In this post we will concentrate on two important aspects of council’s operations as they are depicted in the Agenda Items – (1) continued selective editing and publishing timeline of Assembly Meetings and (2) community consultation committee as a mirror of this administration’s attitude to genuine community consultation and representation.
RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY
The Local Government Act (Section 80A) stipulates that – The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable—
This is clearly not happening in Glen Eira. Minutes from the 27th October and from the 10th November are still to be tabled and made available. Yet, when we look at what has been published, the order is astounding and we believe quite deliberate. It is not therefore adhering to the Local Government Act but rather indulging in political machinations that attempt to keep certain items (like the guns in parks) under wraps for as long as possible. Why was the November the 4th assembly included in the minutes of the 24th November Council Meeting whilst the highly contentious 20th October meeting was only published for this agenda (15th December)? And what has happened to the missing Records of Assembly? Here are the respective council meetings and the Records of Assembly minutes published for each of these council meetings.
24/11/2015 Council Meeting
6 October
13 October
November 4th
15th December 2015 Council Meeting
20th October
17th November
24th November
Some items from these latest records deserve highlighting –
Cr Delahunty – can an update on the recent meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust be given. Councillors who are Trustees gave an update to the extent they were permitted to by the Trust’s Code of Conduct.
Cr Delahunty – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse.
Cr Sounness – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse. Role of the Private Building Surveyor.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE
Quite frankly, we have to wonder why council even bothers in having this committee – apart from going through the motions and pretending that Glen Eira is so community conscious and ‘democratic’. Meeting after meeting achieves bugger all in our view. Here is the evidence to support this claim –
The committee minutes of 19th February 2015 show that a presentation was made by Iain Walker of the New Democracy Foundation. The foundation is geared towards ‘the idea of citizen juries’ and to ‘place decision making in the hands of community members’. The minutes also state that ‘discussion on selection process, structure of juries, methods used, authority given to the jury and costs occurred’ took place. The ‘Action Item’ was for officers to send Mr Walker a ‘letter of thanks’!
Now 2 meetings later we get this morphed situation –
Report on how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and advise about any statutory obstacles which may impede implementation
A report was presented that provided an overview of how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and the statutory issues in pursuing this approach. The report identified that the approach has been used in South America, North America, Asia, Africa, Europe, US and Canada. It has been adopted as a way of engaging citizens and ensuring that local government spending reflects the needs of local communities. Australia has developed their own particular take on participatory budgeting that seeks informed recommendations on budget decisions through the citizen jury or panel format.
Although there are no statutory limitations or requirements for the implementation of participatory budgeting process, there are some potential restrictions that need consideration in exploring application of such a model. The most pertinent include:
- Council consists of democratically elected members who are afforded the responsibility to govern and make decisions on matters affecting their municipality and community.
- There are substantial costs associated with implementing a quality participatory budgeting process.(New Democracy Foundation estimates $85-90,000)
Any recommendations made by a participatory budgeting process are still required to be approved by normal Council arrangements. According to the Local Government Act 1989, Councillors are the legal authority to make decisions whilst participating as a member of the Council in a formal council meeting.
Action: Further discussion participatory budgeting and options for Council to use this approach to be on agenda for the next meeting in February. Officers to contact the ‘New Democracy Foundation’ to discuss options for a participatory budget process including costs and timelines.
COMMENTS – There is nothing in any of the minutes to indicate that ‘participatory budgeting’ was now the focus instead of ‘citizen juries’ in general (based on the previous Iain Walker presentation. No doubt it will take another 3 or 4 meetings (ie at least a year) for anything to happen. And it would be so wonderful if instead of highlighting the presumed ‘negatives’ of an issue, the ‘positives’ were also included! But then, that is the Glen Eira way – pretend to listen, then do nothing. As we’ve previously stated – progress in this council occurs at glacial speed!
Some other examples of inexplicable tardiness follow –
Minutes of 27th May feature this gem – Discussion occurred on what Council should consult on and whether new Council policies should be subject of community consultation. The discussion was adjourned to a future meeting so that John Fien could begin. Result? This fundamental issue has now disappeared into the dustbin of history!
Minutes of 19th August 2015 include this – The committee considered that the use of social media could enhance community engagement and that an increased use of social media would be of benefit to Council. Action Item – Officers to prepare a paper setting out how other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced.
But this current set of minutes includes the following –
Report – How other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced –This report is being prepared by Community Relations and will be presented at the next meeting of this committee in February 2016. Thus in Glen Eira it takes at least 6 months for anything to even be initiated much less implemented.
The best however comes with this from the current minutes –
Definition of consultation and informing the community
Susan McKenna (community representative) sought clarification on Council’s definition of consultation. In the Community Engagement Strategy; consultation is described as obtaining community feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. This definition reflects the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), Public Participation Spectrum.
Susan stated that the revised plans for the Booran Road Reservoir development are not currently on the Council website.
Action: Councillors present committed to raising these issues at a future Assembly of Councillors
Comments: SO WE’VE NOW HAD A COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE GOING FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS AND THE BASICS REMAIN UNCLEAR. We also know that officer reports are tabled at these meetings but never made public. We also know that past community reps have found the process completely unsatisfactory and resented the continual doctoring of minutes or very selective inclusions. We offer our commiserations to the current crop of community reps who no doubt are trying their utmost to ensure that improvements are made but are continually stymied by a culture that sees no place for community views, much less genuine participation and god forbid ’empowerment’ for the community!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 11, 2015 at 4:22 PM
Betyas that Sue won’t be on next crop of reps. Asks too many good questions and the cheek of her – she bloody well wants answers too.
