Councillor Sue Wells has lost the plot.
Mayor Sideshow Bob's and Tony Marryatt's decision to spend $80,000 of ratepayers money on an 'inquiry' into the Christchurch City Council's so-called 'communication issues' is a feeble and badly conceived attempt to halt the growing public opposition to Sideshow Bob's autocratic regime.
Predictably (except to Bob and Tony) it has just inflamed the situation. In quake-wrecked Christchurch no one is impressed that ratepayers money is being spent on a pointless inquiry about the city council's PR operations.
As well Marryatt's claim he is now going to talk with community groups has been met with derision. If he's expecting a cup of tea and a chocolate biscuit out in the eastern suburbs then he's going to be disappointed.
With a significant public protest scheduled for February 1, Sideshow Bob and his council flunkeys are scrambling to save themselves. The squeeze is on - and Bob doesn't like it at all. His calls for 'unity' and for councillors to rise above 'pettiness' are rich coming from a mayor who has been mostly responsible for the disunity and pettiness in the first place.
But the most bizarre 'solution' to the Christchurch City Council's woes has come from Councillor Sue Wells who says that the Government should replace the city council with commissioners. You may recall that Wells is the same councillor who had a holiday in Germany last year - and got the ratepayer to pay for it.
Wells treats local democracy like a doormat to wipe her dirty feet on but she doesn't really want to put herself out of a job that pays so well. She is on a salary of around $110,000 and also picks up another $30,000 for being a director of Christchurch City Council Holdings.
In 2010 mayoral candidate Jim Anderton said that if he became mayor he would request all councillors to forgo directorship fees for sitting on council-controlled organisations because they were already well paid. The money saved would then be diverted to struggling community groups.
Wells said she would refuse to give back her director fees. This is the true ugly face of Sue Wells.
There's always an 'angle' when Wells is concerned.
She doesn't want to lose her financially job lucrative job but calling for the sacking of council (which she knows won't happen) is designed to give the impression that she is prepared to sacrifice her own job for the sake of Christchurch. We voters are supposed to be impressed!
Buts it's all sound and fury, told by an idiot. And its a giant miscalculation by Ms Wells. Her self-serving attack on local democracy has just left her looking foolish.
There's nothing, of course, preventing Wells resigning as a councillor herself. But we all know that she won't.