Should the number of Councillors be reduced prior to the next election?

I don't support this. Our council has historically had too much representation from certain sectors of the community, and decreasing the number of councillors will reduce the opportunity for others to have their views properly represented.

So far I personally have not seen any evidence to support the idea that change is needed, and would in turn result in a more balanced council. I would have assumed that smaller numbers would have the opposite effect.

I would prefer the Administrator to continue in office for a further three or four years.

I fully support this idea. I think 5 councillors would be enough.

Five councillors would be acceptable. At the very most seven

Valc

Yes, the number should be reduced before the next election so we can start with a clean sheet. Five would be a good number although seven may be better for this large area

Valc

I agree with reducing the nunmber of Councillors - to 7. I think 5 is too few. Seven is a very workable committee.

I support a reduction in councillor numbers to 7. Further, given that the Port Macquarie-Hastings community continues to expand, both numerically and geographically, I trust that any future council will be much more representative of community interests and opinions.

The council was reduced from 11 to 9 with the introduction of the popularly elected mayor. The number seemed at times somewhat unworkable at 11 and 9 seemed to work fairly well.

Given the growth that is anticipated reducing to 5 will place a hugh burden on those elected when you consider the number of committees etc on top of the general council meetings and would seem to see everyone being on everything.

We need some diversity of opinion so 7 would be the least we should consider, but as previously said, 9 would spread the workload a bit more and give wider representation.

The other consisderation is that given that the above the line voting with groups seems set to continue, if you reduce to 5 you may end up with the first of each of the five most popular groups.

The community needs to tread carefully and extensive consultation and education needs to be entered into before any decisions are taken.

The area covered by the PMHC is very large and diverse, to reduce the number of DEMOCRATICALLY elected representatives is a backwards step. we have had the Administrator ruling the Council, what is needed is more representation, not less. Who will be the voice for the community who live outside of Port Macquarie if we have a reduced number of Councillors?

I think for too long local government has been either the stepping stone to a political career, or a means of personal gratification. The management of council is a business function, and there is little need for non-experts making multi-million dollar decisions ( our millions), under the influence of political support and deals. Current financial predicament points to the ineptitude of past elected experts. Maintenance of the Administrator is my preferred option, to avoid pressure group influences.

I believe it is important for the residents of PM-H to have elected representatives who are answerable to us, rather than a person appointed by an authority which is not directly answerable to us. If we elect the wrong representatives, that is our fault, not the fault of the system. With the amount of growth expected in the next few years there will come much additional work and we will need a full complement of councillors to cope.

I beleive the councillors should number five people and represent wards so that all parts of the area covered by a person living in that area with our welfare at heart. All the money would not be spent in Port Macquarie and much need country area would then get a share which has not happen in a long time.

Could I ask what is the method Council will use to "gauge broad community support " about this or any other major issue without having a referendum or an elected council ? The test of any political institution is the satisfaction of the needs of its constituency .If the Government in any democracy fails to satisfy the majority of voters it should be turned out .Sadly referenda & elections are expensive but community forums,letters to the editor & hyped up newspaper headlines should not be the arbiters of "broad community support ". Currently we are all compelled to vote so it would seem premature & divisive if any decision such as changing the number of councillors were to be made by any undemocratic process.

Cutting Councillor numbers to 5 for a cost saving of $82,000 means a loss of nearly half our democratically elected representation. What price is our democracy? We are a growing community and we need adequate representation to represent a current population of 70,000+. We have already had a reduction from 11 to 9 councillors in the past and we have to think about our growth and the possibility that our Councillors will need to represent 120,000+ residents in the not so far away future.

I think we should keep nine councillors and the sooner we can elect them ourselves the better. We are currently represented by a person who flies in here for a day or so each week. That is not democracy. We have a growing community and we need adequate represetnation. 9 councillors will suit us now and into the future.

Kempsey, taree, Great Lakes, Coffs Harbour, Nambucca etc all have about the same representation as us. Why should we reduce our level of access and accountability

The debate about the possible reduction in councillor numbers is interesting and their are some important points being made from both sides here. Port Macquarie Hastings local government area is the fastest growing area in NSW. However,the issue really is the quality of the members that are elected and their ability to govern. But because this is the democratic process working, quality is almost impossible to measure beforehand. So whether you have 9, 7 or 5, if the performance of the elected members is woeful, the numbers dont count. I also believe that by using the Ward system, which is popular in some other states, local elected members have to be more accountable to a given geographical area of the lga. There is no doubt that the administartors were put in place because the elected council could not govern, but it is also important to realise that the democratic process will return in 2012 and as a community we must chose the candidates we will vote for carefully. Those who want to govern must realise beforehand that local government in general urgently seeks people with relevent skills including strategic vision, to support the sustainable economic growth of the region.

Why should we reduce the number of Councillors when our local area continues to grow? The Councillors all sit on various committees within Council. If the number of Councillors is reduced, it puts a greater workload on those Councillors. Keeping the number at 9 gives some diversity, while allowing more public access to representatives on the Council.

What doesen't get publicity is the administrator recieves ALL of the pay the former 9 councillors got. A look at the preferred councillor number survey shows: 36.1% want nine councillors, 30.6% want seven and 33.3% want 5. What really stinks is the numbers of people who participated in the survey is not shown. If only a paltry 27 people have bothered comment on this topic, then this is not the "burning issue" the administrator is raving on about. Additionally it brings up serious Access and Equity issues on behalf of the council. Not everyone has access to a computer and is patient enough to deal with the numerous password faults. If the administrator believes he is "consulting with the community" he needs his head read. The only proper consultation that can be done is a mail out with a self addressed postage paid envelope with our rates notices - so EVERYONE can participate!! Bring back DEMOCRACY!!!

Don't forget that smaller number of councillors runs the risk of quorums not being established if the councillors are ill, or on leave.