Michael Giles. I really must take issue with your “commentary” on your article about Susan Davies’ efforts to have a discussion about getting good candidates to understand the needs and requirements of being a good councillor (‘Those bloody councillors are still costing us!’, Sentinel-Times Comment, February 25).
The only issue you seem to have with Susan organising this meeting in the shire hall is that one or more of four named people might do one as well! Are you seriously complaining that someone that you don’t like, might organise a meeting for people to have a discussion on what makes a good councillor but it’s ok if you approve of them?
And in your editorial, you go even further in your distortion of the facts and truth to purport a series of dishonest and mischievous and unfounded nothingness.
You blame the dismissed councillors for the costs associated with the decisions made by the appointed administrators as if you and your newspaper group had nothing to do with making it happen.
Why don’t you declare your vested interests in these matters? How much has the advertising revenue for your papers increased from South Gippsland Council since you aided the councillors removal? What are your links to the Leongatha Business Group and do you deny receiving constant information from a particular councillor who also wanted the council dismissed?
Don Hill, Mt Eccles.
Taking aim at comment piece