Some feedback from Ray - and good to get some too!
Category: reform wcc
“You may or may not have read my letter published in the Mercury recently about ‘failed democracy’.
I submit to you the following thoughts that may be worthy of developing, debating, discussing:
1. Democracy is served by allowing the community to ‘participate’ in the development of policy, income and expenditure.
2. ‘Participation’ requires an interactive forum between council staff and the community.
3. As we have discussed previously, and is operational in England [or is it Scotland?] where the internet is used to facilitate ideas and priorities.
4. Clearly the ‘community’ brings both ‘ends’ of town together which does not happen now, or nor is it likely.
5. Under the political democracy model the ’separation of powers’ allows the resourced lobby to fraternize closely and profitably with governments [political party democracy]
6. NF’s while, well meaning, they still assume ‘consultation’ which is authority versus community.
7. As you highlight in your column, governments are lead into all manner of debt, diverted expenditures, and corruption under the current model.
8. The next player, for want of a better expression is the ‘Administrators’. In the Mercury letter I used the term ‘qualified’ advisedly and cautiously.
9. Taking IHAP as a reference model in terms of the ‘administrators’ may well work, but clearly with considerable more interactive participation and transparency with both community and staff.
10. ‘Qualified’ could mean people who were ones with appropriate disciplines and or with strong community support. These would be elected as non political party persons perhaps.
