Mayoral merry-go-round

BASED on unsolicited feedback from a number of South Gippsland constituents, I am not the only one troubled by the recent change of mayor.

Against the backdrop of the embarrassing ousting of Council by the State Government, ending two years ago, we are now about to embark on our third mayor!
I am well aware that the idea of sharing the top job around is common in many Shires, but I would have thought, in our case, retention of the existing mayor, Cr Nathan Hersey, for a second year, would have signalled a cohesive and consistent Council, rather than one focused on self interest. I believe change, simply for the sake of it, isn’t always good, especially if it means replacing a highly experienced mayor, with federal Government experience, and a great track record in the role, not being reappointed, simply so remaining Councillors ‘can have a go’.

This is not a symbolic role, it is vital to the effective performance of the Council/Shire, consequently, the criteria should be who is most qualified rather than whose turn it is.

In other Shires effective mayors have held the role for two years or longer. Here, it seems, as in politics at the state and federal level, self-interest trumps the primary reason for being a councillor - representing the best interests of those who voted them in.

Ron Barnacle, Loch