Margot Giblin
What is your view of a limit to the number of consecutive terms of office to be held by Hobart City Council aldermen?
All councilors were asked the question by email in March this year and their answers can be seen at One question for the aldermen.
Non incumbent candidates for the upcoming Hobart City Council elections were asked the question by phone last week. Their responses, in alphabetical order, follow.
Elise Archer: I can’t see a problem with it. In principle it seems worthy of consideration. I think the time should be extended if elected to Deputy, or Lord Mayor – the reason for that being that more experience is desirable for those positions.
Peter Donnelly: If people are good it’s one thing and you don’t want to get rid of them but the problem is some of them aren’t.
Leo Foley: I think about a 10 year maximum unless they’re then elected to a higher office. Then possibly 10 more years.
Rod Force: It’s an interesting proposition and quite a healthy one. A limit would guarantee a certain amount of freshness – otherwise Council does run the risk of becoming a bit clubby.
Bill Harvey: 2 consecutive terms for all including Deputy and Lord Mayor.
Elizabeth Perey: I think they can’t just go on forever but the problem is if there’s some-one good they should stay – but if they’re dead wood it’s a disaster. So, I think 2×4 year terms for councilors – then a 4 year break before being able to stand again. For Deputy and Lord Mayor that initial time could be extended by an additional 2×4.
Corey Peterson: 2×4 year maximum then a 4 year break before coming back. Deputy and Mayor might have to be different.
Gary Winter: I think it’s difficult to try and do that. It depends a bit on how you’ve been elected, how you’ve performed, what results you have and what commitment you’ve shown. Providing some-one is physically and mentally capable of fulfilling the role of councilor there is no reason why society should put a boundary on it.
Councilor Lyn Archer
When this question was put to councilors in March this year TT did not approach Lyn Archer as he was not participating in Council activities, having taken leave of absence in August 06.
Archer resumed attendance at full council meetings in April but has limited his contribution to seconding some motions and to voting. If a show of hands is called he has sometimes been reminded by fellow aldermen to raise his hand. The minutes could give the impression that he is actively engaged but Archer does not take any part in debate.
Archer has held his seat, now up for election, since 1986. He has also declared that he is running for Deputy Lord Mayor. It seems reasonable to now approach him for his views. Phone calls to both numbers given for him by the Hobart City Council proved fruitless. The person answering the first number said ‘He’s not available at the moment’, but agreed to take my number for a return call, which, five days later, hasn’t transpired. The call to the second number was answered by Archer who said, ‘He’s not available at the moment. I’m sorry’, and hung up.
It is hard not to draw the conclusion from observing his participation in the chamber that Archer’s present role as councilor is little more than that of seat occupier. He has not engaged in debate since his return to Council meetings six months ago. If he is also unavailable to answer questions at other times how can his views be assessed? How can we find out what he would offer in another term as councilor, let alone as a new Deputy Lord Mayor?
Unable to contact Mike Shea and no contact info available for Timothy J Smith.
The local government election for six councilors and the positions of Deputy and Lord Mayor is due to be held between 16-30 October 07. An elector poll on the pulp mill will be held concurrently.
