Dear Editor,

In relation to the Litchfield Council’s decision to move their library to Coolalinga, I believe it is in breach of the Local Government Act specifically in relations to the principles and roles of a council.

The Act says a local council needs to be “comprehensive, democratic, responsive to community needs and accountable both to local communities and the public generally”.

While the principle role of a council is to at as “a representative, informed and responsible decision maker in the interests of its constituency.”

This issue is not so much about the future of the library it is about lack of responsible decision making and the lack of accountability to the public, in this case the ratepayer.

This view is supported after reading the in-house report in the minutes by the council administration that obviously was done by someone who supported the idea to move the library, and therefore wrote a report which supported that view.

If that was not the case, the author would have included all options with arguments for and against. Details costings would have been shown for each option.

For instance, the author mentions the present site at Taminmin College only has one toilet and that doesn’t align with health requirements. Therefore, it is given as one reason the present library should be closed. So why not build a new toilet and include costings?

There are no details given, or understanding of, the present arrangements between Taminmin College and the council. Who owns all the books and equipment? Council needs to know that so it can make an informed decision.

Where are the annual running costs in the report for the existing library so that it can be compared with the annual cost if the library moves to Coolalinga? No informed decision.

Should the council library stay at Taminmin? Could the library be built on council’s land? No discussion.

Where would be the best place if the decision was to build it on its own land, and would that be better than paying $500,000 a year in rent? No discussion, therefore no informed decision making.

The only thing shown in the minutes is some rounded approximate costings to move the library to Coolalinga. No details about how the $500,000 rent was agreed to, and if correct, for how many years the agreement will be for.

What discussions has the council had with owners of the shopping centre? No information. No discussion. No informed decision.

And the strangest comment in the report is this idea of a ‘social value gain’ of $1,500,000 if the library moves to Coolalinga.

The average ratepayer would just shake their head. Ratepayers would wonder if the council is on the same planet as its constituents. It sounds academic, very academic. No explanation. No discussion. No informed decision making.

The report mentions the previous library survey by the Sydney Institute of Technology, but somehow uses it to back the argument to move the library to Coolalinga.

What it doesn’t say is that the main findings of the survey, which had only 70 responses, was that the users wanted longer opening hours and more computers.

The one outstanding omission from the council report was the effect on the rates. How much would this move affect the rates? Surely councillors and the community would want to know that, so that any responsible decision could be made from an informed basis.

Is the cost of moving the library shown in the budget?

There is no doubt that this decision by the council breaches the Act.

The people were not informed about what was going on. Someone decided at the last minute we better ask the people by asking them when they visited the two transfer stations – not Berry Springs by the way.

This remarkable survey came out about the same time as the council was to meet and decide about the library.

It has not been explained whether council approved this charade of a survey or was this done by staff.

Council should have approved this, but we don’t know. The community hasn’t been told. Would ratepayers support moving to Coolalinga if they knew it would cost $500,000 per year just to rent the new premises?

And of course, we have not seen the results of the two-question survey. The numbers haven’t been released. They weren’t shown in the minutes of the meeting. Why not? What if most of the respondents said no?

Once again it seems no details, therefore no informed discussion. The ratepayers haven’t been informed of the result. The survey results should have been released.

The council should have at least sent out a questionnaire with options and costings, or set up a ‘have your say’ website, if they wanted to make an informed decision, but they didn’t.

They may have called public meetings so they could make an informed decision. But they didn’t.

This whole process is a debacle, and certainly does not comply with the principles and role of a council as defined by the Act.

This decision by the council should be scrapped, and an independent and detailed review of options with costings for a future library be commenced so that ratepayers can have some faith in the process.

Gerry Wood, Howard Springs

If you want your letter to the editor published send it to ntindependent@protonmail.com. Please include your name, address and phone number for verification. We will only publish your name and suburb or town. We do reserve the right to edit the letter for length and clarity purposes. PRIVACY POLICY: You can find our privacy policy by clicking here.