Clarence Valley Council Election 2012 Candidate Scorecard: Week Four

Candidates standing for the nine councillor positions at the 8 September 2012 Clarence Valley Local Government Election are being rated on their individual campaigns to win over voters.

The score range is -10 to 10. Every candidate starts at zero (0)

Scoring began in the week ending 10 August 2012.

This week it’s all about honesty and ideas - somewhat truncated by the fact that this post in going online in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Name              Designation   Running Score

Rod Morrison Independent 2 + -1 = 1 This candidate loses ground this week, because he quite frankly puzzles. Action man photographs don’t replace good policy and the idea of more billboards visually littering  roadsides is daft - as is a transport hub on flood-prone land outside Maclean (-1).

Margot Scott Independent 2.5 Margot’s score remains the same as she adds little to the election debate this week.

Paul Parkinson -10 this candidate remains static. After apparently spending years away from Australia between 2004-2011 (according to a brief bio in the Macleay Community FM Radio May 2011 monthly newsletter), he settles in the Clarence Valley in time to enter his name on the rolls and as a candidate immediately starts telling everyone how to suck eggs. While the 360 degree turn Paul did on coal seam gas mining in order to discover it was a bad, bad thing did not appear sincere.

Craig Howe Independent 1.6 + - 0.6 = 1 Craig’s score goes into reverse, as the bottom line of his economic development plan for the Valley appears to be the release of more rateable land (-0.6). This has never been a successful solution in the past to low population growth, population decline or stagnant central business districts.

Andrew Baker Independent -10 This candidate cannot possibly score any lower and continues to outdo himself when it comes to denying the fact that not one but four of the companies in which he is a shareholder/director were listed this month by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission as under external administration.

Here is just one company snapshot of Lanai Pty Ltd from www.asic.gov.au

 Click on image to enlarge

Ursula Tunks Independent 3 + 0.5 = 3.5 This candidate inches forward on general performance but remains a bit of a wild card.

Joy de Roos 2 Unfortunately Joy stands still this week for her extraordinary belief that development applicants are not kept informed of the progress of their DAs.

Jim Simmons Independent 2 Doesn’t move an inch, because I’m still trying to think of something positive to say about Jim who as a councillor went to sleep after amalgamation and is yet to wake up.

Greg Clancy Independent 6.5 + 2 + 1= 8.5 This candidate increased his score again this week for producing one of the better campaign flyers and letterboxing it in the Lower Clarence (2). He also scores for continuing to lobby regarding residents’ concerns outside of his election campaign (1).

Jane Beeby Independent -4 Jane marks time as she has had nothing to say that hasn’t been said by candidates in past elections.

Sue Hughes Independent 5.5 + 1 + 1 = 7.5 Her score grows by two because Sue has a proven track record of standing up for community - her vote against McDonald’s DA and successful coal seam gas moratorium motion spring to mind (1) -  and because she keeps plugging away on local issues concerning residents (1).

Karen Toms 6.5 + 1 + 1 = 8.5 Increased her positive running score by producing one of the better campaign flyers this week (1) and because she keeps plugging away on local issues concerning residents (1).

Michael McIvor Independent 2 + -1 = 1 This candidate loses a point for commenting in one local paper as flashmanmicky and, unfortunately that sums him up accurately in the role of election candidate.

Jeremy Challacombe Independent -3 + -2 = -5 Another candidate who appears to believe local government should take a laissez-faire attitude to business (-1) and toss any legislative or by-law restrictions out the door if owners feel irked.

Richie Williamson 2.5 + 1 = 3.5 Richie’s score inches up on the basis that the incompetence and ignorance displayed by three other male candidates makes him appear an increasingly attractive option by comparison (1).

Margaret McKenna Independent -3 + -7 = -10 It took some doing but Margaret managed to hit rock bottom this week by attempting to save money and combine an CVTV magazine cover business advertisement with a plea to “Vote 1” for her on polling day (-7) – thereby probably breaking a number of NSWEC rules as the ad contained no authorization or contact address.

Jason Kingsley Independent 2 + -1 = 1 This candidate falls behind as he did not impress by joining the pack demanding local government reduce business rates, fees and charges yet be ready to perform miracles with reduced income (-1).

• Week Three Candidate Scorecard
• Week Two Candidate Scorecard
• Week One Candidate Scorecard

Clarence Valley Local Government Election 2012: Sue Hughes

Waving a red flag at an ol' meeja dugga boy

Teh Kouk had this to say about Teh Ego:
“The executive director of The Sydney Institute, Gerard Henderson, ventures into economics in today’s column in the SMH. Here is the link.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/toss-the-boss-palaver-leaders-economic-legacy-the-real-issue-20120806-23q5r.html
In writing about budget, Mr Henderson makes some howlers – he gets deficits and surpluses mixed up and percentage changes are wrong. And have a guess which direction those errors are? Do you think they make a Labor government look worse or better?
Yep – you got it! All of the errors make Labor look worse, not the other way around….”

