I refer to the article on the front page of the Cranbourne News on 15 May 1014.
Firstly, why was councillor Wayne Smith the spokesperson for Casey Council?
Are our Mayor and Deputy Mayor incapable of speaking on behalf of our council – or are they effectively gagged because they are both endorsed candidates for the November state election?
If so, the implication is that they cannot carry out their full responsibilities so should stand aside from their positions as mayor/deputy mayor of Casey Council.
Do I understand correctly that the political leader of the Victorian Labor Party is criticising the City of Casey for ’an example of council misspending’ in relation to the proposed Casey Cultural Precinct?
This from the leader of the political party which saddled every tax and rate payer in Victoria with the cost of building the north-south water pipeline and the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant plus for the Wonthaggi white elephant, an extremely expensive operating cost for every year for 30 years, even if it never produces a single drop of water for the citizens of Melbourne.
A fine example of the pot calling the kettle black.
I do agree with Mr Andrews on one point, however.
Casey Council should not take the lead in creating such a precinct for the performing arts.
As with sporting venues, the pressure (and responsibility) for such facilities must originate from individuals with a personal interest and experience in that field plus financial backing and with the skills plus experience to operate it either at a profit or, at least, with minimum ongoing costs to the ratepayers.
Since such a precinct can only succeed with an entrepreneurial management, it is plain that bureaucrats, such as council managers and employees, will be useless in such a role because they are carefully trained to work within pre-set guidelines, rules and regulations or, at worst, precedents, all of which would stultify the entrepreneurial spirit.
Council may, subject to having the support of most ratepayers, offer some financial assistance to such a project in its early stages but they must not saddle ratepayers with future upkeep and maintenance bills for a possible white elephant, which is certainly well outside the normal responsibilities of a municipal council and carries the possibility of further empire building within council.
Finally, as a point of interest and with a view to reducing the cost of council to ratepayers, I would draw your readers’ attention to the story about the Mitchell Shire Council’s chief executive officer who has determined to improve that council’s financial position by reducing the number of directorates from four to three and making a number of job cuts, including one director post.
I wonder if Casey Council would consider taking a similar stand to reduce costs to ratepayers?
But then, I suppose one could envisage, in theory, pigs with wings.
Allan Tully,
Cranbourne East.