The lack of transparency and accountability in the way that Advisory Committees are set up and run by this Council remains an issue of great concern. By exempting Advisory Committees from the strictures imposed on Council Meetings, and Special Committee Meetings as a result of the ‘meeting procedures’ of the Local Law, there is the resultant decision making behind closed doors syndrome, as well as, the failure to be transparent about the bases for such decision making.
Let’s elaborate! The Local Government Act, under Section 93:6(d) states: “in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process”. When Advisory Committee notes are tabled in Council, there is the inevitable motion to accept the ‘recommendations’ made by these committees. Only on the rarest occasions has there been any documentation that accompanies such ‘minutes’. Hence the community has no real knowledge, or understanding, of WHY certain recommendations have been made. Nor are they in possession of the necessary facts and figures which might account for such decision making.
Also at issue is the question of how well the entire group of councillors participates and understands why such recommendations have been made. Each advisory committee (although open to all councillors) usually consists of two to three councillors and an equal if not greater number of officers. Our questions are:
-
do all 9 councillors get to see, much less read, the reports tabled by officers at these various Advisory Committee meetings?
-
If they don’t then does this make a mockery of the rubber stamping which goes on a full council meetings?
-
With no public disclosure of officers’ reports, are the very principles of transparency and good governance rendered null and void?
Readers also need to be aware that these Advisory Committee meetings are in reality ‘secret’ – that is, they do not disclose agendas, do not allow public attendance, and as with the Environment and Consultation Committees, can take up to 7 months for ‘minutes’ to be finally tabled at council meetings – when often the recommendations for certain actions have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE!!!
The ongoing justification is that councillors need to ‘firm up’ a view via discussion. Fine, but their recommendations are generally made on the bases of officers’ reports. These are either firm positions, or the officers proffer various options. This information should be available to the public. Officers and councillors must be accountable. With the current set up they are not!
Finally, one needs to consider again why other councils deem it appropriate to include community reps on advisory committees; why other councils publish agendas of these committee meetings; why other councils allow full public attandance at these meetings. Why is it that Glen Eira’s formats do not come within a bull’s roar of such procedures? We suggest that the answers to these questions all go to the heart of governance issues at Glen Eira.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 22, 2011 at 6:13 PM
so, we have the bullshit on one side about how this council works with the community and is so very, very aware of the need for transparency, and then we get the reality as outlined in the post. Nothing but nothing is transparent with this lousy lot. Councillors have had plenty of opportunities to do something about it. They’ve failed dismally each time the challenge has been thrown up to them. Hyams and Lipshits in particular should take much credit for this failure. It is the lawyer mentality, fostered by Newton, which makes all this possible. So you lousy legal eagles, get one thing clear. Accountability is also a legal requirement, and so is tranpsarency.
January 23, 2011 at 12:15 AM
Just for the heck of it, I’ve had a look at the MAV website and discovered their definition of good governance: “Good governance in local government requires a council to fulfil its role effectively, with its governing being characterised by the following elements of good governance:
Participatory
Consensus oriented
Accountable
Transparent
Responsive
Effective and efficient
Equitable and inclusive
Law abiding.
Good governance is critical to the relationship between each council and its community and to the relationships within each council”.
For each of the above categories, Glen Eira isn’t even in the ball park. Participatory – non existent! Consensus oriented – not what we think, but what the gang of four plus newton think. transparent – yeah, as clear as mud! responsive – if you can be bothered to wait forever. effective and efficient – in wasting our rates – you betcha! Law abiding – well that’s debatable given the loopholes in the local government act. Last but not least is accountable. Not when errors are never acknowledged, and no one takes responsibility for anything.
January 23, 2011 at 1:01 AM
I’d like to get some feedback please on the following comments.
The term governance seems to be a bit like a slippery eel. It is hard to define even in law, and very nebulous. We probably all have a good idea of what it might mean, and certainly carry expectations as to how our elected and non-elected officials should behave to ensure good governance. Some aspects are clear cut – conflicts of interests where people stand to make profit and so on. There’s also I think a requirement for a clear audit trail when it comes to both financial matters and to decision making.
Glen Eira Council I believe places all its emphasis on these sorts of definitions. This is necessary, but I don’t think it goes far enough. The MAV list of criteria is something that I would like to think as fundamental to the practice of good governance. When communities are excluded and decisions which affect their lives are dictated from afar, then I don’t believe that the ideals of governance are being followed. It’s all very well to have such things as a fraud policy, or a procurement policy as Glen Eira has recently updated, but that’s only half the job done. It’s equally important that people feel that their opinions are worth listening to. From observing council over recent times there doesn’t appear to be any respect for community views. Nor does there appear to be genuine commitment to involve people in setting the stage for decision making. If this council was really concerned with what people think and feel, then that should always be the first stop in any process of decision making. Instead, the community is given plans, policies, before they have had the chance to express a view. For me, this is poor governance. It parades as consultation, yet I think it’s nothing more than an illusion. Without consultation, there’s no participation, no consensus and thus, no real governance. All that’s left are the rules and regulations that attempt to track fraud and corruption.
All I’m saying is that good governance should, and must, be more than this narrow interpretation.
January 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM
There’s absolutely no consistency in any of the advisory committee minutes. Some have the actual motions and those who moved and seconded them; others have a vague outline of discussions that supposedly took place. It looks like those which are not likely to raise people’s ire such as the arts and culture advisory committee are far more open in what they record. Others such as the Audit committee are really scant on detail and outcomes – except that a report will be tabled in the near future!!!! It’s secrecy all over again. Let the peasants know what is going on, but only if it’s insignificant, minor, and can’t impact on the overall running, and vision that Newton has for Glen Eira. A sorry, sorry, state of affairs.
Even when you look at the terms of reference for each advisory committee there’s nothing there about how meetings should be reported back to council. There’s really nothing in the local law either. The least that we deserve is honesty and consistency. None of this is present.