The questions a councillor will not answer
On 11 March, councillors were forwarded by email 10 questions on Bendigo GovHub and a reminder email for a response on 28 March.
A day later Cr James Williams wrote back saying: "... one and a half hour debate was thorough and extensively spelt out each councillor's thoughts and position. This is one of the public record and there for all to see. Accordingly, I believe the answers you seek have been provided to a large degree and as a duly elected councillor, I believe as have other councillors fulfilled our commitments and duty to the ratepayers of Bendigo."
Here are the simple yes or no questions Cr Williams refused to answer:
Was a two-storey (extension) option considered by councillors, and if it was, which option it is?
What is to happen to the 40 desks not inc;puded in the (GovHub) proposal and future desk growth?
Did you have unrestricted and open access to all seven development options mentioned in the report?
Are you satisfied that all the issues, concerns/negatives and benefits for each option were outlined in the officer report?
Are you satisfied that you had sufficient information in making the decision you made in supporting the recommendation tabled at the ordinary council meeting on 20 February 2019?
Were you aware of the information we have raised regarding the original construction and future suitability of the current offices for two additional storeys being added? The information supplied regarding the building can be easily verified by inspecting a copy of the original plan. We would be happy to oblige if you wish to inspect the plans.
Are you satisfied that council officers in making recommendations to you rejected the report of world accredited consultancy firm Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC)?
PWC appears to have only looked at five options, and a later consultancy was let to Urbris. Did you have full and open access to the brief each consultancy firm was contracted and the draft and final consultancy reports from both firms?
Were you informed why the officers split the options across two consultancy firms and why the options were split the way they were? Or was that a decision made by council officers?
These are fair and reasonable questions that council refuses to answer