All posts in the topic Who should be the new Mayor of Christchurch? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 24 posts — by 15 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by David Lloyd at 2007 Jul 27 23:49 UTC
Hi Folks,
As the local body elections approach, there will be much to discuss in this
forum, for all ten Councils[1] in Canterbury. For now, I'll open this topic for
Christchurch City. I invite you to open other topics for Environment
Canterbury, and the District Councils.
Christchurch City does not change its Mayor very often, so this is a
significant event for the city. We all know that Bob Parker and Megan Woods are
standing. Is it a two-horse race? What are the key issues? What is it that you
would like to hear about from the candidates?
Thanks for the prompt, Dan :-) I, for one, would like to know where the
candidates stand on the issue of growth of the city. Do they see it as a
good thing or a bad thing or a bit of both ? How would they manage the
negative aspects of growth, if any ?
Cheers, Andrew.
Thanks for this Dan. I've been selected to be a 2021 Candidate in Riccarton/Wigram - so of course I'm baised and want Megan to win the Mayoralty :). But from my perspective we need a whole team for a change. Megan with a team of 2021 Councillors will have the ability to implement her vision and policies. I'd like to see a thread (perhaps after this one) discuss the merits or otherwise of the ChCh Council being made up of independents versus a team with a clear vision and policies. Thank you for the work you've done over many months (I've been on the email list!) to get this forum up and running. It is important for democracy that there are a variety of means for people to engage with their elected representatives (and those hoping to be!). I have a website and myspace page if people wish to engage with me there. www.tonymilne.org.nz and http://myspace.com/tonymilne2007 But I'm also happy to engage through this forum if there are things you'd like Council candidate comments on.
Great to hear you have elections coming up. Issues Forums are a great neutral ground to hear from candidates and ask your questions (keep them coming!). Our Brighton and Hove, England forum has elections today and they hosted a simple "wiki" web directory of election links: http://www.e-democracy.org/wiki/Brighton_and_Hove_city_elections_2007 And prompted candidates to introduce themselves on the forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/4VYVnUVl7o1OlvhqTIiNjI (In your case it will be very helpful if you can convince the election administrators to add "campaign e-mail" and telephone to the filing form. We have this in Minnesota, but not England so the labour involved to find e-mail addresses meant we had to go through parties with mixed distribution success.) In any event, anyone is welcome to create a wiki account (we are using Mediawiki the same software as Wikipedia) to create neutral point of view election directory information, even voter guides for your region and councils. We also have a related history of candidate e-debates which can be quite fun: http://www.e-democracy.org/wiki/Past_E-Debates http://www.e-democracy.org/e-debates We'd be glad to share our lessons if you have the interest. Steven Clift E-Democracy.Org
Surely all a bit academic at this stage. For Christchurch City Council "Nominations for all positions will open on Friday 27 July 2007 and will close at noon on Friday 24 August 2007." http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Elections/ So currently only a few intentions to stand have been announced. Of course gathering the issues now is a good idea - hopefully this will be a trigger to really get the forum moving.
Congratulations on the site and the opportunity to participate.
I think the City will be best served by an independant Mayor. Our community is
made up of many social, cultural and political groups. Lets hope that voters
consider values and skill sets that candidates can bring to the table. Quality
debate and a commitment to making the best decisions on behalf of our citizens
based on the goals and values they have set in our Community Plan should be the
bottom line. I do not think that a team of candidates backing the vision and
policies of one person (ie the Mayor) actually leads to a better outcome for
the whole community.
We are a diverse community and there is no one simple philosophy that suits
everyone.
Hi Bob, Great to have you here ! Re my earlier reply to Dan's original post, what are your thoughts on how you would mitigate the negative impacts of growth of the city ? I imagine being a member of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (http://www.greaterchristchurch.org.nz/) team must have given you some good insight into this. Cheers, Andrew.
Hi Andrew,
I have been the independant chair of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development
Strategy for at least a couple of years now, and the strategy has been
unanimously adopted by each of the partner councils. ( think about it, 4
Councils, lots of different political and parochial perspectives - and no
decisions less than unanimous! I'm very proud of that)
Two issues here: 1) how much growth is good for us, if any, and (2)how do we
best handle the growth we are getting at the moment.
The GC-UDS only deals with the latter and does not debate the first question.
