Geelong Advertiser – November 3rd, 2010
“FUNNY how some city councillors simply don’t get it. Their closed-door briefings should be open to the public and they could do themselves a great service in the process.
New rules means they have to publish an agenda but the public gets to know nothing else. And as this newspaper has revealed, the briefings have been used for straw polls, to change officer recommendations and to make decisions later rubber-stamped in open council.
The agenda rule was enacted after State Ombudsman George Brouwer warned of the patent scope for corruption. But the new agenda rule don’t go far enough.
Cr Bruce Harwood, a former mayor, insists there’s nothing untoward in the briefings. He claims that in his eight years as a councillor he’s not seen nor had any knowledge or even any suggestion of illegal or improper behaviour, secret deals done or changing of recommendations from officers.
Three years ago, ratepayers will remember, Cr Harwood, then a police detective, was investigated but cleared by the Office of Police Integrity over his role chairing a meeting that approved a nightclub extension for Home House owner Darryn Lyons; this, after holidaying on his yacht on the French Riviera.
He acknowledged in this paper yesterday that the council had abided with the Ombudsman, VCAT and other like government statutory body decisions.
What we don’t understand is why he or the council aren’t interested in sharing what they know with the ratepayers who voted them to office – and who may be affected by the decisions made from information and recommendations offered, garnered or changed at these briefings.
The State Government has offered lip service only with the new agenda rule and the council is similarly reluctant to engage the public. Again, we have ask, what is there to hide?”
We at glen Eira would take this even further and suggest that on the evidence of the records of ‘assembly of councillors’, the public is kept totally in the dark. For example: the minutes of last meeting record an item from the assembly of councillors as ‘exchange of emails’. Yet Lobo felt it necessary to oppose the acceptance of minutes (he got confused over council/special committee minutes and assembly reports) and asserted that this phrase should be retitled ‘racism’. So, we the poor suffering public only get a glimpse of what is really going on. But it’s even worse when one considers the fact that not only are such meetings closed to the public, but even advisory committee meetings are also conducted in secret. Only the environment advisory committee has external community members – all the rest are a closed shop. All of this is unfortunately ‘legal’ – it depends on the ethos, culture, and mentality of each individual council as to how they will interpret and implement the legislation. This is where our councillors have been a total failure in allowing the continual erosion of democracy in this council.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Neil Pilling put this up on his blog in May
Friday, May 21, 2010
Community Participation in Council Committees
This is an issue I have recently raised with other councillors- I would like to see our committees here in Glen Eira opened up to members of the community to enable and encourage participation and input.
A good example/model is Willoughby council in NSW-http://www.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/Committee-List.html
where ALL committee meetings are open to the public who can participate and engage in discussions.These meetings are advertised with set dates throughout the year-
This would also rejuvenate our committees and enable a broader range of views to be expressed.I would like to see more community participation in Glen Eira along these lines.
Welcome readers comments.
Well councillor – what have you done about all this? You’ve even stopped blogging, stopped the promises of community forums (4 a year) and seem to have accepted the status quo in its entirety. If you really, and truly, believe in the principles you espoused prior to the election (and since) then open your mouth in council meetings! move motions, amendments, ask hard questions, make sure you get answers. Then maybe we the residents will have some faith in you. At the moment I can’t but agree with Glen Eira – you are part of the problem with this council! Put up, or get out!
November 8, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Here are a few extracts from a report tabled at council on November 4th, 2009 recommending that community reps not be included on advisory committees. It is written by none other than Newton. We wish to point out the following:
1. The puerile nature of the argument(s) against community reps. Newton has obviously not heard of the simple solution of including reps from all stakeholder groups – ie AFL, SOCCER, BASEBALL etc. Port Phillip, Bayside, Kingston have committees of up to 10-13 community reps on them – and this is not a problem!
2. The gulf between practice and reality when ‘forums, surveys’ etc. are mentioned
3. The resulting acceptance by all councillors and all committees of these recommendations. What does this say about the calibre of debate, the aspirations for openness and accountability, and the general regard for ‘community engagement’? So ‘Anon’ you’re dead right! Pilling and the rest have accomplished absolutely nothing and should be called to account!
Here are the extracts –
While appointing non-Councillors as members of advisory committees may appear to be one means of community engagement, it is unlikely to be the most effective
means.
Involvement of non-elected members should not be used instead of broader methods of community engagement which are open to all.
To the extent that non-elected people are members, Council should be careful to avoid appointing members to committees if that would create a Conflict of Interest or the perception of a Conflict of Interest. For example, if the netball association was a member but not the basketball association, it might be perceived that one
sport might receive more favourable consideration than another. The same would go for soccer as opposed to AFL, active park users as opposed to passive,supporters of introduced species as opposed to supporters of native species, one branch of the Arts as opposed to another, one tenant group in a Council facility as opposed to another, one trader as opposed to others and so on.One way of avoiding this problem would be by undertaking community engagement processes which are open to all rather than only open to those who are on a committee.
November 8, 2010 at 11:01 PM
Actually what made me laugh when I read the latest council meeting minutes was the minutes of the Community Consultation Committee.I didn’t even know we had such a committee. And guess what – no community reps.
November 9, 2010 at 12:13 AM
And it’s taken them nearly a year to decide to spend $2,500 for notice boards. Now that’s what I call real ‘community consultation’ – that is, duplicating what is already out there via website, glen eira news and all one way. That’s their definition of ‘consultation’. We tell you, not the other way round. If they were really serious then they might have considered the possibility of allowing the public to control these boards and list some of the things they might be interested in. But then again, this would be too much like giving power to the people wouldn’t it?