Ken Rose ('At what cost?', Opinions, October 3) raises these issues:
First, the concept of conflict in decision-making by the mayor due to the alleged membership of her partner of a community group. Second, the replacement of the CEO of the Shire.
In the modern society we live in, women are not the property of their partner. They are individuals making their own decisions based on their own beliefs and reasoning. I have no doubt that the mayor's decision was based on her own opinion and as a result of her consultation with the community at large.
The mere fact that her partner may be a member of an organisation putting a particular point forward does not impact on her capacity to act independently and in the best interests of the community. There is no tangible benefit for her to do otherwise.
As for the replacement of the CEO. It is common practice among corporations to choose CEOs periodically. It is rare to see a CEO of a major organisation, other than family companies, hold office longer than three to five years. This is a process of renewal. It leads to the introduction of new ideas, new structures and new priorities.
This process keeps the organisation alive, vibrant and relevant. The current CEO has been there for nine years. Irrespective of his performance, it is reasonable for the councillors to vote for change. This was all the councillors not just the mayor.