Our web site has much detail but the simple answer to your question is as a
result of a comprehensive consultation which guided us to a model where growth
would be jointly planned for (protect and enhance existing community values and
character). Over the next 35 years we will progressively move to a model of a
mix between consolidation and concentration. Ultimately the mix target is 60%
of growth to be within existing urban boundaries, and 40% in greenfield or
"new" development.
The strategy sets out to define a clear urban/rural boundary and move to a
model where infrastructure (roads, pipes, public transport, parks, community
facilities, healthcare etc.)can be planned for and provided for from the start.
All development must show that it meets the targets for density and quality of
life including environental and cultural values.
Another way of looking at is to recognise the need to shift our infrastructure
and planning model to lead expected development rather than follow some ad-hoc
purely developer led model.
I could rattle on for much longer on this but suggest that those interested in
more detail visit our web site.
I'd really like to address this "independent" thing.
In the past we've had quite strong coalitions on council from both sides of the
political spectrum and there have been times when the factions have to battle
it out to decide which grouping will lead policy. And that policy has most
usually been expressed along political lines. TAnd THAT is entirely appropriate
-these are elected representatives so we are talking about a political
situation.
The national administrations of the parties involved on council have had very
little direct influence on local decisions. There's a myth about that.
(Although you wouldn't know with National because their adherents in most
cities called thewmselves something different - Citizens and the like.)
Council is a political body - so clear and obvious groupings are appropriate.
Political groupings - either based on national political parties or generated
locally have clear manifestos - if you like- and so we have a clear idea of who
we are voting for.
As a digression - I have been extremely diappointed with the reduction of
numbers on council. To my mind this is an attack on representation. I don't
like the idea of doing away with wards for the same reason. There is a push to
turn our representatives into "administrators" and I think it's a crock. It's
part of a corporatisation of our representation and I resent it. I would rather
decisions were harder to make and that i had a clear idea about the politics of
the process.
Which brings me to the "independents" thing.
I don't believe it. There is no such thing. Independants have a political
viewpoint just like everyone else. They vote on council from that political
viewpoint. Most often in this city after standing as "independants" they've
voted with the right.
I'd like the "independents" to come clean and clearly state their politics so
that I know who I'm voting for.
Thanks Ron for your views.
A timely and important discussion on a number of aspects of local government.
I agree that "independent" is a word over used by candidates - we then get the
oxymoron of groupings such as "Independent Citizens", "Truly Independents" etc.
The groupings of those made up of people from selected political parties make
decsions based on a vison, polices, and/or some value statement. I would argue
that at least voters have some indication of how they will vote on issues. In
the case of Chch 2021 it is certainly not directed to by "Wellington" and is
mostly funded by the candidates.
Regarding representation at CCC - in the last three years it has been lost.
Councillors rarely attend community meetings or events so I don't know how they
gauge community opinion. They have structured themselves like a board of
directors with only one spokesperson. They have no standing committees so
little opportunity to discuss issues in depth away from Council, and no
mechansim for recommendations to come from an informed committee to Council. As
the Mayor has been the only spokesperson the other councillors have been
invisible, and unless you delve into Council agendaas and minutes have little
idea how they have voted on any issue.
My last comment on this is the power and politicisation of staff - if you read
the publicity on City Mall in all the papers at the moment they are supposedly
statements from unbiasied, nertral staff. But have another read - the language
used is highly political and emotional.
I agree with you on the use of the word Independent Ron. It actually carries
baggage of its own. Perhaps a better word would be non-aligned.
My perspective is that nobody arrives at any discussion with an empty (devoid
of any personal views) mind. What we have a right to expect from them is that
they endeavour to arrive with an open mind. Being prepared to listen and weigh
the arguments surrounding a decision, and to take into account the oath that
every elected representative makes on coming into office. As a matter of
interest here is the oath:
I, [name], declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the
best of my skill and judgment, execute and perform, in the best interests of
the City of Christchurch, the powers, authorities, and duties vested in, or
imposed upon, me as [mayor or chairperson or member] of the Christchurch City
Council by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.”
Relevant documents include the Community Plan and its published “community
outcomes” which have been agreed to by the community.
