So the headline ran in today's 'Letters' section of the Southland Times where Sue Bruce of Gore wrote:
While reading Robert Guyton's letter re the Fed's president I began to feel a sense of unease. Mr Guyton is an Environment Southland councillor and on this or any other matter I would feel if I was addressing the council that he would not listen with an objective air to my or other's concerns. After all, the consultation process is supposed to be just so it is not supposed to be prempted by the fixed opinion of those hearing submissions etc.
I read many times of councillors not being allowed to participate in decisions where they may have a conflict of interest and it would appear to me that Mr Guyton suffers from a huge conflict of interest because he appears not to be able to be objective.
He publically applauds Hugh Gardyne's actions and to me this is another person who suffers from a conflict of interest and loyalty to his position as the Southland provintial president of Federated Farmers.
I believe that both Mr Guyton and Mr Gardyne should set their egos aside and think deeply about whether they are fit to hold ther positions that they do.
These men are both entitled to their own opinion. Whether I agree with that opinion, to me they have shown that they are incapable of keeping that opinion seperate from the positions they hold.
SUE BRUCE
Gore
I'll not bother to reply to Sue's letter through the paper, but will have a go at it here in the relative obscurity of my own sparcely populated blog.
Sue. You are wrong. I have exhibited no conflict of interest at all. I'm not saying that you are wrong in saying that you feelthat I have, that you are uneasy and that you feel that I wouldn't give you a fair hearing, should you present yourself at a hearing on which I was sitting as a commissioner, but your claim that I have a conflict of interest, is just plain wrong.
In my letter regarding Hugh Gardyne, I was careful to state that it was my opinion that I was expressing. As you so rightly state, both Hugh and I are "entitled to their opinions". I agree whole heartedly. I said that I had found Hugh's presentation to be "balanced and reasonable". You can't ask for a more balanced and reasonable statement than that. I also said that I thought the Fed's were wrong to boo their president and walk out of the room. I'd say it again, because in my opinion, it was.
I hope one day, Sue-whom-I doubt-will-ever-read-this-post, that you do come before the Council at a hearing on which I'm sitting. I'm certain you will find that I'm a fair and balanced man, and that I'd give you the most attentive of hearings and base my response on the facts of your matter, whatever that might be.
Here's hoping we meet sometime.
Robert
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Robert cant remember I think she was the same one from Gore whom wrote last week saying the ES council should be sacked and suggesting to be replaced like Ecan with political appointees .
Well obviously to that rant you can only say shes a communist. In China the councils are all hand picked to give the result the strongest pressure wants and this is regardless of the effect on the environment or the rest of there community.
Its governing like this which has seen Fiji barred from the commonwealth. In Syria we see the long term consequences to the community of control by political appointees.
Nothing else to say but Robert keep it up may we in this democratic country continue to be free to express our opinions no matter how it upsets small minded people.
I am sure on the 25th of this month many RSA members would entirely agree with that statement.
Communist, eh!
I'm really looking forward to Sally's reply.
Nothing else to say but Robert keep it up may we in this democratic country continue to be free to express our opinions no matter how it upsets small minded people.
How is it that Pauline feels free to express her opinion and by her comments above obviously sees it as a right, but when the lady from Gore expresses hers, which is opposite to the general view of this blog, then she is small minded.
Pauline, please explain this!
Animal when the opinion says or suggests that our democratic freedom should be challenged and replaced with political appointees because the ELECTED representatives are not in agreement with her opinion I say she is small minded ...
lets not forget those who gave so much in the past, to ensure we still have a free DEMOCRATIC controlled society.
Would you prefer the society that Syria Saudi Arabia etc has at the moment, or even our close neighbour Fiji.
The political issue in those countries means that anyone speaking their mind regarding an elected official is shut down and ends up in serious trouble. The point you are pushing is the same barr the trouble aspect, it is irrelevant whether the letter writer is wrong or right, the fact is they are allowed their opinion.
NZ is the better country because people like her, and RG for that matter are allowed to write what they think, despite the fact that they may be misguided in some minds.
Our elected officials are held accountable by these letters, point and case being this blog. RG may not have agreed but he has taken notice and responded meaning that in the future he will ensure that no conflict occurs.....hopefully
@ Robert.."sparcely populated blog"...Pray remember it's quality not quantity :-)
Animal are you suggesting she was right and that Robert should not express his opinion?
