Why consistency and transparency in decision-making matter.
Published 11 May 2026
I am struggling to understand the inconsistency in how two comparable community projects have been treated.
Budget allocated
$10,000
Public donations
$9,000+
Community support
50+ people
Despite this strong backing, the process was ultimately disregarded and the matter effectively overturned. The elected member body then required additional public funds to proceed with the pontoon, despite the strong financial and community backing already in place.
Resurfacing cost
$20,000
Council decision
Unanimous
In contrast, the $20,000 resurfacing cost for the Normanville Tennis Courts — also a valuable and important council asset — was passed unanimously without objection or significant scrutiny.
Both projects are equally important to the community and both relate to council-owned infrastructure. However, the disparity in how they were assessed, debated, and approved raises serious concerns about transparency, consistency, and fairness in decision-making processes.
Both are council-owned community assets — yet treated very differently.
When a project with clear community backing, substantial fundraising, and an established budget allocation is treated so differently from another project that proceeds without resistance, it is difficult to reconcile how these outcomes are justified.
At the very least, the community deserves a clear explanation of why the processes appeared to be applied so differently, and reassurance that future decisions will be handled with greater consistency and respect for demonstrated community support.
If you'd like to share your perspective — or point me to information I should look at — the best way is to send me a message.
Contact Shane →