Chapter 2 is especially entertaining and can certainly be seen to reflect the performance of the current Council.
When
residents read that ex-Cr McGregor and Cr Serventy are regularly told to close
down discussion and debate, and that “closed door” meetings have become the
normal way of decision making, then obviously something is not democratic in
this shire.
Democracy
requires open debate and deliberation that the public can understand.
Communication with councillors must be two way process. Until we have that we
will continue to be concerned that our democratic rights are being eroded,
whether we gossip together, write letters, send emails, post on social media,
twitter or tweet we will communicate.
The
shire can ignore the community but they would be far better advised to engage
in e-democracy and begin to use mediated communication to better understand the
people that they are paid to serve. Germany has embraced e-democracy fully and
wholeheartedly, Greece did not.
3 comments:
There are some examples of Australia using e-democracy;
www.egov.vic.gov.au/trends-and-issues/e-democracy.html
Hi Heather, this is a key issue in the local government we have ... but it does not need to be this way - I went to a Planning Committee meeting at Armadale in 2000 that was a revelation. Can you please point us to the relevant section of the Joondalup Report?
Thanks, Linton
The whole of Chapter 2 is worth reading, but the section from the transcript in para 25 on page 2-7 onward gives a good general explanation of the difference between majority rule and good governance. If you click on the The Report of the Inquiry into the City of Joondalup the whole report should download.
If you, or anyone else reading this, wish to post on this blog then please send me your email, to progress@karridale.com, and I will include you on the list of authors. That way you can choose entirely new directions of enquiry, comment and observation.
Cheers
Post a Comment