This is David. David’s had a hard day.
He challenged mayor for Glen Innes Severn Council and lost. He then challenged deputy mayor and lost. He even challenged the meeting time and lost. He lost and lost and lost all meeting long.
Be like David.
As much as Mayor Davis may not appreciate me encouraging the constantly objecting behaviour of Cr David Scott, I firmly believe opposition is good. Dissent is good. Challenge is good.
There are limits, as there are in all things. But compared with, say, events in another council to the west of the region, Scott is generally pretty respectful and reasonable in his objections. He makes his arguments through the processes available to him and offers reasons for his motions. A little self-reflection about whether those objections are substantive or personal would not go astray. But where he believes a challenge is warranted, he should continue to make it.
Opposition in the political sphere is healthy and necessary. Questioning decisions, examining the reasoning behind them and holding those in power to account gives the community a basis for confidence in its elected representatives. Agreement is worth more when there has been room to disagree.
The sad state of our social media-fuelled political reality is that far too much opposition is vindictive, petty, spiteful and frankly beneath what our communities deserve. We see it in the bullying and misinformation surrounding the REZ debate, the entrenched hostility of the trains-versus-rail-trail split, and the personal, ego-fuelled grandstanding that makes life harder for staff and elected leaders.
When the point becomes hurting someone or misleading the community for personal gain, rather than changing something to make it better, the community loses. And social media rewards the spectacle, offering up enough likes and applause to convince those involved that they should keep going.
Cr Scott deserves scrutiny here too. In my view, using Glen Innes News as a personal pulpit for his council politics raises serious questions about the separation of his roles as councillor and editor. Readers should be able to distinguish reporting from political advocacy, particularly when the person publishing the story is also a player in it. I
It’s a conflict of interest and potential violation of codes of conduct both as a councillor and news outlet to do both at once – and a hard conflict to manage. This is why it is generally not the done thing for media professionals to stand for elections without a full extraction and often a decent interval – for example, Kevin Anderson left Prime in 2004, and didn’t stand for political office until 2007. James ‘Monte’ Irvine, formally of 2NZ, cancelled his Labor Party membership when he went into radio.
Although I freely admit I have been giggling for most of the week over Scott’s interview of himself – that’s just comedy gold – and I would be sad to lose such a wonderful contribution to my personal entertainment, I do believe it is time for Cr Scott to choose between his conflicting extracurricular activities.
The level of despair in Glen Innes with the loss of the printed Examiner was intense, and the Glen Innes News was the right response. But, if it’s not worth the paper it is printed on, then it’s worse than nothing.
That said, whether Cr Scott chooses to hold council to account as a councillor or a news editor (or business owner, or any of his other capacities), I support his right to do so, as long as he continues to do so respectfully.
I would have liked to see a few more respectfully contested ballots across the region, although I understand why those who don’t have the numbers might decide against rocking the boat. Putting yourself forward for a vote you expect to lose takes a certain resolve. It can still give your colleagues, and the public, an opportunity to hear an alternative.
Councils that work together positively and respectfully are better placed to serve their communities. That requires the ability to disagree, accept the outcome and turn up to work together again the next day. The ability to not take things personally, even someone standing against you in an election.
That ability is certainly missing in some local councils. The deeply personal attack against Cr Kate McGrath was inappropriate, uncalled for, and deeply offensive – and if the next meeting doesn’t begin with a massive, sincere and forthright apology for those remarks (and the racist ones in the flag motion debate) then I hope Cr Rob Hooke is censured. He certianly deserves it.
The personal attacks directed at those who step forward to serve our communities in many capacities are far too frequent. The racism, sexism, and other bigotry rolls far too easily off the tongues and keyboards of far too many.
Being a councillor requires a significant commitment. We should respect that commitment and the work involved. We also need more people from all walks of life to put their hands up. Every time participation comes with an invitation to be publicly humiliated, someone who might have made a good councillor has another reason to stay home.
None of that puts elected representatives beyond legitimate criticism. Councillors should expect their decisions to be examined, their arguments to be challenged and their conduct to be held to reasonable standards. Respect goes both ways: they owe it to the community, to staff and to one another.
The distinction is in what we ask of each other. Explain your decision. Show us the evidence. Account for the money. Answer the question. These are reasonable demands of anyone holding public office.
We can have robust debate and functioning councils. We can challenge a mayor without treating them as an enemy. We can lose a vote without deciding the whole process must be rotten or fake. And we can recognise that someone who disagrees with us may care just as much about the community as we do.
So, be like David. Put your hand up. Ask the question. Make the case, even when you don’t have the numbers and no realistic chance of winning.
Accept that the loss is valid — and that you might sometimes be wrong. Give other people’s arguments the hearing you expect for your own, and respect the outcome of the vote.
Losing every vote doesn’t make your contribution worthless. What matters is whether you gave the community something worth considering, and did it respectfully.
Oh, and if you too decide to interview yourself and pretend it’s legitimate news coverage, please send it to me for the lols.
End Rant.
Dr RK (Kath) Crosby is the CEO of research and strategy company KORE CSR, former strategist for the Australian Democrats, and holds a PhD in political behaviour. She is also a well known migraine and health advocate, and the Publisher of New England Times and North Coast Times.
All opinion and comment on New England Times Engage is the opinion of the writer and not New England Times.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.