Showing true colours

IT is interesting to recognise that Jim Reiher, a Greens Party member and previous council candidate supports higher councillor allowances to $26,000 per ward councillor (including superannuation) and $84,000 for the mayor. He shares a similar view to councillor Lynette Keleher of River Gum Ward and a Green’s Party member.
Referring to the article, “Fair call on councillor’s pay levels,” published in the Star on 29 January 2009, Jim Reiher states: “Over the past few weeks there have been a few different letters ridiculing the councillors of both Greater Dandenong Council and Casey Council – because both voted themselves a pay rise in their first meeting.”
As a matter of interest Jim, I was one of those writers criticising both councils.
He further states: “I know some of the councillors personally and I know that they work their butts off doing council business. More than ‘part-time’, I don’t always agree with their decisions or their political party allegiances, but I have to admit that they work hard for council and the community. Many of them put in over 30 hours a week on council business. For some, it is effective full-time.”
As a former Casey councillor I acknowledge the comments of Jim Reiher, as I regularly worked over fifty hours per week working for the local community members in Four Oaks and across the City of Casey.
In the same instance I found the previous councillor allowance of $18,000 per councillor and $57,500 for the mayor satisfactory and appropriate, in contrast to the views of Jim Reiher and Cr Lynette Keleher, including other councillors.
In commenting on his views Jim states if councillor positions were full-time more community members would stand for council. An interesting view in that they would stand probably for the high allowances offered and less for the needs of the community members.
If positions were full-time and allowances were higher, it is assured councils would be represented by business people and the wrong elected community representatives and certainly less community members, as the higher allowances would be their central focus and the sole purposes to stand for council in the first place, as had occurred at the previous council elections in November 2008 across Casey and other municipalities.
Jim, why did you stand for council? Was it the needs of the local community members or the higher council allowances, and would you do it again for the same reasons? It is bad enough we have many state parliamentarians only standing for the high salaries and perks and not for the true needs of the people and the issues in their specific districts.
In close examination of this article, I cannot accept the views and comments of the author as his stand for council does not benefit the local community members, only his self-fulfillment and personal financial gains.
As community residents we stand to fully represent the needs of our community members not for personal gain, glory and greed, but to assist the disadvantaged and needy residents and ratepayers as well as address their priority needs of the communities in which we serve as effective councillors.
Jim, how would you benefit the local community members as a future councillor with your current attitudes and views? How do the residents and ratepayers view your comments in light of the fact we as ratepayers pay higher rates because of the councillors’ allowance increases and higher expenditure costs?
I encourage local community members to contact me on 9708 0875, mobile 0408 537 874 or email pjrs3@optusnet.com.au in expressing their views on this subject matter.
Paul Richardson JP,
Casey Community Watchdog.