Suzanne Williams

So, there is something which unites us in surprise and disgust. It is interesting to read the differing viewpoints, all of which I can agree with, to a greater or lesser extent.

I must say that when I saw the full-page advertisement from Toi Iti appearing as an advertorial, my first reaction was horror – I thought, “Hey, councillors can’t do that.”

Then I thought, “if they are going to endorse a candidate while acting as my representative, they’d better be sure that is what I and the other voters put them there to do and that the district council wants them to do”.

Then five minutes later I thought “Well, they were elected to represent us, weren’t they? Should we leave them to it?”

So, take your pick of the above. I decided not to rush into print, but to see what others would say, as I was sure they would; it was a good read.

No matter what our viewpoint, a few things remain.

First, I want to know exactly where, how and in what capacity these councillors and Iti have worked together; second, I should make it clear (and I think others will feel the same) that by running this advert, rather than commending Iti to me, it, has been inclined to put me against voting for him – or for those seven councillors, when the time comes.

There seems to be around an equal number of letters in the Beacon in support of Iti as against; but the issue as far as I am concerned, is the principle of whether it is ethical (not legal) to sponsor a candidate for the regional council while serving, and using your name, as an elected district councillor as opposed to a private person.

Most of the correspondents’ letters seem to think that these early writers mean that those objecting are objecting to him as a candidate, which is not necessarily the case.

He may well be the best for the job.

The whole thing has put as many people against Iti, as for him, I think.