spreads (27).gif

When the definition of "timeliness" becomes a little rubbery

How long is it meant to take to act after a motion is moved by Councillors in a Council meeting that authorises an action. It is nearly a year since the following motion was moved and there is still no hint of any of the actions requested by he motion being initiated:

The above action is fast approaching its first year anniversary. Happy 1st Birthday The interesting thing with the above motion is that Council do not want to pursue the action as it will quickly revealed during the Public Hearing that there had been gross manipulation of the processes siting in behind their desire to reclassify Lot 77 Kyla and that there had been a litany of errors that, when revealed, will expose the Council to public ridicule and further flame the already evident distrust that the Tuross Head community has of Council in regards to the Kyla Grazing Lots which the community have fought tooth and nail to protect from Council's desire to develop the land since 2000 when they conspired to deceive and then blatantly LIED to the Tuross Head community. A very thorough 180 page presentation has been prepared in readiness for presentation to the Public Hearing that will include references to the fiasco and an alleged collusion (documented on Council's Live Streaming video) that saw Councillor Danielle Brice bought to tears during a Council meeting when debating the "need" to progress in the reclassification contary to the wishes of the community. It is therefore understandable why Council are sitting on their hands on the Lot 77 Public Hearing however under the Office of Local Government Meetings Practice Notes of 2009 there is an requirement of timeliness

More recently the motion below has arrived at its four month mark of inaction and questions are starting to be asked as to what is going on.

No doubt there is a Council register somewhere of motions made, actions required and current status. Possibly not though.... to help Council remember all of the actions they voted on that they haven't attended to as yet why not add yours to the comments below... maybe the Dog folk might like to discuss the motion that called for staff consultation with the group ....

#Opinion #Council #LocalStateFederal

COMMENTS : Due to the risks associated with comments from unidentified contributors that expose The Beagle to possible legal actions under the NSW Defamation Act 2005 No 77 anonymous or Nom de Plume comments will not be available unless the author is known to the editor by way of a verified email address or by association.

Others who provide their REAL NAME (first name AND Surname) and a verifiable email address (it won't be published) are invited to comment below. (yes it is a pain but please comply - it would be a  shame to see your comment deleted)

Those contributors KNOWN to us and verified may continue to use their First Name or Nom de plume for ease. The primary need for all of this is due to traceability should a legal action arise.

If you need anonymity email us via our normal or encrypted email accounts

Please note that if you are looking for a previous comment that is no longer visible please contact us.