court of public opinion
NOOSA COUNCIL DISCOVERS 156 PAGES OF REPORTING, BUT STILL HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REPORTING
Professional volunteers remain under investigation by the court of public opinion, despite turning up with the paperwork.
In a development that will surprise anyone who has ever submitted a 156-page report, Noosa Council has apparently discovered that an extensive pile of reporting, complete with audited financial statements, may not be enough to satisfy everyone in the chamber.
Cr Jessica Phillips has raised concerns about inadequate information, long-term financial accountability and the age of Council’s Corporate Plan, adopted for the period 2023–2028.
The problem with the Corporate Plan, it seems, is that it was adopted by Council, but is now old enough to be questioned by newer councillors who have obvious alternative views on protecting the environment in Noosa
Meanwhile, ZEN’s professional volunteers, who have donated their time and expertise to environmental energy saving projects, find themselves caught in the crossfire of a debate about whether they have provided sufficient accountability.
There are 156 pages of reporting, including audited financials. Yet the public is left wondering which page is missing, what information remains outstanding, and precisely where the alleged reporting deficiency can be found. Anyone perusing the actually Alliance Agreement can see it is onerous and all encompassing.
Perhaps it is on page 157.
To be clear, questioning public expenditure is a councillor’s job. So is demanding evidence, measuring outcomes and protecting ratepayers’ money. But there is a difference between identifying a genuine deficiency and suggesting one exists without clearly explaining what it is.
And there is a difference between scrutinising volunteers and leaving the impression that their work is somehow deficient - when the evidence for that conclusion has not been established.
Council is entitled to debate whether it wants to fund environmental/energy saving programs in the future.
It is entitled to demand measurable outcomes. It is even entitled to replace its Corporate Plan when the time comes.
What it cannot reasonably expect is for the public to accept every implication made in the name of accountability without asking for the evidence. Especially when these innuendos and implications denigrate volunteers.
In Noosa, apparently, 156 pages can be submitted, audited financials can be included, an adopted Corporate Plan can still be in force, and professional volunteers can still find themselves defending their integrity. Even though it is stated that’s not the case. It just looks that way by accident
The paperwork may be extensive. The actual Agreement is watertight yet not good enough for some.
The unanswered question is whether the criticism is equally well documented and in any way justifiable.
Could it purely be based on political game playing through fabrication of reporting deficiencies - as a way of hiding personal opposition (from a few new Crs) to any program with a green tinge?
With this scenario becoming increasingly more likely - through examination of existing (not fabricated) voting records - Noosa’s future as a world leader in environmental protection is now under threat.
How long will we continue to be “Different by Nature”?