What would any reasonable person conclude from the following sentence? –

“Council can assure you that emails to Councillors are treated in accordance with the wishes of individual Councillors”.

This sentence comes from the response to a public question (10th April, 2006) and signed off by the then Mayor, David Feldman. It suggests that vetting, intercepting, archiving, of emails is done with the INDIVIDUAL CONSENT OF EACH COUNCILLOR. Reality, however might suggest something entirely different. We might even contemplate whether each and every councillor is aware that this happens, the full extent of the ‘surveillance’, and if they are aware, whether or not they have ever granted their unequivocal, individual consent. It also raises many legal questions as to what constitutes ‘official council business”. If residents email a councillor inviting him/her to a private party because he/she happens to be friends with these residents, then what right have anonymous officers got  to view such private emails? And who is the ultimate arbiter of ‘official business’ anyway? The real issue though is how can something be classified as ‘official business’ unless it is first opened and read by an anonymous council-appointed censor?

The Whelan Report made it absolutely clear that the siege mentality of this administration is to gather as much ‘information’ (on councillor activity?) as possible –“The administration has adopted the practice of retaining copious records as protection against possible accusations by Councillors”. Logically then, in order to sift through what might be ‘accusatory’, everything must be captured, logged, archived, and kept in a little black book on someone’s desk.

Surveillance is enshrined even further through the Staff Code of Conduct – “Staff members must keep their manager/Director informed about information/requests from Councillors. If a matter is of interest to a Councillor, the Councillor may raise it with the Director or CEO and they ought to be aware of it so that they can respond effectively. The only officers who are authorised to provide written information to Councillors are the CEO and Directors. This includes faxes and emails. The reason is that the CEO and Directors meet regularly with Councillors and are aware of the context of requests and issues. All written information to Councillors goes via the Councillors’ secretariat in the CEO’s Office”.

In most organisations, this is innocuous and reasonable. How benign such as state of affairs is in Glen Eira is the fundamental question. Senior administration have elevated themselves to the role of self-appointed gatekeepers, collecting and feeding whatever information they want to councillors. Further, it could be argued that other staff are dragooned into being pseudo spies, reporting every conversation and request to those on high. We know of repeated councillor requests for information which have failed to materialise, or have been delayed for so long that the issue is dead and buried.

One thing is absolutely clear to many residents. The corporate culture of Glen Eira is in desperate need of change. Only Councillors can enact this change – if there’s the will and the courage – as demonstrated in the Gold Coast councillors’ resolution.