority of similarly committed councillors to clean up this mess. There are a lot of people who still think someone else is paying for their whims and the dribbles that come back in the form of ‘grants and donations’.  As I said at the meeting, the Fed and State have no money of their own; it’s all yours to begin with.

My hope is that there is an awakening happening and that it will be open enough this week to bring in a new and better councillor assembly into Council.

Thanks again, and best regards,

Richard

Richard Graham