YOUR SAY: Should sacked councillors run in next election

Should Ipswich move on from old ways, our readers have their say

THE next Local Government Election may not be until next year but that doesn't mean it's not a hot topic among our readers.

With one of the former councillors, David Martin, already putting up his hand, there's speculation starting about who else out of the sacked elected officials will have a tilt.

So should the sacked councillors run again or should they suck it up, move aside and make way for new blood?

And how will the proposed new council divisions impact on next year's election?

Here's what you had to say.

Move on from the past

NONE of the previous councillors should run for council.

Did any of them ever ask any questions about what a lot of the public suspected and the CCC found of wrongdoing?

They were happy to sit back and watch as Ipswich unravelled and huge amounts of money were spent elsewhere.

Did the so-called newly elected members ask questions about any of the dealings? Quite as mice they were.

Ask yourselves, does Ipswich really want to go back down that secretive and narrow path where even the fundamental requirements were overlooked like footpaths and public toilets in parks?

Or do we want to bring in fresh- thinking people whose only aim is to restore Ipswich to its former glory.

Don't wind back the clock Ipswich, look to the future.

GARY REID

Raceview

Extra councillor would boost connectedness

HAVING pondered the four new electoral divisions with forthcoming appointments for two councillors to each division, I would have concerns regarding the operational outcomes.

I have read the rationale in relation to the approximate number of voters in each of these divisions.

The demographic footprint of both Division 1 and 4 is vast and marries both the provincial and rural sectors.

Both these sectors would have specific social and infrastructure needs.

Consideration to an appointment of a third councillor to these defined areas would allow for incorporation of travelling distances and mobile offices to allow residents a voice and the hearing of their needs.

It would allow the renewed building of rapport, trust and mutual respect between communities and council representatives.

With very significant change will come challenges to be negotiated and solved.

Since the closure of the community offices within the previous 10 divisions, I feel responses are now more "generic" and are leading to a fracture of the respectful connectedness that existed previously.

May we all be aware of the room for comments on websites so we can achieve the best outcomes for our Ipswich city as we sail into different waters.

STEPH SHANNON

Flinders View

The proposed Ipswich City Council boundary change. Picture: Contributed

More to the new boundaries?

I READ the news article "A Council Divided" on pages 1 and 2 of the newspaper (QT 12/07).

I have no idea if the proposed new boundaries were drawn up with even the partial aim of discouraging sacked councillors from standing for election in March 2020.

Actually, I doubt it. But I do believe two councillors for each division will go a long way towards preventing divisions from becoming the "personal fiefdoms" of single councillors, as has happened in the past.

But, if these are the results of these new boundaries, I for one am cheering.

It amazes me that any of the former councillors would think it was a good idea to run again after the the bad taste that has been left in the mouths of us Ipswich folk.

It also amazes me that if any of them are considering running again, they have learned nothing.

I hope that when we elect a new council and mayor next year, Ipswich can start with a completely clean slate, and a new direction and one that puts the people of Ipswich first, and not the interests of developers, super dump businesses and councillors.

MARGIE BARKER

Ipswich

Councillor thinking is outdated

IN YOUR story "Change Hurts Sacked" (QT 12/07), former Ipswich City councillor David Pahlke is reportedly upset by the proposed divisional boundaries because "communities of interest" should be put together and "Grandchester has no relationship to Redbank Plains".

Mr Palhke's thinking is outdated.

Ipswich is no longer a group of unconnected villages called Redbank Plains, Rosewood and Eastern Heights.

It is an organic whole, it is a city.

People from every part of the city use council-provided services in every other part of the city.

Mr Pahlke only has to go to Rosewood's Anzac Park on a Saturday during the Rugby League season and he will see people from Redbank Plains, Springfield and every other part of the city.

They all have a community interest in the upkeep of Anzac Park and every other council-owned sports ground.

They get to Anzac Park along roads not only traversing Division 1, but every other proposed division in the city.

Administrator Greg Chemello has pointed out that modern councillors need to be board directors responsible for council activities all over the city and not village chieftains only interested in their own patch.

If Mr Palhke would find the heat in this job onerous then maybe he should stay away from the kitchen.

KEN ALDERTON

One Mile

'Outrageous plan' must be rejected

MAINTAIN the rage.

The dog's breakfast served up in the shape of four divisions for future Ipswich City Council's is simply incredible.

It appears my residence will be in Division 1, extending from Grandchester to Redbank Plains and who knows where in between.

What a farce.

Division 1 is simply too large for two people to properly serve its residents and covers too large a geographical spread for there to be any community of interest suggestion.

I have yet to hear/see any outrage from sitting state members who if they even suggest they represent the interests of the City of Ipswich ought to be screaming from the tree tops.

They obviously cannot serve two masters, therefore the people of Ipswich come second.

This is an outrageous plan and one residents must surely reject, but if it has been forced upon them.

Residents must not forget, and must "reward" their state representatives appropriately at the next state election.

Tell these turkeys what you really think.

It has been said to me that my contributions to the letters page merely state the view of the silent majority.

Sadly, the majority remains silent whereas it should be actively participating in open debate to ensure community needs are met.

We, obviously, cannot rely on current elected representatives to meet our expectations.

KEV PEARCE

Raceview