Why did we vote Paterson in?

2
Have your say

HAVING just returned from the Lake District after spending the festive period with my grandchildren, I feel compelled to respond to article in your paper on December 28, in which Councillor David Paterson admitted that plans to tackle dog fouling were “up in the air”.

Mr Paterson says “the council has got to look at ways of saving money” and then goes on to imply that it’s up to the public to identify savings.

What on earth then did we vote Councillor Paterson into office for?

As the porfolio holder for environmental issues, surely it’s his job to convince those in his department that the dog wardens is a vital service and its survival is of paramount importance to our environment and the town.

I ask you Councillor Paterson – why have you changed your tune after years of criticising SBC?

He asks us, the public, to come forward with ideas on making efficiencies.

Well, here are a couple of suggestions. Firstly, I would get rid of the person or persons responsible for allowing the council to get itself in a position where £1million worth of compensation has had to be paid out over
the last five years. And secondly, I would suggest that Councillor Paterson hands back a large portion of his highly-inflated wage as a portfolio holder.

Come on, Mr Paterson, stop criticising the Conservatives for asking a perfectly legitimate question as to why there has been so little consultation on the dog wardens issue. I wonder, had you not been such a highly-paid official of the council, would your stance be any different?

W. THOMSON