Councillor annoyed at anonymous letters ...

Councillor Michele Alroe is annoyed at certain anonymous abusive letters allegedly received by several Councillors.

From the Chronicle:

"But to resort to this rubbish is really inappropriate. The most offensive thing is that people would send this sort of thing unsigned – I would have had enormous respect if people would put a signature to it," she said.

Source - the Chronicle - unsigned letters.

While not condoning the practice of sending unsigned abusive letters to Councillors who support Mayor Thorley's controversial recycled sewage project, it raises a couple of interesting points.

Would the Councillor have raised the matter if the letter had not related to the Water Futures project (such as the Council's parking changes)? Council is keen to tarnish the NO voters in any way they can.

Is it therefore acceptable when an (unnamed) Councillor leaves abusive telephone messages for people opposing the recycled sewage project because that Councillor actually left their name and so is very easily identified (as if the voice didn't give it away)?

Interesting ending to the Chronicle article:

The council's $480,000 campaign to promote the "Yes" case has been gaining momentum with an extensive advertising program, water tasting sessions and water forums which last weekend attracted fewer than 100 people. The unfunded "No" case proponents – driven by the three opposing councillors, Lyle Shelton, Keith Beer and Graham Barron – have been seeking free print and air space to dispute the "Yes" claims.

The Yes Campaign is apparently "gaining" momentum but their weekend sessions attracted "less than 100 people".

Actually, the ratepayer funded Yes campaign relies on $460,000 of ratepayers' funds (although this ignores the other amounts spent by Mayor Thorley on consultants, videos, the $41,000 Water Book and the cost of all her trips to conferences to promote the recycled sewage industry).

Interesting ...