Hands down, the GM's response report to Councillor Rice's NoM is the rudest report from a GM at Kiama Council I have ever read. 

Can you imagine if a Councillor said the GM was “intentionally politically motivated” without any evidence to support that statement? That Councillor (depending who it was of course) would have a Code of Conduct complaint slapped on him/her in a moment. However, it appears the GM can state such a thing without any worries - this says a lot. 

The GM states the motion is “unlawful” – the report shows that it is only the GM’s opinion as no legal advice is referred to, and allowing the Mayor to make the call transfers the responsibility to him. The NoM has been around since December and it's now February and the current report does not refer to legal advice - interesting, or is something going to be dragged out at the last minute as per usual? 

The report is a distraction from the issues raised in the Open Letter, ALL of which are substantiated by evidence. The report does not even quote ANY of the issues raised in the Open Letter - it's all very vague and reminds me of previous reports about the reclassification - saying a lot yet saying nothing about the actual issues being raised. And, by virtue of the GM’s accusations of this “political motivation” nonsense, essentially the GM has made it “political” because it effectively encourages people to start reacting “politically” which is what has been happening on Facebook, for example! 

As such, it would be easy to conclude that the GM is the one that is acting in a “politically motivated” manner rather than anybody else. What a load of nonsense. 

And, as for all this dumping on the Greens that has been going on: At no time in the history of Greens on Kiama Council have there been more than 2 out of 9 councillors. It is therefore not true to suggest that the Greens by themselves have ever been in a position to dictate policy. In recent times when the Greens may have proposed an alternative direction regarding Blue Haven Bonaira, they have failed in getting enough support to move forward with the proposal. If it happens that a Greens proposal is supported, it is only with the support of three other Councillors and is thus a majority decision of the Council, not just the Greens. Perhaps those posting this sort of criticism can identify a single “Greens” thing that actually progressed past the ideas stage that they find problematic. Details from Council’s meeting minutes would be good proof. 

And, as for the GM’s consistent statements since the 28 February 2023 Extraordinary Meeting that all Councillors voted "again" to sell Blue Haven Bonaira - that cannot be correct, because: 1. I made enquiries with the CEO as to which point in the resolution of February 2023 indicated that all Councillors voted to sell BH Bonaira “again”. The CEO advised me it was point 2, which stated: “2. Note that the commercial in confidence report substantiates the previous resolution of Council in October 2022 to divest of all aged care assets and operations (residential, aged care, home care, community transport) located on the Blue Haven Bonaira site.” 

Never in the history of voting at Council meetings, has the word “Note” meant “vote”! And, at the August 2022 Council meeting the CEO confirmed that “Note” was to shift away from “endorse”. This is what was said: Councillor Brown: “My question is, in the Council report ‘we receive and adopt’ whereas in this motion, point 1, we ‘note’. I just want to be clear with the CEO’s advice that because it’s a June statement we don’t have to ‘receive and adopt’ and the word ‘note’ is adequate. I just want to make sure that our motion fulfils whatever statutory requirement…” GM, Jane Stroud: “……So, I am okay if Council does not choose to ‘endorse’ it and instead shifts its wording to ‘note’” 

How does the GM get away with creating a new meaning for the word "Note" in February 2023, and continue to repeat the creation that “Note” effectively means “vote” or 'endorse'? Because she can, because she did, and nobody is going to do anything about it because there is no accountability in the system. Even other government departments have stated in correspondence that Council resolved to sell again in February 2023, so clearly nobody is paying attention to any actual facts - but some in the community have known that for the last few years.

Debra Moore