Taylor argued that the Mayor of GCC and Elwick MLC "go well together". Taylor also dragged out the old chestnut of the “cost of a new election for Mayor”.
Presumably Adriana Taylor believes that there is no other candidate or current GCC alderman who is capable of doing the Mayors job.
This blogger does care what your political persuasion is double dipping into different levels of government should be legislated against.
And that includes you Mike Gaffney, Ivan Dean and Mark Shelton.
Bloggers note.In light of Beres Taylor's (who is married to the Glenorchy Mayor and candidate for the seat of Elwick, Adriana Taylor. Beres should of declared this when posting) comments on this post I will acknowledge (upon some late research) these comments by Adriana Taylor's as publish in the Mercury 1 month ago....
.........................."It will be a heavy workload but the Elwick electorate falls within Glenorchy, the issues are the same, I would be representing the same people," she said.
She has also promised not to "double dip" and draw both the mayoral $80,000 allowance and MLC salary of more than $100,000.
She said she would not make the mistake of Windermere MLC and former Launceston mayor Ivan Dean, whose promise to donate one salary to charity landed him in court on bribery charges that were later thrown out.
"I will only take one salary, probably the legco [Legislative Council] one," she said.
As I stated in my response to Beres, my main concern is the democratic double dip. That is, holding two powerful offices in a small place like Tasmania. I believe as others do that this practice should be banned.
If Taylor is elected and follows up on her promise not to take both salaries i will commend her for this.
However noble, even this position is problematic. One could argue, if the officeholder feels that they can do both jobs justice, why not draw the salary? One could also argue that when the officeholder promises publically during a campaign not to take both wages that then this acts as an extra voter incentive, an incentive not available to other candidates who cannot promise what amounts to a large saving to the public purse. Is this fair? Personally I dont believe so? This is an area where I would like to see the law changed.
I welcome further comments on this debate.