Comment 99140

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted March 25, 2014 at 22:03:20 in reply to Comment 99138

"Leaving project decisions in the hands of the ward councillors potentially leaves them open to allegations that they’re using the money like a slush fund to build or maintain political support in targeted neighbourhoods. True enough, all projects ultimately have to be approved by council as a whole. But, realistically, what are the chances of councillors calling into question each other’s integrity by questioning their choices? They don’t like to meddle in each other’s ward business at the best of times. There’s little doubt that good councillors really do have their fingers on the pulse of their wards. They know, or at least should know, what and where the greatest infrastructure shortcomings are. But there are always competing needs at play and councillors not only need to be neutral in apportioning extra queue-leaping funds, they need to be seen to be neutral. McHattie has the right of it. A community advisory group compromising a broad range of constituents from across the wards not only removes any slush fund taint it’s simply more impartial and fair."

goo.gl/jOW1Z2

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds