Now the lawyer Mark Swivel is a councillor he can expect a lot of flak from me if he doesn’t measure up to the image of greatness he projected, at least in relation to legal matters.
I refer him firstly to the legal doctrine re ‘separation of powers’. This principle underlies western democracy and decrees that elected bureaucrats and judges are independent of each other and should remain at arms length. In the case of a local council it means, for example, that bureaucrats don’t interfere with the decisions of elected councillors.
Councillor Alan Hunter doesn’t agree with this fundamental principle, nor does Councillor Lyon. The latter is already on record as stating it is the councillors’ responsibility to keep up the morale of the staff, as though the bureaucrat is paramount. Councillor Hunter pushed a similar line during the first Council meeting last week. What we should have, he opined, is a ‘partnership’ with staff and councillors so that we have ‘the elected’ working in tandem with ‘the selected’. He painted a picture of councillors dependant on the technical skills of planners, engineers etc, but curiously left out the question of who does the selecting. Nor did he mention that, apart from skill, there are also matters such as integrity, objectivity and consistency to take into account. Who is to say that the current GM doesn’t choose his staff on the basis of willingness to obey without asking questions? Or for his/her skill in evading the real issues by the ‘skilful’ use of deceit, omission, misdirection and obfuscation?
Mark, let me refer you to the agenda of the first meeting. It is a fairly typical agenda in that first up we get ‘notices of motion’ (NoM), which are proposals from elected councillors in relation to various issues. Then we get ‘staff reports’ on various subjects. On analysis these turn out to be staff putting forward various proposals of their own, as though they are co-legislators.
Look at the motion to move Council meetings to evening sessions. The discussion is followed by a lengthy commentary by the staff. Did councillors ask for this input? Why are staff clearly not only participating in the debate, but getting their input published in the agenda too, so that the councillors are first exposed to the staff view when they read the agenda – ie before councillors have read each other’s views or those of the public? That’s not separation of powers, Mark, and let me reassure you that this kind of stuff was not allowed when I was on Council. Do not assume that the way things are done by this Council is the established way.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
