IT is rare for a council to complete the so-called “backflip” and change its stand on a particular community issue.
Sometimes it will almost arrogantly refuse to listen to the people or the media, but as history shows, there have been times when councils have been prepared to change their position.
The Crouch Street traffic lights back in the 1980s and the James Street traffic lights controversy in the mid 2000s were two that quickly come to mind where City Council was at odds with the public.
In the first instance, they opposed any suggestion the Crouch Street-Sturt Street intersection was dangerous and did not require traffic lights.
Unfortunately, it took a road death to change council’s mind.
By contrast, City Council appeared to be moving towards establishing lights at the James Street-Wehl Street T-junction, but overwhelming opposition from local residents forced a change of thinking.
Another, more recent “backflip”, was when councillors reluctantly agreed to hold a vote on the recreation hub, after MP Tony Pasin told them he would not fight for federal funding unless they put the issue to the people.
Several weeks ago I wrote in a column about how Grant Council had “flown under the radar” over its support of the prison and that during the expose’ of the problem with prisoners not moving back to their home towns, the silence from council had been deafening.
It sparked plenty of discussion around the city and inside the Grant chamber at least two councillors – deputy mayor Gill Clayfield and Cr Megan Dukalskis – raised questions about the prison, eventually leading to a vote that Grant would support City Council’s delegation to see the minister about the problem.
Not only did they do that but they also became part of the delegation.
Let’s not kid ourselves, Mount Gambier needed Grant’s voice to back the city’s case, so they deserve plaudits for their change of mind.
When that same column hit the streets, the reaction was mixed.
Some wrote or telephoned their approval but others gave me a friendly clip behind the ear, claiming I had been too easy on Grant mayor Richard Sage, who much earlier had claimed there was no evidence prisoners were remaining in the city.
Like previous Grant mayors Mr Sage is a strong supporter of the prison but appeared to be out-of-step with the majority view.
But more to the point, some people were angry I had not highlighted the fact Mr Sage worked at the prison and therefore had a conflict of interest.
It is an interesting point but my understanding about a conflict of interest is whether the person involved personally gains a financial benefit from decisions made in business, government or organisations.
It could be argued he had not made any public comment during the media investigation but this may be because he was employed at the prison.
Regardless, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Mr Sage is employed by the company that runs the prison – neither he nor his employer make decisions on prisoners – that is done by State Government.
Even in the Grant Chamber, no-one could agree whether Mr Sage had a genuine conflict of interest or just a “perceived” one.
Unfortunately this issue was not about the prison but how prisoners are released and it could be argued Mr Sage has no influence there and therefore no conflict of interest.
Again he deserves the benefit of the doubt but either way, he did make a common sense decision by abstaining from voting on the crucial issue whether Grant lent its support to the City Council in its efforts to take the issue up with the minister.
My argument had not necessarily been with Mr Sage but that Grant Council had remained silent.
It has now acted.
If people are prepared to look for positives on the way Grant handled this issue, it is this:
For many years, decades in fact, Grant has been seen as a “one-man band”, where virtually all public discussion came from the mayor but on this issue several other councillors, who by the way until now were virtually unknown outside of their local community, stood up and provided a different, if not alternative leadership voice for Grant.
This is a step forward for Grant and it is reasonable to speculate its support of City Council helped sway the minister to act on the issue.
