We present a series of emails from the Municipal Inspectorate. This is the result of a complaint to the Inspectorate to investigate a potential ‘leak’ (presumably by a councillor). The catalyst for this investigation was a public question asking whether more than one firm of lawyers was involved in the O’Neill affair and whether council had hired a consulting firm in its CEO appointment process. Of concern were the costs involved if either of these events took place.
The first email from the Inspectorate read in part as follows:
“I am an Inspector of Municipal Administration appointed pursuant to section 223A of the Local Government Act 1989. I am currently making some inquiries into a complaint from the Glen Eira councillors, which allege that public questions you asked of the ordinary council meeting of xxxxx referred to matters which had been earlier deemed confidential by Council.
I am making inquiries to ascertain whether there is any evidence to support a misuse of position breach by any of the councillors.”
Months later, there was another email, the most important paragraph reading:
“The Inspectorate has ascertained that the matters which were subject to your public questions were not deemed confidential by a resolution of Council. The Inspectorate has concluded its inquiries into this complaint as there was insufficient evidence to support a misuse of position breach under the Local Government Act 1989 by any of the councillors. Council has been advised of the outcome of these inquiries.”
Unsure of what the opening sentence actually meant, the resident contacted the Inspectorate seeking clarification. The response was: “Even if a council meeting is closed to the public, whilst the content discussed may be confidential, any resolution made at that meeting does not automatically become confidential unless a resolution is passed declaring it as such. Council meeting minutes usually provide the topics discussed in camera and these minutes are made publicly available. This was the case in this instance, therefore the Inspectorate was satisfied that there was enough publicly available information in relation to the questions you put to Council.”
COMMENT
These remarks and the events themselves are indeed extraordinary:
- Does this mean that Council has been operating ‘illegally’ for eons since NO RESOLUTION to maintain confidentiality has ever been recorded in the minutes of council meetings?
- Is this what we elected councillors for – to spend all their time complaining to ‘integrity’ agencies when residents are merely trying to get answers that should be freely available?
- Paranoia does not enhance good governance!
- Secrecy, as continually practised in Glen Eira is abhorrent and on the basis of the Inspectorate’s comments, highly suspect, if not in actual breach of the Local Government Act!
- How many complaints about Glen Eira City Council has the Inspectorate had to handle in the past ten years? We would not be at all surprised if it constitutes a world record!
- We note that Council has again retained the veil of secrecy since it has made no announcement regarding this investigation, nor its findings!
- Finally, we note that the scheduled CEO Special Committee of July 31st has still not made its minutes available. Maybe they are hoping that people will forget it ever took place!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM
If this is right and we take it a step further that would mean that every in camera meeting that isn’t accompanied by a resolution should be out in the open and that public questions that aren’t answered and hide behind the confidential excuse aren’t worth a cracker.
September 19, 2012 at 11:54 AM
For those interested in the Glen Eira euphemistically called ‘transition zones’ and the flood of recent amendments, then please check out the latest GERA posting – http://geresidents.wordpress.com
September 19, 2012 at 2:27 PM
By my count we’ve had 5 official inspectorate investigations and 2 official ombudsman investigations. That’s only what we know of. I’d bet my life that there have been plenty more. Reckon this tells us plenty about Newton and councillors and the lousy way this place operates. Make sure that on the 27th they’re gone starting with the gang and then Newton and Burke.
September 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Leaks would be the speciality of certain people sitting in some pretty plush offices I would say. Councillors get the dregs.
September 19, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Was there a process for the CEO reappointment? All that got published was a press release by Cr Esakoff on behalf of Council, with no details about the criteria, or the field of candidates, or how the candidates were assessed against the criteria. Because everything was kept secret we’ll never know. In other fields of endeavour we encourage whistleblowers.
I have long argued here that Council abuses its powers concerning secrecy, but its getting ridiculous if *matters* can now be deemed confidential. Its the discussion that is supposed to be secret, and *maybe* the information provided to support Council’s secret decision-making. Anybody should be able to ask questions though, examining and probing what was decided and why. As LGA makes clear, there is supposed to be a summary of the information that decisions were based on included in the minutes. Using public resources to intimidate people into refraining from asking questions, as Council has attempted here, should be unacceptable. Sometimes I wonder why we bother about a Councillor Conduct Policy, if its only going to be applied when the ruling clique deem it useful.