One of the allegations dismissed by the Municipal Inspector concerned the alteration of minutes. This allegedly arose from a ‘special meeting’ on October 14th, 2009, where councillors voted whether or not to reappoint or advertise the CEO position. By calling this meeting a ‘special meeting’ the public is conveniently kept in the dark. It wasn’t an incamera session of a normal council meeting – that took place on October 13th. Was it an ‘assembly of councillors’? If an assembly of councillors, then someone from the administration would have been present as note-taker? Was it a councillor only meeting? If so, then a councillor took the minutes and hence this meeting doesn’t fall within the strictures of the Local Government Act. But then we’re told that the allegation of no councillor officer present took place at the October 20th meeting. Hence it is safe to assume: 

  1. A council officer was present and took comprehensive minutes/notes
  2. The next issue thus becomes – who stood to gain by complaining?
  3.  And in the end what’s all the fuss about? 

If a council officer took the minutes which included ‘opinions’ and ‘names’, then THIS IS CONTRARY TO COUNCIL’S OWN ‘POLICY’ or practice!!!! For example: Council Minutes of 1st September, 2009 include the following paragraph in the Officer’s Report on an Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting: 

“Liz Morgan asked if future Minutes could include more detail. Officers advised the primary purpose of the Minutes was to record outcomes rather than a detailed summary of discussions.” 

In the same Council Meeting, the minutes record this response to a public question: 

The Deputy Mayor asked the Director Community Relations (DCR) to read Council’s response. He said: “Council keeps Minutes of Meetings and does not make and retain Hansard records of Meetings. Section 93 of the Local Government Act requires that Minutes contain details of the “proceedings and resolutions made”. Any matter that required a resolution would be the subject of a separate written item.” 

So, we have the clear understanding that minutes are NOT HANSARD. Yet this complaint stated that councillors objected to having their names and opinions recorded in this manner and wanted this altered. It was altered by majority decision. But why were minutes done in this fashion? Who had to gain? Who complained? 

If the notetaker was an Officer, then such information as to who said what, and what their opinion of the CEO might have been, would undoubtedly constitute ‘invaluable information’. If a councillor, then someone who was probably aggrieved by the decision to reappoint for only 2 years rather than 5. Whiteside has admitted ‘disappointment’ with the decision, and Magee announced publically that he was in favour of a 5 year contract! 

Conclusions: 

  1. The taking of such ‘detailed’ minutes should never have happened according to Council’s stated position. The fact that this was done suggests an ulterior and possibly devious motive.
  2. Councillors refusal to have their names attached to opinions reveals either (a) fear of ‘retribution’, or (b) lack of trust in each other and administration
  3. The complainant was an officer, or a councillor – again proving the existence of major rifts within the organisation
  4. Finally, the Municipal Inspector’s rejection of this allegation is not exoneration!! It only highlights again the divisions, the mistrust, and the spectre of the CEO overshadowing all in this ongoing saga. Nothing has thus changed, except perhaps, that councillors will now not meet ‘secretly’ and notetakers will be even more circumspect in their notetaking. The losers remain US!!!