Gulaptis not flavour of the month with these letter writers

Motor vehicle accident on Iluka Road, Iluka in 2010

Photograph from The Northern Star

The Daily Examiner  Letters to the Editor 22 and 28 August 2012:

Good reason for speed reduction

IT'S A pity the regional ABC radio reporter didn't spend time doing more research into the Iluka Rd speed limit issue before putting a comment to air (Monday 6.30am).
The speed limit was reduced in the first place from 100 to 80kmh by the then roads minister Eric Roozendaal following the death of young girl who swerved to avoid a crossing animal.
At the suggestion of the limit being reduced, Steve Cansdell gathered signatures from god knows where suggesting the limit stay as it was. That petition was ignored and the limit was reduced, with decided benefit to the local wildlife, a gradual return of the previously believed extinct koala population, and with no fuss or protest ever since, until Mr Gulaptis comes rocking along looking for a cause.
This petition is the one Mr Gulaptis claims to have in his possession, not one urging a renewal of the 100kmh limit by Iluka community residents, as he infers. And which, incidentally, when the Clarence Environment Centre asked for a copy, could not be traced - most likely because it had been binned years ago.
If Gulaptis and the now-RMS had paid attention to the letters and submissions pleading for the 80kmh limit to stay in place, they might have googled Iluka and learned that even today, several years down the track, the Iluka population is hardly more than 2000 permanent residents (the number of petition signatures claimed).
The Environment Centre became involved in response to the Association of Iluka Residents' concern at the proposal to re-instate the 100kmh limit. Most certainly the vast majority are definitely not in favour of the limit being increased, and unless Mr Cansdell went knocking on 2000 doors around Iluka and did some very swift talking, the ridiculousness of the petition would have been clear.
Of course Mr Gulaptis might now suddenly fall over onto the other side of the fence, as he did with the Grafton jail issue.
But the very least he should do is instantly apologise for his entirely inappropriate comment - that the 80kmh limit, installed following the death of a young girl on Iluka Rd, is "just rubbish really".

Patricia Edwards

South Grafton

What community consultation?

MINISTER, how you have been misled on this one.

There was no community consultation by the local member Chris Gulaptis. He found some old file in the bottom drawer of Steve Cansdell's filing cabinet from 2006, dusted it off and ran with it.

Any signatures on that petition were from mostly out-of-towners passing through on holidays and people from Iluka.

No wildlife on this road - only because they were all killed by speeding motorists - a whole generation of emu chicks deliberately killed.

How dare you allow many other communities to have their 50kmh and all we want is an 80kmh between Woombah and Iluka.

My family cycles from Woombah to Iluka along Iluka Road and we are lucky to not get hit by vehicles that these days are travelling in the main at 80kmh (amazing how people adapt over a couple of years to speed signs and a visit or two a year from the police patrol cars).

Now we are back to the 100kmh along the narrowest part of this road and heaven help us coping with the speeding vehicles.

What bright spark from the RMS came up with the brilliant idea to leave the 80kmh where the cycleway begins and continues all the way into Iluka.

Iluka residents have the luxury of living in an area totally covered by a 50kmh -what a hide they have to complain abut the entrance road into Woombah being 80kmh.

You should be very careful about what you accept from Chris Gulaptis - community consultation - he does not know the meaning of it.

Pamela Smith

 Woombah

Background

2006 Call by Clarence Valley Mayor, Iluka Chamber of Commerce and Association of Iluka Residents to reduce Iluka Road speed limit

2006 Reduction in road kill reported

2008 Reduced Iluka Road speed limit not an issue for local residents

2012 Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis requests RTA to review Iluka Road speed limit with a view to increasing the approved speed to 100 km per hour

UPDATE

Yet another letter to the editor, this time from the Clarence Valley Review on 29 August 2012:

Back to the future reprised

Reference to article, the new Iluka Rd speed limit (CVR August22): whenever was there consultation either way? ‘Against change yes’ petitions were conducted to keep the 100kph limit alive back then, however, this was stacked with caravan park visitors or anybody who was asked to sign, including non residents.
The sad thing is that the 80kph limit has now settled in beautifully, so much so that even the ‘Good ‘ol’ Boys’ down in Iluka don’t even remember what it was all about. If there was to be consultation, maybe there could have been a compromise.
The reasons justifying a reduced speed limit have all been said in past letters and representations? That is what brought about a reduction to 80kph, regardless of the current spin. The only possible contribution Mr Gulaptis would have made is, “he must have had a beer with Dunc” for this favour to be bestowed on him from the Minister.
I suppose he may think this is a pressure release to the dropping the ball in the ‘Ball and Chain’ debacle.

Gareth Smith
Woombah