Why "cherry picking" undermines good governance — and what needs to change.
Published 11 May 2026
A key concern with the current elected body is the absence of cohesive, strategic decision-making. Instead, there is a pattern of reactive "cherry picking" of initiatives and policies.
This shows up in a few consistent ways.
Decisions to start, stop, or amend programs are often made in isolation, without alignment to a broader strategic framework.
Actions appear driven by immediate sentiment or recent chamber outcomes — including reversing previously passed measures — rather than long-term community benefit.
Initiatives are frequently disrupted or reconsidered, undermining consistency in delivery and stakeholder confidence.
Some decisions appear influenced by individual preferences or dissatisfaction with prior outcomes, rather than objective evaluation or evidence-based policy.
This approach creates several real risks for our community and organisation.
Without a stable strategic direction, it becomes difficult to execute multi-year programs or achieve meaningful outcomes.
Starting and stopping initiatives leads to wasted investment, duplicated effort, and reduced value for money.
Staff and delivery partners face constant change, limiting their ability to plan, prioritise, and perform effectively.
The community may perceive governance as inconsistent or politically driven, rather than deliberate and outcomes-focused.
To address this, a shift is needed toward a more disciplined and strategic approach.
Strategic alignment — All decisions should be clearly linked to an agreed long-term plan or vision.
Evidence-based governance — Policy changes should be supported by data, impact assessments, and structured review processes.
Consistency and discipline — Once decisions are made, they should be allowed time to deliver results unless there is compelling evidence for change.
Collective stewardship — Elected members should prioritise whole-of-organisation outcomes over individual agendas or reactive positions.
Good governance isn't about winning individual debates at the council table. It's about making decisions that serve the community over the long term — consistently, transparently, and with the evidence to back them up.
When decisions are driven by reaction rather than strategy, the whole community pays the price — in wasted resources, lost confidence, and outcomes that fall short of what was promised.
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 →