THERE has been a lot of comment in the WDN recently over the council's financial position, with the CEO coming in for a bit of adverse comment.

Mr Keenan strikes me as a very competent, highly focused man. I find him very impressive and passionate in his role.

He cannot be held accountable for the financial situation of the council. The elected representatives have to accept full responsibility for that!

The situation is serious, not irretrievable, however, it will require fiscal discipline.

In every sense of the word the councillors are the "board" who make the policy decisions for the council. They need to be explaining why they made decisions, but there appears to complete silence when it comes to engaging with the community in any meaningful fashion.

It seems the only engagement for a number of them is via confected outrage and self-aggrandisement at council meetings as reported through the pages of the WDN and other media.

I suppose at least we know what they think, unlike the rest, who appear to sit mute for all intents and purposes.

I've come to the conclusion that making a councillor's role a full-time position was a very poor decision by the State Government.

When the role was part-time, councillors weren't in a position of needing to be re-elected to protect their primary income source, as is the case now.

The result is grandstanding and populism by some and being a small target for others, instead of focusing on the strategic needs of the community.

The performance over the budget vote was a case in point.

I can't comprehend how some councillors who were, or should have been, heavily involved in the extensive, many-months-long budget preparation process could sit back and make the claims they did.

I suppose it granted the chance to say "look at me, look at me". There must be an election looming.

Sadly, many of our councillors are past their use-by dates, and a good broom come March 2016 will be a very good idea.

Councillors are meant to be a representative sample of the community, not just of one group such as business owners.

On another issue: every week I see people rabbiting on about the absurdly high rates.

The rates in the Southern Downs, broadly speaking, are no higher than most comparable communities when you sit down and dispassionately gather all the pertinent information.

However, you need to compare apples with apples and look at the services delivered for the money.

There have been big rate rises in recent years, but this has been largely because of decreasing money flowing from higher levels of government.

Councils had been told for years that they were too reliant on grants and that they should charge more in rates. They were warned and failed to listen. People expect services. Those services have to be paid for somehow.

If the grants dry up, a council either reduces services or increases the only revenue sources it controls - fees, charges and rates.

Councillors, as our community representatives, need to have the discussions with people over what services they want.

I'm not holding my breath for that engagement to occur, however.

Just in case some think this is the start of a tilt at council by me next year, fear not. The basic prerequisite I gave back in 2008 for my running again still hasn't happened.

- Sean Hegarty, Warwick