Demonstrating that there are good ways to build political profile, Lord Mayor Clover Moore last week gave $25,700 to The Wayside Chapel for "Fresh Start", a new activity program to provide pathways out of homelessness.
The money comes from Clover's Lord Mayoral Salary Trust, established to offset criticism of her dual role as Lord Mayor and local state member.
The Wayside will use the money for computer, life skills, recreation, literacy and arts programs for their clients. A previous local beneficiary from the Trust is Hopestreet, Woolloomooloo for creative expression programs for children and young people at risk.
While Clover's generosity deserves heartfelt applause, the problem of her holding dual roles is a real one. Anyone who is unhappy with the actions of the Lord Mayor ideally should have the local member to fall back on. Unfortunately in our case it's the same person, and to that extent local democracy has been compromised.
2 comments:
Good on Clover. At least she doesn't try to create a drunken haven for louts from all over the city.
Since you have admitted you are a Greens, does this post represent your role as a member of the public or someone campaigning for the Greens against a good local member?
Really, 'Tina', you can't have a 'drunken haven'. I think it's the louts that get drunk. Always have and always will.
And no, this post is not what you say -- it gives credit to Clover where credit's due but also validly questions her dual role.
I used to be a Green AND a Clover supporter (published and in print) but her disregard of democratic principles both locally and in Council needs to be exposed.
I was an avid campaigner on issues of the Cross long before I joined The Greens -- that's the genesis of this publication. I in fact joined them when publication of the Kings Cross Times stopped and I learned one of their core principles was 'grass-roots democracy'. I realised I could campaign more effectively as part of a larger framework, and my experience of the Inner Sydney Greens has reinforced that many times over. So you can't question the sincerity of my motives on those grounds.
Again you completely fail to answer the argument but can only make hyperbolic assertions and attack my supposed motives from a position of anonymity. It's a very poor debating tactic. Why can't you argue the issues?
Post a Comment