On the idea of doing away with wards for the City Council – I agree with you
that we should keep them. I think the wards are a vital part of ensuring that a
spread of community perspectives can sit at the Council table.
Hi folks - I have not participated in this forum before but have been reading
the various comments for a couple of months now. Chrissie's email has spurred
me to reply on a couple of issues.
There seems to be an insinuation that everyone is standing under a particular
political leaning, be it left or right and that it is somehow unhealthy and
misleading for someone to declare themselves independent, or non-aligned, as
Bob Parker calls it. I assure you, anyone standing under the banner of
Independent Citizens is just that, an independent citizen.
Within the soon to be announced group of people standing as Independent
Citizens for Riccarton Wigram, our personal politics has never been discussed
and nor will it be. I suspect however that we would cover most of the current
political parties. Personally and as many would know, I was involved with the
National Party years ago but for many years now I have had no allegiance to any
particular political persuasion. Certainly our group of Independent Citizens in
Riccarton Wigram has no tie whatsoever with any Wellington based political
party and will in fact have little involvement with people standing for other
Wards under the Independent Citizen banner. Any money spent promoting ourselves
here in the Ward for the coming election will be "entirely" our own money.
Chrissie makes the claim that Councillors rarely attend community meetings etc.
I refute this entirely. Both Helen and I along with all of the Riccarton Wigram
Board members are regular attendees of Resident Group Meetings, Community
Liaison Meetings, ANZAC services, church services, sporting events and the list
goes on. Personally I am involved in a huge range of community groups including
Rotary, historic building trusts, community support organisations etc, etc. I
assure you I make every possible effort to be informed about as many issues as
possible both in the Ward and City wide.
Chrissie claims that Council only has one spokesman - the Mayor I assume she
means. With all due respects to Chrissie, again this is far from reality. Most
current Councillors have been seen publicly over the term with a view on one or
another particular issue. Personally I have now twice made the Network News
along with a range of print media representing the City's view on the lack of
government funding for our roads.
It is my view that the people of Christchurch know their local Councillor
better now than they have ever done in the past. To say councillors are
invisible is just plain rubbish.
As I come to the end of my first term as a City Councillor and only knowing the
workings of previous Councils as a ordinary citizen, I have to say that
currently the city is very well served by the dedication and commitment of the
fourteen people who sit around the council table. We all come from very
different backgrounds and bring a wide range of views. The debate is always
informed and robust and the decisions made, in my view, are generally in the
best interest of the whole city.
Bob Shearing
Councillor - Christchurch City
New Mayor... speculating who should be at the head of the table at this early
stage (pre nominations) reduces the question to a curiosity. Media are
disgustingly playing the populist 'mayor in waiting' game. We shouldn't pander
to it.
Further, the debate surrounding the 'affiliation' has changed. It is no longer
mandatory that anyone running for office with an undeclared affiliation (or no
affiliation at all) to be labeled 'independent'. In 2002 I broke new ground in
asserting that it was my right to not be so labelled (Wigram) and contested the
seat with, again groundbreaking utility, my affiliation was 'a website'.
My right to call myself 'anything i wish' was upheld by the Justice and Law
Select Committee after Jim Anderton had complained. (the notes are in the
Hansard).
Independent candidates across the spectrum are now enabled to both
constructively add a powerful new dimension to their campaign and take
advantage of new media in the process. Old media take note. If my affiliation
is a website, they have a moral obligation (no matter distasteful they may find
it to do so) to append this after the candidates name in ANY media commentary,
it is the official affiliation as authorised for use by your regional returning
officer.
This is a huge step forward in ensuring equitable participation in local and
national body politics. It levels the playing feild and ensures all voices are
at the same table.
Last National Election I ran in Ilam. I ensured that the returning officer did
not fill in my affiliation as independent. (not really groundbreaking stuff, it
was just challenging the mores and holding them up to scrutiny).
I am as dependent on votes (and canvassing/husting support) as any other
candidate.
I intend to use both my blog (blairformayor.blogspot.com) and website
www.blair4mayor.com in my 'affiliation' field.
In the interest of 'voter participation' I commend to other 'independents' to
do the same. In fact, be really empowered.
I spent a whole 20 dollars in Wigram and got more than 800 votes. Similarly in
the previous CCC elections. $20 to run for Mayor. While some question if one is
serious, it clearly indicative of fiscal responsibility.
