Secretive council urged to open up
Miki Perkins
November 8, 2011
MELBOURNE City Council needs top-level government advice on whether its meetings have become too secretive, a councillor says.
At a council meeting tonight, Jackie Watts will call on her fellow councillors to ask the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell or the Auditor-General for advice on how the council is interpreting the guidelines around confidentiality.
The council has been under fire for the high percentage of items deemed ”confidential” on its agenda, which closes the meeting to the public.
A council meeting in September was public for just 12 minutes.
Cr Watts said she wanted to get clarification on how the Local Government Act determined which items should be confidential, because she believed the council’s ”default position” should be one of disclosure.
”How can people make a decision about performance of council without knowing what’s going on?” Cr Watt said.
”My reading of the act is that the default position is disclosure, and the option is confidentiality, [but] this notion hasn’t been developed as much as it might.”
The debate hinges on a section of the Local Government Act that says a council ”may” deem items confidential – including personnel, industrial and proposed development matters – but doesn’t compel councils to do this.
Cr Watt said the council did deal with matters that should be made confidential, but some of these could be partially disclosed so that the public knew what was being discussed.
Also before what is likely to be a highly charged meeting, are two motions relating to the removal of protesters at City Square.
Greens councillor Cathy Oke wants the council to support the protesters’ call for an independent inquiry into the eviction and produce a report detailing the chronology of its actions leading up to the eviction. Cr Brian Shanahan will put forward a proposal to consider attendance – rather than postal – voting at the next election in 2012, which, he says, will be less open to fraud.
”I have no evidence of fraud, but anecdotally people tell me it’s easier to have looser arrangements with a postal vote, so that needs to be tightened up,” Cr Shanahan said.
And Cr Watts wants her fellow councillors to replace paper Christmas cards with electronic greetings, saying cards were a waste of ratepayers’ money, and ban the use of personal photographs on any Christmas greetings.
”The inclusion of individuals’ photographs on Christmas greetings constitutes self-promotion,” the motion before council says.
”It is an election year but, leaving that aside, any kind of personal promotion is inappropriate,” Cr Watts said yesterday. ”It’s a small matter, but it signals a larger issue.”
The council will also consider if it will support a controversial Woolworths planning proposal for a residential and supermarket proposal in North Melbourne.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 8, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Ah yes, good ol’ S89 from Local Government Act 1989. It lists 9 topics, any of which may be used by a Council or special committee to resolve to close the meeting. The most curious of them is 89(2)(i) “a resolution to close the meeting to members of the public”. So you can close a meeting to the public in order to discuss a resolution to close the meeting to the public. Its a delicious example of recursive logic.
As we’ve seen, in Glen Eira secrecy is so common that the mayor on occasion no longer bothers to inquire whether any member wishes to speak against the motion. I still expect the details of any resolutions made to be published in the Minutes of that meeting.
November 8, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Melbourne’s got nothing on Glen Eira. 12 minutes is a marathon compared to the 3 to 5 minute meetings here. Committees are secret business. We know nothing about gesac, nothing about laws committees, nothing about ceo performance appraisals. There’s plenty more but memory fails me right now.
November 8, 2011 at 11:27 AM
There is good reason to keep the CEO renewal or not, in out of the public domain.
A. it’s very personal
B. any irregularities or in the process could scuttle the process
C. any loss of face may lead to litigation by an aggrieved party
and there is likely to be D E F and G all the to Z, if it not done right, and I would say respectfully, watch-out.
November 8, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Point well made.
November 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM
Comment on the Age’s website:
How pleasing it is that some Councillors at the Melbourne City Council are prepared to stand up and demand that far more of their Council meetings be open to public scrutiny. I hope that this attitude spreads to other municipalities, and in particular to the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council where the recent re-appointment of the Chief Executive was done in a secret closed meeting, with Councillors being told that they were not allowed to disclose any details publicly, including who voted for the appointment and who voted against. This disgraceful performance came after the position was not advertised when the Councillors should have, at the very least, tested the market for a job that pays well over $300,000 a year. Being open and accountable is not the way with this Council and if the State Government truly believes in such a concept it should step in and demand that changes occur to make it so.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/secretive-council-urged-to-open-up-20111107-1n3w3.html#ixzz1d5SB8V1V