In fact, various discussions questioned the need for three tiers and suggestions were made that state governments should be abolished because they duplicated the functions of local councils and the federal government.

There has since been a progressive decline in the belief and trust in local government with concerned ratepayer and resident groups - which seem to have common concerns - being formed at accelerating levels.

OTHER RECENT LETTERS:

Thanks to the courteous truck drivers around Oberon

If you've been using my old number plates, you've been warned

It's worth remembering we've tried line marking before

As a long-term supporter and believer in local government, it is of concern to me as to why this is occurring.

There are, of course, factors such as the developing belief that now all have the right to question everything that is occurring. This attitude, combined with technology, allows a better understanding of the questions that need to be asked. It also allows an insight into what the answer should be.

On this basis, regardless of the level of politics involved, any incumbent who believes he or she was elected to rule as they see fit will generally have a short tenure.

While these and other similar reasons are contributing factors, I believe that where there is disharmony between councils and communities, it is a result of a program of stealth by the state bureaucrats in providing an environment that allows councils to fall on their own community's sword and become a contender for amalgamation.

The program of stealth to which I have referred uses progressive bureaucratic changes to the local government guidelines that give councils the opportunity to implement changes if they are foolish enough to do so.

In the past, the guidelines were clear and instructive. For example, all meetings of council, other than when confidential matters were being discussed, were open to the public. Councillors were allowed to consult with the community and to make political comment without being threatened with a code of conduct breach. Departments such as health did not aggressively pursue programs and hide behind the local council as the implementer.

Changes to these and other guidelines have been ambiguous in intent and open to interpretation as to how they were to be applied. For example, with regards to meetings, depending on the type, councils can now decide if they are open or not, and in some cases even the frequency that they are held.

The smart councils who are not experiencing community unrest are those that have stuck to past practice.

The others with unrest, like Oberon, have taken every opportunity to limit community involvement and input. Catchphrases like transparency, openness of democratic process, and community input are continually quoted. But they are, in my opinion, now only applied as token gestures.

As a result of this, the conduct of council business has the overtone of secrecy instead of a well-publicised agenda, followed by an open debate in council with the community having the opportunity to observe. Instead, we now have nearly all matters discussed at the "Secret Squirrel" meetings.

The result is that the supposed open council has become a rubber stamp process with the community only seeing the actual decision and none of the process, or the opportunity to understand individual councillors' position on the matter.

In fact, if the Review representative did not attend and put together snippets of information, the rest of us residents would have no idea what is going on.

The council meeting, in my opinion, has been further downgraded in regards to community benefit by the general manager appearing to over-exercise his authority by declaring many items as confidential. On many occasions, the reasons given for doing so appear to be flimsy and would have not gone unchallenged in the past.

What makes it particularly frustrating is that as far as I can tell all the members of council are very good people and bring a wide variety of skills and experiences. This should have provided tremendous benefit to council. For whatever reason, there appears to be a lack of understanding as to how they see their role.

When I recently read in the Review an article covering a debate where Councillor McKibbin was seeking for council to have input into the brief of an operational audit, which was then followed the week after by an article on Councillor McCarthy's opinion on the Mayfield turnoff, I was initially elated that "times might be a'changing".

This was quickly balanced by the realisation of the following:

Firstly, the reported comments by the general manager in the Cr McKibbin issue, which, by my interpretation, was suggesting that it was solely an operational issue and councillors should stay out of the way.

Unless the state bureaucrats have changed the Act and guidelines, the general manager operates under the delegated authority of the council and within the local government guidelines.

Councillors, in addition to delegating authority to the general manager, also provide policy guidelines, usually through resolution into a form of policy to be followed.

In addition, as councillors only have to be found negligent regardless of whether their actions were culpable or not, they must be seen as having applied good governance guidelines and due diligence at all times. This includes asking for information, reviews, etc in a format that they can understand and which provides them with the answers they want.

To councillors McKibbin and McCarthy, thanks for your recent efforts. It is hoped that this is a sign of the start of a return to common sense. Please keep it up.

It is also hoped that other councillors will start to pursue and address issues affecting the performance of the council towards the widening of community harmony. A really good start would be to open up the "Secret Squirrel" meetings.