My only advice to prospective candidates would be to get your nomination in
early... some returning officers will need to swallow a bit of craw if my
experience is any indication. You'll need a bit of time to overcome any
resistance. Just insist. Furnish no other alternative and do not accept the
default 'independent' anywhere even if media report it so. If they do, they are
misrepresenting your affiliation to your constituency and as it is 'false',
have a duty to retract. (and you'll likely get a bit of free attention in so
doing!)
Bottom line, this is about enabling voter participation in our democracy and
civic governance. Now WE are the media, use it.
Yesterday's Press reports the launch of campaigns by two Christchurch mayoral candidates, Megan Woods and Bob Parker. http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4122025a6530.html Megan Woods is starting to list her policies on the Web. http://www.megan4mayor.com/policies/index.php Bob Parker has produced a pledge card, but I can't find it on the web. Can someone help there?
Hi Dan,
You can visit my website at www.bobparker.co.nz for the copy of the pledge
card.
Bob Parker.
Tim, Thanks for your post about the local government elections. It's interesting to have your perspective as someone who follows local politics closely but is not directly involved. I've copied your post here, Tim as "Who should be the new Mayor of Christchurch?" seems to describe it more accurately than "New posting". (See "Topics in this Forum" http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1OUuoc212vqkLDzB4mjZra for more on this.) Dan . . . . . From: Tim Barnett Date: 2007-07-11 16:03 (UTC) Short link http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/4vfh0oN7Yhkgup9VSq9nP8 The local body election campaigns, nationwide, are starting to hot up. I vividly remember that the only hard issue of debate in Christchurch 3 years ago seemed to be the number and price of rubbish bags. This time we have promise that more tangible matters will be debated, with two strong Mayoral candidates and (even given the ward boundaries which are massively skewed against the progressive side of the political spectrum) the promise of close races in such wards as Hagley/Ferrymead, Burwood/Pegasus and Riccarton/Wigram. So what issues will make a difference? With the annual City Council survey indicating declining confidence in the responsiveness of the Council and the quality of its services, certainly the basic matters of service quality and accessible democracy will be high up the list. Although I live and work close to the Square and have few fears for my personal safety, those concerns do colour people's views of our central city. That brings in wider matters such as alcohol control, environmental design, living as well as working in the inner city. In a more abstract way, our city seems to have lost the plot in some ways in recent years. The early 90s saw us win international accolades; still, by the late 90s, I remember that as an MP I was the envy of many in Parliament since I represented such a special and dynamic city. Now I sense there is catch-up to do, or rather some new thinking and some brave new decisions to make. Others have learned from us and built on that - the people who are second doing something normally learn from those who are first. We are urgently in need of some fresh thinking which takes us into the lead as the C21st city of New Zealand. What will taht take? I wait with bated breath to see what the candidates have to offer - certainly Megan Woods has the edge at the moment, offering firm policies, a team to help deliver them, an ideology to reinforce them and the character to make a difference.
Dan,
You are either "tongue in cheek" or misinformed regarding your endorsement of
Tim Barnetts email. To quote you ....
"Thanks (Tim) for your post about the local government elections. It's
interesting to
have your perspective as someone who follows local politics closely but is not
directly involved"
Actually Mr Barnett is directly involved. Here are some important facts that
may have escaped you …
1)
Tim Barnett himself was considering running for the 2021 Mayoral ticket (i.e.
the same party political team as Ms Woods) but eventually declined to put his
name forward
2)
Following his decision not to run Tim Barnett quite clearly stated in the media
that he would be helping Ms Woods to campaign
3)
Others from within Mr Barnetts electoral office have become 2021 candidates
With respect Dan, it is not credible for you to attempt to convey the
impression that Mr Barnett is able to pose as an impartial observer.
Regards,
Bob Parker.
The topic is, at least as it concerns the candidates [including myself] may
look a bit insular but this is 'the new commons'...
Although it would likely be be very tempting to make this forum a mayoral
debate at this time the three declared participating candidates here are yet to
even have nominations accepted.
I see many shortcomings in Tim giving the appearance that this is two horse
race. I shall not add anything further to Bob's comment on Tim's email, other
than to note 'these are early days'.
