Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government unambiguously states that unethical or inappropriate conduct such as approaching councillors or council officers or intimidating behaviour, will result in a tender being disqualified.

That is not a maybe, but a will be.

It is clear the intent of the Guidelines and the Local Government Act is that local government decisions should not be influenced by lobbying.

I attended the council extraordinary meeting last Monday wherein not one councillor denied receiving emails from the tenderer or an associate.

Standing orders had been suspended, but it was a case of “silence of the lambs” wherein five councillors had an unrestrained chance to deny they had received emails, the crux of the rescission motion, or argue against the rescission motion.

I had decided earlier in the day to attend the council meeting to establish for myself the merits of the rescission motion so it was disappointing that they choose not to, yet as an accord they voted it down.

It absolutely lacks transparency for a councillor to move out of the chamber to make a defence to The Border Mail reporter five minutes after the meeting was closed. The councillor’s comments should have been made within the meeting where his views could have been debated.

Apart from any extenuating circumstances it is appears that councillors may well have awarded a $5.5m contract, having ignored a council recommendation, unlawfully and void because it was granted on a tender that per NSW Government issued tendering guidelines was disqualified. It also resulted in a cost to the public of $373,000.

It is of great concern that it is not apparent that a CBA (cost benefit analysis) had been used to bring back to a NPV (net present value) assessment the dollar advantage that the “awarded” tenderer held over its competition considering it was substantially more expensive.

Particularly so, because council decision making must be on merit and can’t be a case of last time a councillor’s vote was influenced to show support for a staff recommendation and this time there is a flip/flop, yet that was a question/accusation made at the extraordinary meeting and not answered.

One could go on and on about the pool plan in Corowa that sets the bar so low and aims to please so few. The 25m pool plan sends a message to young people and families that you are not considered or planned for by the merged council.

A 25m pool is for the seniors in town and leaves young people out of the picture and that message is a bad one by people there to lead and strengthen communities. 

Young people need to be part of the community and see planning that stimulates healthy living and ambition and opportunity in their home town. We need a pool that is Olympic size, not a puddle for seniors. Council needs to plan for the future and families and the young now.

I wonder if Marcus Fraser would have stayed and played golf on a nine-hole, par-three course in Corowa and become a great golfer? He had a great course to hone his skills and be a great example for Corowa and beyond. Marcus Fraser is an outstanding result for us all .

Money was allocated for the pool years ago and spent on the council offices in the old broke bowls club in the flood plain. Questionable I must say.

Move the Civic Bowls club to the golf club ASAP and make it all strong and viable with increased membership and renovate the indoor pool at the golf club. The golf club is a very important part of town and it needs some ways forward.