Re: Staff call to use ‘reasonable force’
The role of security guards carries risks higher than many other employees, but their safety must not be compromised due to the indifferent attitude of the employer. The requests of the security guards are not unreasonable: handcuffs, batons and capsicum spray can hardly be considered as lethal or life-threatening items. The cost of providing these may be far less than a court case or compensation should a security guard get injured or die of an unprovoked attack.
Sin Fong Chan (via web)
Re: Disability access: A wish-list
Whenever I’m out walking, I look at the ground all the time to avoid uneven pavements. An audit of the whole city is well overdue and no doubt costly, so maybe residents need to be proactive and report hazards to council customer service centres to save others falling. Other hazards are the Telstra pits in nature strips at the base of telegraph poles, especially outside Roth Hetherington Reserve, where the lids fall into the pit over time.
Cybil (via web)
These issues are certainly only the tip of an iceberg that stems from lack of consultation and, where consultation has occurred, lack of the ability to take on board consumer recommendations. Greater Dandenong Council needs to implement an accessible footpath policy and provide best example in relation to Australian Standards for any new project development. I hope to see many people with disabilities and all those that these issues affect, including parents with prams and the elderly, to come along to the council meeting in Clow Street at 7pm on Monday, June 27 to see this important notice of motion pass.
Facebook User (via web)
Re: Mooted cut to question time
I don’t understand why they are doing this. The meeting is suppose to be held for the benefit of the residents and to cater to their needs. So why are they meeting if the time limit is so little?
Lamis Albyati (via web)
On occasion I am sure a number of questions are asked by one individual, but given the relatively low level of public interest in council meetings generally, one needs to ask why would you want to restrict the public when they are the ones who elect councillors. For the fairly rare occasions when questions seem lengthy, perhaps the council could just put up with it — it takes time out of an individual’s life and and effort to submit in the first place, and in many cases attend the meeting.
If the questions are not valid or in some way vexatious, it may be of concern, but this does not seem to be the case. Should the council decide to limit or not have public question time, it would be an improvement to procedure to hold general purposes meetings such as are held at other councils, including Casey, to consider presentations and submissions from groups or individuals.
TW (via web)
I’ve experienced the workings of councils in three major Australian cities. All other councils that I know of have meetings that can last up to four or five hours. Greater Dandenong meetings rarely extend beyond two hours. Surely, it’s not too much for elected representatives to listen to the concerns of those who put them there for as long as it takes. To limit question time is an assault on democracy. We must not let these tinpot dictators get away with it.
Terry (via web)
What do you think? Post a comment below.
The Journal welcomes letters no longer than 250 words. All letters are subject to editing and must include a name, address and phone number. Post: The Editor, PO Box 318, Dandenong 3175, or email eastletters@mmpgroup.com.au. Post a web comment to any story on this website.
For all the latest breaking news, stay with this website. Also, follow the Weekly at facebook.com/dandenongjournal or on Twitter @DandyJournal.
