First point concerns the paper’s emphasis on our “rejection in part” of the council’s offer for further discussions.

Yes we qualified our acceptance of a meeting because it was clear from the Mayoral Minute placed in the ISC’s business papers, that a motion to recommend such an offer was to precede our motion calling for the Plane trees to be maintained.

Such positioning meant the mayor had broadcast his intent to render our motion invalid, as the decision to meet with himself and his public servants was the first thing listed on the agenda.

Secondly, there would have been no purpose in meeting the mayor and his three advisors, which was confirmed upon hearing the 2NZ Thursday morning program where he made clear his purpose was to simply “allay our fears.” In other words our informed concerns were not to be considered, rather they would be dismissed.

Further, I am perplexed that there was no mention of our motion’s outcome. Nor was their mention of Cr Watts dismissive comment that she was entitled, “not to listen”, or any reference to Cr Girle’s question as to why none of the councillors had been consulted, which made clear the lack of council involvement in the recommendation to confer with CIRA.

While I take exception to the mayor’s comment that he had been “surprised by the ferocity of those acting for the people”, I note that the editorial appeared to support such a comment with its observation that there existed between the two groups, an “animosity that borders on a hatred that does little credit to this community”. 

Allow me to clarify. Up until Wednesday’s meeting I have not spoken to the mayor since August 2014, nor to the deputy mayor since April 2014.  I have had no dialogue with the other dissenting councillors, although letters were sent last year which received terse acknowledgment and forwarded onto the mayor/general manager.

Also I reject the inference from both the paper and mayor that CIRA members are separate from the community when the support of 2,628 people proves otherwise

In his criticism, the mayor appears to tacitly refer to comments posted on our community Facebook. Its purpose is threefold: keep the message out there, touch base and in the absence of data disseminate researched information.

Mayor Harmon and the paper would appear to want it both ways; that we are separate to the people, yet that we should shoulder the blame when community members post heated comments, including vexatious ones representing Council interests that aim merely to denigrate and to fan debate.

Community meetings would be great, but in their absence CIRA is happy to meet with Council where community concerns are not just allayed, but addressed.

Caroline Wilson

CIRA Chairperson

EDITOR'S NOTE: We regard the Concerned Inverell Ratepayers Association as very much part of the community. Hence their actions are a reflection of our community.