Suburban advocates could be better than boards

In my Eastbourne Community Board resignation advice I made a point of acknowledging the huge amount of time and effort put in by successive board chairs, including the incumbent.

I certainly said, as you record, that the community board structure is completely overdone, but I also continued to support direct community representation.

Indeed I said in my resignation that I would like to see communities such as Eastbourne, Belmont, Naenae, Stokes Valley, etc, have the opportunity every three years to elect a person to represent and advocate for them, and get paid a modest honorarium, say $10,000 to $15,000 a year, for doing so. Fairer I thought for all the city, much more efficient, and at least as effective. I intend to expand on this when the representation review comes up.

I'm also wondering if the comments attributed to me re the small size of Eastbourne not justifying a community board, and Eastbourne having no significant problems, might actually have come from somebody else. Obviously I tend to agree with the first part of that anyway, but like any community, Eastbourne does have issues and, as I said in my resignation, board chairs have done a good job for community and council in helping to address these. This is why I see merit in continuing that function, in a much more sensible and direct manner, and in place through all the city's communities.

Geoff Rashbrooke,

Eastbourne

- Hutt News

Newest First

Oldest First