How committed local government is to democracy, transparency and full accountability is most easily measured via its Local Law Meeting Procedures. Forget all the spin, all the tens of thousands of dollars spent on fancy words, posters, logos, mottos, and plain old bulldust. How council meetings are run, what is allowed and disallowed provides the real picture of how open, honest and community minded a council is.
The chart provided above reveals the full story of the abuses currently perpetrated by this administration and its select band of self interested councillors. We have gone to great lengths to verify our data. EVERY SINGLE Local Law from EVERY SINGLE council in the State has been analysed. Of the 79 councils in Victoria GLEN EIRA IS THE ONLY COUNCIL THAT DOES NOT HAVE A NOTICE OF MOTION in its meeting procedures. Unbelievable, and unforgiveable!
Year after year the same old drivel is trotted out by Lipshutz and his masters – ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. Well, we believe there is plenty that is ‘broke’ in Glen Eira and it all stems from the Local Law and associated policies. Here are some facts:
In Glen Eira, Newton has total control of the agenda. Again, no other council in the state has had the gall to include what is in our Local Law – “Other than for special meetings of Council called under section 84(1) of the Local Government Act 1989, the notice papers and agenda for all meetings of the Council shall be prepared by the Chief Executive Officer or his/her delegate”. That means that officially no councillor can get anything onto the agenda without Newton’s consent. A Notice of motion would allow issues to be put on the table and discussed/debated in an open council meeting. All that is required is a mover and a seconder. The motion may not result in the resolution being carried, but that’s democracy at work! The furphy that mechanisms currently exist via ‘urgent business’ provisions are sheer nonsense. For something to ‘qualify’ as ‘urgent business’ it has to occur after the publication of the agenda and before the subsequent council meeting – ie a few days! Then there’s also the pathetic option of a request for a report. Again, this may take months to surface and all it does is provide officers with the time and opportunity to skew the information in whatever way they wish. History shows that such reports are simply ‘noted’ on most occasions and/or recommendations fully accepted. Without a Notice of Motion councillors, in trying to represent their constituents are hamstrung, silenced, and basically knobbled.
When every other council in the state sees fit to include a Notice of Motion in its meeting procedures, then Glen Eira’s reluctance to afford its residents and councillors this fundamental right needs to be carefully examined. Who stands to lose out if a Notice of Motion is codified? Why doesn’t Glen Eira embrace this democratic principle? Who are the culprits that oppose such rights and why? It’s worth noting that when this issue came up in June 2011 the councillors who then voted against having a notice of motion were Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff. Forge had removed herself from chamber and Lobo was absent. The general gist of the arguments was that a Notice of Motion was ‘dangerous’ (Lipshutz), ‘irresponsible’ (Hyams), and that voting against it was ‘protecting future councils’ (Esakoff).
More on the travesties that currently exist in the Local Law in following posts!
Glen Eira Debates 
January 17, 2013 at 11:29 AM
A great post. The only council out of 79 is a record in anyone’s language. The gang will have a very hard time trying to justify this bit because no argument can justify their collusion and doing Newton’s bidding again and again.
January 17, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Pilling and Magee both supported a notice of motion when it came up last. I would expect Sounness and Delahunty to follow this line. Okotel will probably align herself with Esakoff. If this reading is correct then Lobo will be the one to watch. I hope he has the courage to fulfill his Christian principles and vote in a manner that benefits all residents and not just those determined to operate a closed shop.
January 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM
Nah, when the pressure gets to hot he won’t show up.
January 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM
At many of the Council Meetings I have attended it has been mentioned that various items, for example changes to public questions procedures, shouldn’t be included in the Local Law because the law takes too long and to much rigmarole to change. The argument is that it is much better to have various policies and include a reference to those policies in the Local Law eg. ïnclude the paragraph “as outlined in policy X applicable at the time”. Yet here we have something as basic as setting the agenda items for a Council Meeting and it’s set in concrete that it’s the purely up to the CEO to set the agenda when surely it should be the Mayor that ultimately decides what goes on the agenda. Pull your fingers out Councillors and start doing your jobs.
