<div dir="ltr">Noel,<div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Noel Butler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:noel.butler@ausics.net" target="_blank">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div style="font-size:10pt">
<p>Neill,</p>
<p>Sure, when standing for elections it's to their own advantage to tell us what they want to about themselves, but they shouldn't need to declare anything, who they work for, or who their colleagues are, nor should I have the right to demand this incase one of them doesn't think too highly of LA, for all we know, David may disagree with what Sam wrote, nobody bothered to ask him AFAIK, and he also has the right not to answer that to avoid workplace conflict, certain people just want to execute him based on an association, and that's just plain out wrong no mater how you look at it.</p>
<p></p></div></blockquote><div><div>No one has called for people being banned from standing for election.</div><div><br></div><div>In this case as far as I can tell, you're not bothered by David's association with ITWire, which is fine - you can vote accordingly. Steve seems to be concerned, again fine, he can vote accordingly. I haven't entirely made up my mind, but if I hadn't known I could not make an informed decision.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:10pt"><p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12px">For example, I'm sure no one here thinks much if anything of telstra or the big banks, so that might end the chances of someone here who works for one of them, most people detest politicians because they work for their party - not the constituents, so someone might declare they work in a level of govt - even in IT (well its still "employer association"), ok, there goes their chances of council... so where will it end?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12px"></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>No one is trying to tell you how you must vote, but wouldn't you rather be an informed voter?</div></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:10pt"><p><span style="font-size:12px">Cheers</span></p><span class="">
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 20/12/2014 13:08, Neill Cox wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px;border-left-color:rgb(16,16,255);border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid;margin-left:5px">
<p dir="ltr">Noel,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I agree that people should be able to comment freely without having to declare their affiliations. When they stand for an important council position it's a bit different though.</p>
<p dir="ltr">At that point I think all candidates should provide us with enough context to make an informed voting decision. I'm certainly more likely to vote for someone who I know a bit about than someone who is a complete cipher.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Note that I'm not speaking about David specifically. I like to know a bit about all of the candidates.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards,</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>
</div></div>