Vindictive move

The sacking of Linton Reynolds appears to be a vindictive move by the Government to remove any obstacles in the way of implementing its botched council amalgamation reform.

Linton was doing what he was paid to do and that is to act in the best interest of the Canning ratepayers.

Mr Simpson, who was responsible for removing Mr Reynolds, said, “our consultation with the community found they wanted more than one Commissioner to represent them”. One might ask who did he consult? If so, when did he consult with the ratepayers for their opinion?

Has Mr Simpson been to any of the public meetings held by the council to get some first-hand information?

In addition, how did they manage to find three commissioners at such short notice unless the removal of Mr Reynolds was pre-planned some time ago?

Moreover, why do we need three commissioners to replace one and at what cost to the ratepayers?

I have not found anybody Mr Simpson or his department have contacted to get their opinion about the number of commissioners Canning should have.

Is it not a conflict of interest that the chief executive of Melville is on the board and it wants a slice of Canning?

My previous criticism of Dr Nahan being despotic appears to be part of the Barnett Government’s way of getting its own way.

These people appear to forget what they were originally elected for.

Why would you dismiss a person who has accomplished so much with the council and its administration and gained the support of the ratepayers in such a short time unless there was an alterative motive?

It appears this Government can’t be trusted.