Tim's observation 'the only hard issue of debate in Christchurch 3 years ago
seemed to be the number and price of rubbish bags' was defined by the media. It
suited them to misrepresent both the issues and, in the case of the PRESS the
'job application' via a human resources executive was laughable due process.
Notably, there was not ONE SINGLE PUBLIC DEBATE in which the incumbent
participated. This resulted in a public sentiment evidence by
non-participation. Issues defined by media rather than candidates strengths was
inappropriate undemocratic and universal. It was that way by design. As I have
said elsewhere... the net is the new media. Watch old media pretend it isn't
and on evidence todate avoid any mention of where the public realy is at.
Things are shaping up a lot differently this time round. The cut and thrust,
this time round, is yet to come. Few are going to be fooled by big budget
advertising. Public feedback I have had so far suggests strongly they will be a
lot more 'wired', sceptical of the forth estate, and better informed. Who ever
is at the head of the table come polling day is going to have good ears,
broadband, and be able to filter a lot of email. (smile)
Who should be the new Mayor? That thankfully is up to the voters and these are
interesting times!
sig.
Blair Anderson Blairformayor.blogspot.com
03 3894065 027 265 7219
Bob is right that my reference to Tim Barnett's level of involvement in the local government elections was ambiguous. I am glad that this matter is now more clear. http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7Ht7USBY4K7Td4hOGrYnPU Thank you all for your recent posts here, Bob, Tim, Blair, Pauline, Tony, Wendy, Sally and Andrew, and for the diverse points of view you express. This is in line with the purpose of the forum: to increase the opportunity for Cantabrians to participate in the local democratic process. I am glad that this forum has attracted the high profile contributors that it has. There is no doubt that this year's elections will be the most online yet. Mayoral debates may well take place in this forum, but the conversation is open to everyone, with the same rules applying to all. Let's take advantage of the opportunity to discuss things with the politicians in this forum, and not let them dominate. If you have a question or comment, and are hesitating on the send button, give it a click.
My present position is active support for Bob Parker’s mayoralty on the basis
that he is the most qualified. However I am hearing criticism and apathy from
politically aware people.
Council propensity to spend our money
Stranger than fiction it appears that the 2021 team now takes the role of
[ the normally center right position ] reducing Council spending, and
opposition to the Wow building.
Bob’s previous questioning of the costs of this building in Council may have
given the public the erroneous belief he did not support the expenditure.
Present indications are that he does support the wow building, and how.
Well Bob needs to know that we the public disallow him this building.
Council chambers new, wow, $100 million at 7% interest costs and 5%
maintenance per year will cost us $!2 million per year
so that they feel warm cosy and protected from us. That’s $120 per household.
Refused.
the difficulty of the public finding and identifying with Bob’s political
position
Candidates aligned to the centre right and center left allow the public to a
fair degree of knowledge even if they don’t research policy.
Activists from both sides are complaining to me that Bob is looking populist,
and are asking do we know what we will be getting.
It is probably no surprise, look how well Winston goes by winging it, look at
what happened to the new right John Banks in Auckland
Pledge cards are simply a plastic list of nice words, real policy please
Integrity, honesty, communication, transparency are just words like
gobbledygook, which mean everything and nothing.
Where’s the meat?
We have one serious policy offering that I can find so far, and that is the
‘surveillance by camera’ and other means to reduce City and street crime.
Good, this technique does reduce crime, and so it is a good part of a
platform.
Ok now lets get real about ‘traffic congestion and lets hear policy
Urgent things to be done in Council
Place the interest of Christchurch public ahead of safe and soft policy options
which will avail us nothing
Sack the entire transport department and start again. Require contractors who
want to dig up arterial roads to work at night
Refuse the nonsense of pretending that Council Holding Company can make a
profit by spending $100 million plus on Chambers, this money is needed for
public works.
Sack general services Manager
Make bold decisions on Traffic improvement and start immediately.
