Several crucial facts have not been included in this Leader article.

  • Lobo’s outburst had nothing to do with the Open Space Strategy but everything to do with the Community Consultation Committee and its nomination of 4 community reps. Readers should note that Delahunty is chair of this committee and it includes Hyams, Lobo and Esakoff as the other councillors.
  • Lobo was the only councillor to vote against the recommendation to accept the nominees. He questioned the process and the decision saying that councillors should be exercising their ‘conscience’ and ‘loyalty to residents’.
  • Lobo claimed that since the committee’s formation in 2009 there was no process involved which ‘showed transparency and democracy’ since ‘there’s nothing in writing’.
  • Lobo wanted the report to go ‘back to the drawing board’.
  • Council re-advertised its call for community reps following the applications by 4 residents. The spin was that council wanted a ‘broader’ representation.  Esakoff moved the motion to accept, claiming that these 4 new people were ‘most appropriate’ and represented a ‘broad spectrum’.
  • Lobo also revealed that one of the arguments for not appointing an individual from the first round of applications was that he would be using the committee for ‘election purposes’ in 2016!!!!!! We assume this was a reference to Newton Gatoff.
  • Without pre-judging the performance of these 4 new community reps we have to ask: were they ‘requested’ to apply and if so, by whom? Were the original group of applicants rejected because they were perceived to be knowledgeable on council affairs and would question too much?