Wilson attack hard to figure

COUNCILLORS, particularly nearing elections, can usually gain points if they take up the cudgel about high rates and council expenditure.
But Araluen Ward councillor Rob Wilson was over the top at the last City of Casey Council meeting when he called for a report on why the council had a $3 million ‘over expenditure’ that didn’t really exist.
During the year nothing seemed untoward and I can’t recall any debate that would have led to a significant over expenditure by the council.
So why do this when the only people it could reflect on were senior officers?
Why did other councillors let the motion get through after acting chief executive Steve Dalton provided an explanation?
This has to be a totally unjustified, ruthless public attack on the council’s senior management.
Cr Wilson could easily have asked for an explanation from the finance manager before raising the issue in open council.
This is casting aspersions that must have enormous impact on officers.
Cr Wilson may have misread the statements, which most of us probably find a little confusing, but once the figures were explained he persisted with his motion.
Casey mayor Neil Lucas said he was concerned because Cr Wilson raised the matter in such a way that the press would get only half the story.
When are they going to lay off the officers?
It seems that the $3 million was extra income transferred to a reserve account and showed up on the expenses side of the ledger.
The City of Casey is recognised as being a leading council in servicing its community and much of this is because of a skilled team that researches the needs of its community.
The services are limited only by fiscal considerations.
This attack follows the hellish pressure the Casey audit and ethics committee places on the senior executive, mentioned before in My view.
This pressure, however, has led to reports showing that the administration is squeaky clean so what is Cr Wilson on about?
Despite the pedantic efforts to ensure that officers’ expenditure activity is spot on, a range of issues involving councillors were not referred to the audit and ethics committee that should have been.
Surely issues such as offering to cover the cost of dummy candidates in elections, claiming to have qualifications that don’t exist, at least one contract that was suspect, ordering light poles to cost $30,000 without council authority, providing an address that came under question, and doctoring emails, would have earned a guernsey at the ethics committee, but no.
These issues have been shown to happen, although not ‘proven’.
Cr Wilson said in support of his claim that the council was $3 million over budget that there may be an explanation and that he would like to here it.
There also could be explanations for these extra curricular councillor activities and I would like to hear those explained.
Cr Wilson’s attack came immediately after councillors were debating how the council should spend a $3 million surplus reported by the manager of finance, so what is it all about?