<email obscured> Paul Scott B.V.Sc phone [03] 9605-605 .. phone [021]-560-566 box 26-099,christchurch 8148 http://www.paulscottfilms.com/ A joke going around is that Bob Parker after having a wonderful dream of his [“ Grand view of Commuter trains linking Christchurch … and a envisages a new line “from Belfast to west of Brighton and a station near Jade stadium”] Mainlander, ChCh Press 21 july ] but then he wakes up and looks in the mirror, and sees Gary Moore, it’s the end of his first term, and they are sending him to Transit NZ to learn about traffic. Visions and dreams, and railway sets. We already have a passageway from west of Brighton to the North, its called QE2 and cars and trucks and people go on it. What Bob and Gary could do is get a couple of red flags, and walk alongside the dawdling traffic of Marshlands road at 5pm, and as they pass the cars take it in turns to hear the people. That is unless there are Committee meetings to attend with experts who talk things like this [“ Profitable Transport and logistics .. based on future passenger numbers ….” transport geography .. tram train hybrids which can run on the roads … total commuter market “ ] Yes that’s right folks, you can have a railway line at around $1000 to $2000 per year per ratepayer in ongoing costs, and at the same time it will be profitable, but you can forget about Cars, But first just only $150 per household per year year for the how WOW building, nice Offices.. There are no plans revealed yet proposed by Bob Parkers team to alleviate the congestion problems on Main South Road, and North road, and Cranford street, and Marshlands road. Blenheim road was an invention showing clearly that the traffic Planners in ChristChurch are utterly inept. Its sad these people spend their time in Committee meetings with experts, who have not noticed that most drivers in Christchurch already give way to buses, and spread out these concrete islands till the likelihood of head on collisions becomes a reality, And everywhere the socialist dream is approaching, cars in total deadlock throughout Christchurch. Article by Anna Leask ChCh Star says [“ Cr Parker said he would ensure a high standard of council services, including rubbish collection, water, and roading. He would also focus on resolving traffic concerns through an efficient and sustainable public transport system. “ "We have a number of innovative options for reducing congestion on our roads that are worthy of investigation anything from an energy efficient electric bus service to light rail. This mode of transport is playing a vital role in urban regeneration, social connectedness, and sustainability in countries all over the world” ] Note carefully folks, nothing about cars, just buses and train sets in the sky. What are these innovations. precisely how will Bob as Mayor ensure high standard of roading. Details are required, because it don’t mean a thing, not a thing to the drivers hemmed in on the Main south road or Marshlands road. We do not need a Mayor who has visions, we need a Mayor who can do the job. Wake up Bob Sincerely, Paul Scott
It's interesting that the mayoral race has already begun and the
nominations haven't been finalised. I'm also seeing signs out there
about this... (July 23rd)
If I were mayor, I would pass a by-law that says, don't start the race
(ie, pollute our road, obscure our views) until the race starts!
Anyone with a sign out there will have to work damn hard for me to
think you're not in it for yourself.
How will I decide how to cast my vote?
I will decide by listening to all the speakers on the podium,
I will decide by the way they conduct themselves,
I will decide by how willing they are to step out and see a future of
Christchurch in a new, refreshing way.
I don't want to hear the same old, the same old..
I want a mayor who can think on their feet, who can see beyond their
'place in history'.
I want a mayor who is not in it for himself, but for the greater good.
I will decide on merit, not on signage, not on popularity.
/Natalie Perzylo
He or She will have a vision for forward moves ,honesty, ability to delegate
,to communicate with people at all levels of humanity to answer questions that
are easy or refer them to those in the know ,the person who can take a step
back and have pride in their fellow councillors to back them up 100% because
the right person was voted in on the day along with their colleagues and to
work in a building that will be the centre of our growing city
I agree with you Brenda, but you have missed one - accountability. The new mayor, and council staff, should have accountability which is presently lacking in both the city council and Environment Canterbury. Ratepayers money has been squandered on daft proposals including garden festivals and pest destruction companies. Much money has been lost but no one has been held accountable for these losses. The pest destruction loss is very bad, over two million dollars lost and no one held accountable. I think Kerry Burke should have resigned and others responsible for the debacle should have been sacked. David Lloyd . brenda dew wrote: >He or She will have a vision for forward moves ,honesty, ability to delegate ,to communicate with people at all levels of humanity to answer questions that are easy or refer them to those in the know ,the person who can take a step back and have pride in their fellow councillors to back them up 100% because the right person was voted in on the day along with their colleagues and to work in a building that will be the centre of our growing city > >brenda dew > >Info about brenda dew: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/brendadew > >This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2feXOZ0nbHGtKXh9OpYnwP