December 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM
There is no way that Lipshutz Hyams and the rest would want consultation on policies. They want to write the policy and then interpret it any way they like. Imagine letting people have a say on things like sporting ground policy or guns in parks or introducing a tree register. The last thing they would want.
December 11, 2015 at 7:10 PM
Cr Delahunty – can an update on the recent meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust be given. Councillors who are Trustees gave an update to the extent they were permitted to by the Trust’s Code of Conduct
This is incredible. Councillor colleagues having to beg council representatives on the trustees for information as to what is happening. A couple of postings back there was the letter from the department where they said that the trustees had developed their own governance rules. No code of conduct is acceptable if it means that those responsible for oversight of public lands are gagged. This is a deplorable situation where all parties have failed – government, department, council and especially Lipshutz Hyams and Esakoff. They should resign immediately or be sacked with the entire trustees.
December 12, 2015 at 12:48 PM
Pretty good racket. Trustees know it all, non trustee councillors know a smidgeon and mug public knows bugger all. What does Neville and dept know?
December 12, 2015 at 12:06 AM
what’s this booran reservoir plan changes, anyone have any info?
December 12, 2015 at 1:31 PM
It looks like Daniel Andrew’s government has more important things to do including ripping off contracts, trying to make sure grade separation project is fulfilled and making sure there is money etc Why would his government look after petty things. Liberals were smart, chose the Council trustees and Labor is living in la la train land and behaving like puffing billy. The party will loose votes if the Council Trustees are not replaced. Labor for ordinary people and Liberals for rich and mighty who will not share information.
December 12, 2015 at 3:50 PM
If they don’t act on the AG’s report on the MRC they will lose my vote for sure
December 12, 2015 at 4:14 PM
CONST
ITUENCY QUESTIONS
34
COUNCIL PROOF
Thursday, 10 December 2015
Southern
Metropolitan
Region
Mr
DAVIS
(Southern Metropolitan)
—
My
constituency question relates to the issue of Crown l
and
at the Caulfield Racecourse, where there is also a public
recreation ground and public park, as
Ms
Pennicuik and
I well understand
.
I note that council minutes of a
meeting of 13
October draw attention to a series of
issues
.
The minutes state that council noted the report
and indicated it would write to the state government as
the public land manager for the Crown land at Caulfield
Racecourse to ask for its approval to install six sports
fields within the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse
reserve
.
What I seek from the minister is a preparedness
to meet with the City of Glen Eira to thrash out the
issue and ensure that the sport and recreation capacity at
the racecourse is maximised
.
December 12, 2015 at 6:12 PM
It’s not GECC that the Minister needs to meet with: it’s CRRT and her recalcitrant department. The subject land isn’t under Council control. Council would be negligent if it invested in something it had no control over.
December 12, 2015 at 6:53 PM
That Council is democratically elected is dubious. A large chunk of the municipality is disenfranchised according to ABS. Voter turnout is poor. Councillors have to introduce themselves on the streets since so few people know who their councillors are. Majority of Council decisions are not made by councillors in Council meetings, but by Council staff, allegedly with delegated authority. Council his little oversight of the decisions being made in their name.
I’m amazed Council would even mention Best Value Principles since it treats them as a joke. Although Council “must develop a program of regular consultation with its community in relation to the services it provides”, the Act doesn’t specify in which century.
Council has a Community Engagement Strategy, believe it or not. As we saw with Cr Delahunty’s extraordinary speech in support of the Administration’s desire to get rid of the Conservatory in Caulfield Park, or the introduction of the controversial new Zones, or the myriad activies where Council subsidises developers, they just don’t believe in their own Strategy.
Council has stated that it consults in order to decide well and act effectively. It is reasonable to conclude that when it fails to consult on strategies and major projects that it is not looking to decide well or act effectively.
As for the Community Consultation Advisory Committee, whose existence you won’t easily find on Council’s website, its purpose is “To make recommendations to Council in relation to the ways in which Council consults with residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders in the community to ensure maximum participation, communication and value to the community”. It would appear to be struggling.
December 12, 2015 at 7:15 PM
The terms of reference also limit its influence to recommendation “in relation to the ways in which Council consults”. Nothing about participating in decision making, or deciding what issues are worthy of consultation, or why these reps don’t get a vote. Smoke and mirrors over and over again.
December 13, 2015 at 9:27 AM
The grade separation on the Frankston rail line, I think showed some hallmarks of best practice on community consultation.
1. Valid attempt to inform residents of meeting times for the consultations & staggered meeting times, & different venues to accommodate people lives etc.
2. Pro active in collecting comments on site, between the fixed meetings.
2. No staged presentation/s justifying an already done deal
3. Multiple ways of seeking and receiving input/comments
4. Regular updates on what’s happened and going to happen, letter boxing & electronic contacts, willing to speak via telephone to answer questions
5. Changes made to accommodate public sentiment
Their consultation may not have been perfect, but I sensed a genuine commitment with the people employed to deliver this process.
It may have cost a bomb to deliver such a lengthy process. But the cost will only be a tiny almost insignificant fraction of the final cost price of the separations. And I bet all this was delivered with less staff than Paul Burke’s colossal 300 plus department of thumb twiddler’s.
The trouble with GE is they do not what to involve residents in any dialogue, they see the residents as the enemy. Until this negative attitude changes GE will continue to deliver 3rd grade outcomes in what they do, and Burke’s propaganda machine will continue to waste everyone’s time & goodwill and dollars & time again with their thinly veiled nonsense.