Unhappy with the councillor

Francois Viljoen, Plumstead

I read with interest the summary in Bulletin (“Unpacking the election”, August 11), especially with regard to Carol Bew being re-elected.

I suspect that I am not alone in this camp; where due to the way the electoral system works and our support for the DA in general we voted for the DA but had serious issues with effectively having to vote for a councillor who we are unhappy with.

My personal experience with dealing with Ms Bew is that she does not reply to correspondence sent to her (in my case repeated requests for information and assistance to introduce traffic calming measures in my neighbourhood) and from what I glean in the local press has a manner which rubs people up the wrong way.

Voting for her was rather like having to eat my cauliflower and broccoli – I really don’t like them but know what is necessary in the grander scheme of things so I choke them down.

I have, and I’m sure many others have had to choke you down, Ms Bew, but please don’t for a minute get all cock-a-hoop about “your” performance in the local government elections. I suspect it is largely a reflection of the confidence the local electorate has in the work that your party has done to ensure clean, fair and good govern-ance, and your constituency being a DA stronghold, rather than an endorsement of your personal performance.

I hope “your” victory and my kind of message will give you some reflection on what it takes to be a good councillor; one who represents all who live within your constituency and one who has the work ethic to apply yourself effectively to dealing with constituents’ issues. Other DA councillors do – Penny East for example, so why can’t you?

* This letter was sent to Carol Bew for comment on Thursday August 18. On Wednesday August 24 the Bulletin resent the letter and asked if she’d prefer that the letter run without her comment. She did not reply. On Monday August 29 the Bulletin contacted Ms Bew again and she asked that the letter be resent to a different address. On Friday September 2, the Bulletin contacted Ms Bew again requesting a response.

However, by the time this edition went to print, Ms Bew had still not responded.