LET me preface this by saying I have a great deal of respect for anyone who cares enough about their community to put their hand up for a stint in the local government arena.
But is it any wonder Gawler Council receives some backlash when elected members spend 15 minutes debating whether they speak for three or five minutes?
We’re not reinventing the wheel here, we are talking about the difference of two minutes.
Of course, the argument behind shaving off those two minutes is to make council meetings more efficient.
The argument has some merit. But did anyone in the community ask for this? The officer’s report included in last week’s council meeting agenda said the decision, among a host of other changes, was based on councillor feedback.
In fact, did elected members bang down the door for this? Given the voting split, it could be argued it wasn’t something they were clamouring for either.
As the old saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The Gawler community doesn’t care how long a decision is debated, as long as it reflects what ratepayers and their families want.
Some could argue some councillors would use the five minutes simply because they like the sound of their own voices rather than the outcome of the item.
But some items deserve to put under the microscope. If it needs to be debated for half an hour, let it be debated for half an hour.
Cover all the bases, tick all the boxes and make an informed decision.
An item that doesn’t need to be debated for an extended period, though, is two minutes of speaking time. Kind of ironic really.
Later in the night, we witnessed debate around the potential future return of Christmas markets in town.
However, some councillors took issue with the original wording of the motion, noting it gave the impression council would definitely bring back the markets.
One councillor said they would support the motion if the wording was changed. But no suggestion to a change of wording was made.
Debate went on for another five and a half minutes before the wording was changed. The motion was eventually carried.
Terms such as point-scoring and politicking have been thrown around the chamber before. Why don’t we just get on with the job, remember who you represent, and then meetings might run more efficiently.