January 17, 2013 at 6:58 PM
We should remind readers that the last local law review occurred years ago. As Bruce has noted, at that time the Councillor Questions Policy was removed from the Local Law with the promise that this would also be ‘reviewed’. As is the normal procedure with this council, nothing has happened. The old draconian, gag of a policy remains. How councillors can remove something and provide no valid reasons for such removal, and with no information as to what will replace it, is unfathomable. The unstated advantage of course, is that as a mere ‘policy’ there is no legal requirement to seek community input.
The policy together with the entire meeting procedures desperately need to be revamped, removed, and sent into oblivion. In this day and age, where there is the option of taking questions on notice, the ‘no surprises policy’ is anathema to good governance and open and accountable government.
January 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM
Gotta hand it to CEO Newton – faced with a pack of unthinking Councillors he has stitched them up so that there is pretty much nothing they can do. Combine the no notice of motion with the no surprises policy (i.e. nothing can be discussed at an ordinary Council Meeting that hasn’t already been discussed behind closed doors) and you pretty well have what is wrong with Glen Eira in a nutshell.
As Bruce above so elegantly put it – time these Councillors start doing their jobs and accepted that they, the Councillors, run the show. The Administration reports to the elected Council, the elected Council does not, and should never, report to the Administration.
All it will take is some thought and backbone on the part of 5 Councillors and things will start to change.
January 17, 2013 at 4:42 PM
What is there to lose if Newton & co lost their power and Glen Eira again became a Council for the people. We may see a more concerted effort to gain valuable open space. The ‘gang’ may disolve under the pressure of the rest!
Now is probably a good time to draw a line in the mulch and see what our ELECTED representatives can deliver…….we all dare you!
January 17, 2013 at 6:58 PM
C’mon guys. Notices of motion would remove power from the administration and potentially expose Councillors to unwelcome scrutiny. Can’t have that as it could lead to a Council based on openness, transparency and accountability. Now where have I heard those three key words before?
January 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM
How did you find out that GE is the only council without a NOM procedures?
I think our councilors should have this right, but most NOM procedures, but in most Local Law rules the CEO still has the right to block any councilors efforts to agenda an item if he/she feels fit to do so.
January 18, 2013 at 9:56 AM
Simple! Councils publish their local laws. Meeting procedures are part of the local laws. Hence we’ve put in the time and effort to examine EVERY SINGLE document from the 79 councils.
As for the comment regarding the CEO’s power to block most ‘councillor efforts to agenda an item’, well that of course depends on the fine print and the restrictions that the councillor group decides to impose. For the vast majority of the councils we examined the only restriction on a Notice of Motion was that it not be insulting, or involve the mooted expenditure of over a certain amount. In other cases, there was practically no limitations whatsoever such as the Knox Notice of Motion presented below –
Knox City Council Meeting Procedure and Use of Common Seal Local Law 2008
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7
(2) A Councillor may up to one hour before the commencement time of a Meeting lodge
any Notice of Motion on any item that they wish to move at the Meeting, and:
(a) if lodged must be lodged in writing with the Chief Executive Officer;
(b) if received more than 24 hours before the Meeting, the Chief Executive
Officer must distribute a copy of the Notice of Motion to all Councillors prior
to commencement of the Meeting;
(c) if received within 24 hours of the Meeting, the Chief Executive Officer must
distribute a copy of the Notice of Motion to all Councillors attending the
Meeting prior to commencement of the Meeting;
(d) if lodged, the Chairperson must call on the Councillor to move the Notice of
Motion in conjunction with clause 19(1)(i) of the Agenda; and
(e) must be deemed withdrawn if not moved by the Councillor when invited by the
Chairperson to do so.”
What also needs pointing out is that a Notice of Motion clause requires the CEO to keep a register of all such requests and that they be included on the agenda if not at the meeting they are raised at, then at the very next meeting. This would be a godsend in Glen Eira where the wheels of bureaucracy as we’ve noted many times continue to move at glacial pace!
January 19, 2013 at 10:30 AM
That was excellent research indeed and it must have taken hours of work, so we are well and truly the lonely kid on the block, Lets see if that can be changed.