A report from the Consultation Committee was tabled, and its recommendations adopted, on November 3rd, 2010.
One recommendation read:
The Committee agreed that the current consultation framework should include the following information to better inform the community about Council consultation processes.
The benefits of community engagement;
Principles for undertaking community engagement;
How Council will communicate and engage with the community; and
Tools that Council will use to engage with the community.
Recommendation: Officers to review the ‘Six sets (sic) to community consultation’ paper approved by Council in 2007.
Moved Cr Pilling, Seconded Cr Hyams. Motion Carried.
The above motion inevitably leads to questions:
- Is the objective of the recommendation merely to ‘better inform’ – that is, will the ‘review’ actually alter/adapt/amend anything that is currently contained in the policy? Or will it merely represent another exercise in ‘spin’?
- In requesting a ‘review’ by officers, which will presumably then come before council for decision, will the public have an opportunity for comment? Ironically, will the community be ‘consulted’ on this new version of the ‘consultation’ policy? Or will council again rubber stamp a document written, directed, and engineered by officers and the public will be excluded from comment?
- With what confidence can the community accept that this will be a fair dinkum review of ‘consultation’, when all the directives involve ‘engagement’ as opposed to ‘consultation’. The difference is fundamental to outcomes. Does this therefore represent a lack of knowledge by councillors, or a deliberate manoeuvring – in short a ‘clayton’s review’?
- Will this review provide what is currently missing – detailed scenarios, criteria, and performance and evaluation measures that clearly and unequivocably establish the VARIETY of consultation methods for each possible project, policy, master plan, etc. In other words, will the community have council’s commitment to utilise a multiplicity of ‘consultation methods’ that are correlated with the perceived impact of any policy? For example: will council commit to a policy that mandates the use of three ‘consultation’ methods when the potential impact of the proposal is likely to affect 20% of the community? Or four methods when the impact will reach 40% of the community? Or will it become mandatory that all methods are used for something as vital as the budget, the council plan, or issues such as the racecourse?
- Will there be any recommendations that list options to IMPROVE current methodology and method?
Of course, any consultation policy, methodology, and method is only as good as the underlying philosophies and practices which generate the policy. If there is real commitment to ‘engage and consult’ in order to better inform decision making, then it is likely that anything will work. When however, we have a situation that is designed to merely pay lip service to such principles, then all methods will produce the desired result! Time will tell with this one!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 3, 2010 at 11:40 AM
One thing that has always struck me about this council is the passivity of councillors. The consultation issue is the perfect case in point. I have to wonder why it is so hard for councillors to state that we want (a); (b; or (c) included in any document or policy. All this would require is a simple motion. Instead it looks like everything is delegated to officers to come up with the answers. Pilling and Hyams motion on this issue is also incredibly weak. ‘Reviews’ are meaningless terms on most occasions Glen Eira Debates is perfectly correct to point out the difference between ‘engagement’ and ‘consultation’. Such language changes everything. In the end, what is done by council and its councillors should not come down to a game of semantics. Terms and conditions should be fully spelt out so that there is clarity and no chance for obfuscation or as the post suggests an empty exercise that falls into the category of a ‘clayton’s consultation’.
December 3, 2010 at 2:00 PM
The consultation committee included Pilling Hyams and Esakoff according to the minutes. If the motion was only carried, and pilling and Hyams moved and seconded it, then its obvious that Esakoff must have voted against this ‘review’. Was this done because she disagreed with the lax wording or because she agreed with the status quo? Whichever, if the former, then as Evans has said, all it should take is an amendment to the motion. My guess is that the status quo suits her and others down to the ground.
December 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM
We assume that the following comment was entered by ‘Smart Aleck’ into the wrong post –
The VLGA Good Guide provides definitions of both terms. They’re incredibly relevant to the above debate:
Engagement
Engagement is achieved when the community is and feels
part of the overall governance of that community. It is
informed, connected and feels it has a role to play
Councils that work at engaging their communities through
ongoing activities and policies (for example, festivals, ‘know
your parks’, etc.) create an environment in which more
effective consultation can occur.
Consultation
The process of informed communication between the council
and the community on an issue prior to the council making a
decision or determining a direction on that issue.”
One is therefore a process and the other an outcome of this process. They mustn’t be confused. Council has conflated both terms – that’s not what a consultation policy should be doing.
The VLGA Good Guide provides definitions of both terms. They’re incredibly relevant to the above debate:
Engagement
Engagement is achieved when the community is and feels
part of the overall governance of that community. It is
informed, connected and feels it has a role to play
Councils that work at engaging their communities through
ongoing activities and policies (for example, festivals, ‘know
your parks’, etc.) create an environment in which more
effective consultation can occur.
Consultation
The process of informed communication between the council
and the community on an issue prior to the council making a
decision or determining a direction on that issue.”
One is therefore a process and the other an outcome of this process. They mustn’t be confused. Council has conflated both terms – that’s not what a consultation policy should be doing.
December 4, 2010 at 8:49 AM
There does appear to be some movement at the station with the introduction of the Have Your Say online submission. Certainly an improvement. The Packer Park comments should be watched carefully. Many of those who commented argued that instead of the proposed bowling, croquet and petanque greens to replace the old bowling green, council should use this space for a kindergarten. The one and a half page 6 steps consultation policy that now exists and the earlier discussion paper on this wrote about loud voices and minority groups. We will have to wait and see what response all those who want kindergartens will get. Their comments are now registered. Whether they will be dismissed as hijacking the questionnaire will be a test of how genuine and open minded this new form of consultation will be. People have been asked to comment and they have. Council can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim that the silent majority prefer something else and ignore those who did bother to write.
December 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Council policy needs to be flexible to meet State Government requirements. Todays (Saturday) Age (page 3) states that the Melbourne 2030 planning policy is to be scrapped and a new policy developed. The Caulfeld Racecourse subcommittee meeting needs to be postponed until this new policy is introduced.
December 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM
Telling comment by the Melbourne Racing Club CEO when talking of the Caulfield racecourse development in the Annual report ‘I take this opportunity to thanks (sic) the Mayor, Councillors and administrators of the City of Glen Eira for their support of our Club in the past year and we look forward to working closely with them in the future’. Perhaps the words “Gang of Four” should have been inserted in front of the word Councillors. The word residents is noticably absent.
December 6, 2010 at 5:42 AM
View from a hill – Don’t forget that residents elected these councillors…you reap what you sow.