WITH fresh winter mornings now upon us, we are provided a great time in which to ponder subjects that involve the oft-mentioned criteria of being ‘fit for purpose’ or not.

I start my day with two good cups of cappuccino and maybe a hot crumpet.

I then fire up the brain cells in order to consider how we might improve elements of structures within our society.

I read the financial press – where did the DOW end up last night? – get into my emails, then read the local news online.

It is this last contact point where local people express their disappointment which often relates to their local Council.

Now I know it can be the easiest target to take pot shots at, but the majority of contributors seem to have Council in their sights.

The regularity of expressed disappointment in Council leads me to consider if this third tier of Government, our Local Government, is ‘fit for purpose’?

Whilst Federal and State Governments are covered by the Constitution, Local Government only came about because State Governments didn’t want to be distracted by the simple elements of living in a community.

Rather, they preferred it to be hived off to locals who might be best placed to cover the issues of closer living in urban areas such as footpaths, roads, bridges, sporting fields, parks, garbage and refuse collection.

Councils also oversee things like recreational areas, often involving rivers and waterways. Councils are run by General Managers who are supported by a group of professionals such as engineers, sewage and water experts, and administrative staff.

The boss person used to be called the ‘Shire Clerk’ or ‘Town Clerk’ but now resides under the exalted title of General Manager who received a boost in remuneration to match the expanded title.

Local residents are then elected to become Councillors in order to provide direction to those running the Council by expressing views as to the needs and aspirations of the local community.

That was the way it was supposed to operate.

However, are our Councils really fit for purpose?

This is where the bang hits the boards because nearly everyone exhibits great frustration when dealing with Council, and by reading letters to the editor in local newspapers, TV news broadcasts and online chat, shows it is blatantly obvious what people are experiencing.

Looking dispassionately at how Councils operate, I can see great changes during my lifetime.

It is apparent that Councils derive income from property rates but that income does little other than pay the administrative overheads for running Council, so they need grants from the State Government for almost every single task they undertake.

It looks to me that Councils are morphing into management businesses that do little more than select contractors to perform the specific tasks that Councils were founded to undertake, but are now funded by Government grants.

However, they do maintain a number of outside staff for the basic maintenance jobs which are so necessary to achieve.

I think that the third tier of Government is changing the way it operates.

We now hear of eye watering salaries of close to half a million dollars for the top people in merged or regional councils and of course a million dollars or more for those running the mega councils of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong.

But is anyone out there satisfied with the outcomes?

We also have what many people would call the unhealthy practice of party politics infiltrating councils.

Where political parties preselect a member to run for Council only to have that person transfer into State politics at the first opportunity after gaining experience during time as a Councillor.

In many cases the Council job becomes a ‘getting known exercise’ rather than one of achieving community service and outcomes for the residents of the area.

I think there is a good case for Local Government not being fit for service as it transitions from community servant to political practice and one of seeking greater opportunity.

Merging of Councils was a productive economic exercise but as with many good ideas there are often negative actions that come with the change.

By John BLACKBOURN