04.01.2015 Views

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

COUNCIL MINUTES<br />

TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012<br />

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />

Written Questions<br />

Mr Graham Hornel, 93 Empire, City Beach<br />

In the major works item in the August, 2012 '<strong>Cambridge</strong> News' it was announced that the<br />

2012/13 budget allocates $540,000 for the Wembley Golf Course hospitality project. In<br />

response to my question on this to the CEO, an informative response from the Director<br />

Projects explained some <strong>of</strong> the background behind this allocation - and referred me to a<br />

link on the <strong>Town</strong> Web site. The information presented in the linked item states that over<br />

500 <strong>of</strong> us accepted the <strong>Town</strong>'s email invitation to respond to an online survey canvassing<br />

our opinion on the nature and feasibility <strong>of</strong> hospitality improvements at the Golf Course.<br />

Having given <strong>of</strong> my effort and time to respond - and other than an electronic thanks note<br />

at the end <strong>of</strong> this e-survey - it appears that I was one <strong>of</strong> the 500 plus who then heard<br />

nothing further directly until that '<strong>Cambridge</strong> News' announcement some months later.<br />

Question 1<br />

Was a component <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s agreement with the successful tenderer for that survey,<br />

the requirement to follow up to keep those who contributed fully informed with even a<br />

summary <strong>of</strong> the results - and, if not, then why not<br />

Response<br />

The survey was managed by a sub consultant to the Architect who was awarded the<br />

contract for this project. The sub consultant's brief did not include publication <strong>of</strong> results.<br />

The purpose <strong>of</strong> the survey was to gain some market research to inform the design<br />

process for a preferred concept for future community consultation and does not relate to<br />

a specific decision to be made at this time. The results <strong>of</strong> this work have not yet been<br />

presented to <strong>Council</strong> and the designs have not yet progressed to a stage where<br />

community consultation is ready.<br />

Question 2<br />

Towards avoiding the perception that the overall process is not totally transparent<br />

because there was no formal follow up, is it agreed that all contracts for such surveys<br />

should include provision for programmed follow up<br />

Response<br />

The <strong>Town</strong> has a policy for community consultation and will ensure feedback is provided in<br />

accordance with the policy.<br />

Question 3<br />

Since a response <strong>of</strong> over 500 represents a fairly significant number <strong>of</strong> ratepayers and<br />

residents, is it agreed that is totally inadequate that, in order to obtain further information -<br />

even if this does not include even a summary <strong>of</strong> the survey input and results - the only<br />

source is the few words included in an item that is only accessible through a very long<br />

link to the <strong>Town</strong> web site<br />

H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\August 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!