Update: Scrutiny is Not Disrepute. An Institution that Cannot Tolerate Criticism Cannot Be Trusted

Disappointingly, during the Wingecarribee Council Ordinary Meeting held on Wednesday 21st, the majority of members voted to apply to IPART in pursuit of implementing the Special Rate Variation. Of which, as stated by Council themselves during the meeting, 66% of participants in the representative survey, and 80% of respondents to the community engagement opt-in survey voted against!

Not only can the surveys now be considered an additional example of unnecessary spending by council, but also of their disregard for the opinions, feelings and realities of their rate-payers and community. No additional comments or suggestions from the surveys were read during the meeting, nor were any significant efforts made to even slightly appease the public through, as a simple example, a hybrid approach between the two scenarios. For all intents and purposes the feedback from the public, and concerned councillors alike, has been completely ignored.

Another shocking moment during the meeting was the expulsion of Cr. Sara Moylan. Cr. Moylan addressed the meeting with statements that reflected those made by concerned rate payers regarding their apprehension and mistrust of Council's proposed financial plans. Deputy Mayor David Kent raised a formal 'act of disorder' against Cr. Moylan's comments, claiming they brought the Council into disrepute by stating that ratepayer funds were being wasted, and Mayor Erin Foley upheld it. The Mayor instructed Cr. Moylan to retract her remarks and issue an apology, when Cr. Moylan refused, Council resolved to remove her from the remainder of the meeting and barred her from participating in, or voting on, the final rate variation motion. This left Cr. Russell as the lone dissenting vote on the floor, voting "No" against the rate increase.
Both Cr Moylan and Cr Russell were consistantly shut down by 'points of order' made by other members during the meeting; while only trying to advocate for the community, by addressing the fundamentals of running the Council and endorsing structural solutions for a structural deficit.

When a self-governing council uses code of conduct rules intended to maintain decorum to silence elected representatives expressing legitimate community concerns, self-governance turns into self-protection, and a meeting or a vote becomes paradoxical. This is the classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Council cannot shield itself from scrutiny by defining legitimate criticism as 'disrepute.' True public repute is built through transparency and accountability, not by ejecting the very voices questioning how taxpayer money is managed.