Her justification if that in doing do "after" the event it showed he was biased before a presentation was made. In other words because the other councilors 'choose' to 'not express their view on a topic they are not biased.
Ahh how does she know they were not biased before a presentation begins ... a wolf can look harmless with smiles before it pounces for the kill.
For this lady to even suggest ES goes down the Ecan way of having our councils controlled by political appointees to me makes her small minded ie no debate no public impute its my way or the highway attitude...
They say the Canterbury environment is a total mess as the political appointees have bowed to any thing FF want! Do you really want to see Southland go the same way ?
OMG! Pauline, you have the capacity to turn the taps on and pump out meaningless dribble. It is obvious that you have not read Sue Bruce’s excellent letter.
PLEASE, go and take the time to carefully read the letter. Do us all a favour - stop making incoherent comments.
By the way – Why do you hate dairy farmers?
Holy moly pauline, you have missed the point totally, mind you I do like the bit when you refer to RG as a wolf who looks harmless with smiles before he pounces for the kill.
The point you miss is this, its not what she said, but the fact that she is allowed to express it at all.
And as for the Ecan comments, yours are not worth commenting on because you use the term "They say the Canterbury environment is a total mess", who are they, and what is their relationship to the whole process?
Good job Rob stir it up a little - of course you are a balanced and thoughtful fellow !! ... Who is not influenced by their views and knowledge ?
No-one at all...Pete
Sally I don't hate Dairy farmers cut the BS no I just don't get allow myself to be sucked in by those of the Dairy industry whom make a public grandstanding puffery.
I am well aware there are very good Dairy farmers whom are a credit to the industry even been on one of the farms on a field trip.
As I say the problem is those rat bags that choose to ignore the public expectations in regards production and pollution of the environment.
In other words I say Dairy Farmers its great you are making money for our economy etc ..BUT like the freezing industry and many others you have to abide by the expectation of the community in production.
For example the freezing industry has had to over the years spend huge money in assuring what comes out of the works doesn't affect our environment ....now I don't hate the freezing industry to do so would be hypocritical as my husband was employed by the Alliance for over 30yrs!
I just find Sue letter pathetically pretentious as she suggests that Robert should not be allowed to express his democratic rights to an opinion publicly. She justifies it in doing so he prejudges any
submission presented by the Diary industry.
My point is with Robert there is no hidden agenda ..where as other councilors who knows what they think they may be heavily prejudiced BOTH ways of the debate before any submission is presented.
I personally prefer to know what I am dealing with where as with Robert I would know as he doesn't hide his opinion under a bushel.
Question as I don't have a copy of last weeks papers now recycled...was Sue the one who wrote that letter suggesting that ES was out of control etc and suggested needed to be replaced like Ecan with political appointees...ie taking us down a undemocratic road I don't want to see NZ ever to go.
Animal ..comments re Ecan I have heard that from many many Cantabrians.
I have heard a general disgust at how the environment is managed especially the water since the Govt put its lackeys in place of ELECTED councilors to appease FF only.
Sewage spills infuriate Manawatu farmer (12:07)
Added: 8:09PM Thursday April 19, 2012
Source: Close Up
A farmer says spills from the Shannon treatment facility is ruining his property.
Comments will be interesting?
Spills from sewerage facilities infuriate me too, Ralph. They should, in my opinion, be vigorously pursued and fixed and the party responsible taken to task.
What do you reckon?
Human sewerage and cow shit should not go into waterbodies under any circumstances. I know some councils adopt a seemingly 'softer' approach to other local bodies over issues like this, and the fact that the ratepayer would end up paying the fine is a factor in that. It's infuriating though.
Suz - indeed! I pride myself on the qualities of those who comment here :-)
Animal - "he has taken notice and responded meaning that in the future he will ensure that no conflict occurs"
Whatever do you mean? No conflict occurred this time (nor in the letter in today's Southland Times, I'm betting :-)
Sally - were you a councillor in the past? If so, your attacks on councillors in general would be somewhat hypocritical, wouldn't it?
Hey, Pete!
Simply put, if someone bought up that they thought you had a conflict of interest, as a publicly elected member (not a publicly exposed member)you would have likely taken note and ensured your slate is clean.
On a better note, watch for creative happenings at the focal point this weekend - weather dependant of course
Well put, Animal, and quite correct.
On a brighter note, excellent!!!
The town's been awfully quiet of late.
I'll charge up my camera right away!
Post a Comment