Dear Cr Balson,
I understand that you attended the Byron Council meeting last Thursday very briefly, but absented yourself from the discussion and vote on the future of Wallum due to the declaration of a ‘significant non-pecuniary interest.’
Can you please explain to me, as well as others not abreast with meeting minutiae, how personal relationships and friendships with those opposed to the development, along with residential issues, impacted on your decision?
Did you seek advice from more experienced Byron councillors? If so, whom? How about legal advice, given that your interests were not financial? Did you realise the potential impact your absence might have had on the day’s outcome? It has been extremely heavy.
Your vote could have swung the fate of Wallum by buying us more time to pursue other options with state and federal ministers before the developer commences the subdivision. On the other hand, my least concern frankly, it could have extricated the mayor from the complete contempt of the community by saving him from using his casting vote.
Other councillors have friendships with those opposed to the Wallum development proceeding, as they have on a myriad of other issues in this shire. That is inevitable in a community this size, with people crossing paths on many fronts. Personal relationships have not impacted on these councillors’ abilities and responsibilities, in performing their duties, which are quite separate, particularly where fiscal interests are not at play.
I need hardly remind you that the decision on Wallum is one of the most significant issues this Council has faced, if not the most significant issue. Hundreds of letters were sent to each Byron councillor, possibly over 1,000, from all over the shire, and across the political spectrum. Some have never penned a letter to Council before, such was their anguish over the destruction of this land.
You were elected by constituents to represent our interests. Please explain.
crickets