Councils throughout Victoria are obligated under the revised Local Government Act, 2020 to introduce a Community Engagement policy by June. The Act also stipulates various principles that must be adhered to by each council. Yet there is still plenty of ‘wriggle room’ within the legislation for councils to introduce what they want. In our view, Glen Eira Council has taken full advantage of this ‘wriggle room’ and basically produced a document which says very little that is a departure from the current state of affairs. What we have is another document short on detail and big on vague ‘promises’.
To illustrate the drawbacks with the proposed policy, we’ve taken a quick look at the work that other councils have done with their policies – what they actually reveal to their residents and how consultation will be implemented, monitored, and most importantly, evaluated. The differences are quite revealing.
For starters, below is the table which represents the level of consultation that council will commit to for various projects. The categories listed (ie ‘inform’, ‘consult’, involve’ etc.) are based on the International Association of Public Participation standards. All councils have included these standards. The difference between Glen Eira and other councils is the level of consultation each council assigns to its various projects.
Here is the Glen Eira version:
Compare the above with what Moreland proposes:
AND Kingston:
Moreland and Kingston see no problem in going to the higher level of engagement (ie involve to collaborate) when it will be introducing structure plans, major infrastructure works, etc. In contrast, all Glen Eira promises is the lowest level of participation – ‘inform’ and ‘consult’ and maybe, just maybe, we might get to the ‘involve’ stage! Moreland and Kingston both start from ‘involve’ and also incorporate ‘collaborate’. Why this distinction is important is made clear by the following screen dump from the Bayside policy which enunciates clearly the level of decision making that these two categories (‘inform’ and ‘consult’) represent – basically nothing more than ‘give us your opinion’. Resident views have practically no influence on the final decision making!
On another issue, there is nothing in the Glen Eira ‘promises’ that comes close to the important components of ‘evaluation’ and constant improvement. Council is quite happy with statements that are nothing more than generalities – again in contrast to how other councils have viewed the topics.
Bayside for example tells its residents:
We will provide timely access to factual and transparent information on the project or matter, including:
- A summary of known impacts, risks and benefits including social, natural and built environment,and financial
- Relevant background information, technical and research reports,related policies, budget estimate and funding source
All Glen Eira can muster in its promises is to repeat the standards: We will ensure that participants in community engagement have access to objective, relevant and timely information to inform their participation in engagement activities.
Furthermore, there is barely a single word in the Glen Eira document that mentions evaluation per se. Without analysing how well a consultation process has been done, how can council ever hope to improve? Equally important is how any consultation will be assessed – what areas will be investigated? What questions will be asked? And what processes will be introduced to ensure that progress is made and that residents come away feeling that they have partaken in a program where their input at whatever level has had some impact on decision making or process?
Other councils are not so silent on this important aspect of consultation.
Manningham Council – We measure our engagement performance in order to test that we are delivering public value to our community. We measure the level of engagement or number of interactions, submissions made, surveys completed, participants in a workshop, letters distributed, calls taken and more. We also measure participation outcomes. How were the decisions that we made influenced by community inputs? When we listened and consulted, did we act on what we heard and understood?
Warnambool – Evaluation is important to the ongoing development of Community Engagement. Evaluation should focus on the impact and process of engagement and should include views of participants.
Cardinia: undertaking informal and formal consultation to receive feedback from the community about the communication and engagement approaches undertaken by council to assist in implementing continual improvement.
These are just a few of the commitments that other councils have made regarding monitoring and evaluation. We have not had the time to go through every councils drafts.
What is apparent however, is that the draft Glen Eira policy is nothing more than a continuation of its current processes. Simply not good enough!
January 7, 2021 at 12:10 PM
Brilliant and thank you for making the differences easy to see.
January 7, 2021 at 2:10 PM
Agree with you. Other councils aren’t perfect but they are sure 100% better in how they treat their ratepayers and how well they listen to them. Our lot only pretends to listen.
January 8, 2021 at 9:31 AM
We’ve had a deluge of consultations. Would be good to count how many included anything that residents said they wanted in the end. My guess is that very few have done this.
January 8, 2021 at 4:29 PM
Our town hall bureaucrats should have to demonstrate what changes or ideas they have made due to the community consultation process at every step of the process. This would mean Glen Eira Corp., would have in involve the community in actually forming any draft plan or strategy.
We shouldn’t be given 3 options to choose from, knowing full well that 2 of the options are dummies, and the decision to have option “whatever” has already been made. This type of phony consultation just wastes our time and goodwill, and we have seen so much of this happen in GE.
January 8, 2021 at 10:46 PM
I remember a certain senior bureaucratic resident (MODERATORS: several words deleted) whose name sounded something like “JERK” who told me more than once, that it was his job to represent the “silent majority” of residents. That in his opinion were more than happy with the way GE was being run. I would reply back to him “silence doesn’t mean consent”. He hated that because he sure as hell wasn’t the slightest bit interested in engaging with anyone opinion unless it concurred with his own.
I’m no where near convinced that this “silent majority” mindset has been banished from within the bureaucratic ranks.
Some of more recent weird methods council has concocted to reach out to this so called “silent majority” troubles me greatly. To me it looks like just another loophole to garner uniformed opinions via loaded questions that support their predetermined position.
Mind you I’m not sure how anyone or anybody could engage with an almost totally disinterested and apathic community. It’s a real problem.
January 9, 2021 at 10:00 AM
How about the GE newspaper opening a page to allow public comment via letters/emails.
We’ve lost our local newspaper/s that did carried letters via the “letters to editor” section, the demise of the local press did close down a legitimate form of independent public out-reach.
Some letters and issues did get traction and bureaucratic abuse or apathy was publicly aired, as were the complementary letters, and rusty doors at the town hall did creak open.
We could call it letters to the Town Hall or Letters to the CEO or something like that.
We recently broached this idea with the CEO, and got a flat no-way.
This begs the question whose newspaper is it, “yours or ours” ?. I think to be a credible newspapers and be a successful form of communication it needs to be both.
Ratepayers fund all of its production costs and delivery costs, so why should we be excluded from having a voice in its pages to express our views, complements or gripes etc. We residents/readers should be sidelined to mere consumers at their will.
Sure it will need controls but that’s not rocket science. Good news often flows from bad news. This is how change through any democratic government is suppose to work.
It is about time the bureaucrats at the town hall matured to the point and realized they are not there to control or manipulate residents, they are there to serve them.
January 9, 2021 at 12:01 PM
CORRECTION PLEASE
“We residents/readers should be sidelined to mere consumers at their will.”
SHOULD READ
“We residents/readers shouldn’t be sidelined to mere consumers at their will.”
January 11, 2021 at 10:33 PM
I think GE council have very little interest in involving the residents and ratepayers. Collaboration is very minimal. The expectation is that Council know what is best for us and we rubber stamp what they decide.
Hope fully the new members of the Council will change previous attitudes and practices that basically made decisions and then ran sham consultations with residents and ratepayers. I agree with the above comments.
March 2, 2021 at 11:49 PM
It is pretty obvious what they are up to when the “involve” categories are the Financial Plan and Asset Plan – both of which are unlikely to have much community interest given they are more matters relating to how the council is managed. Yet the issues which residents have continually shown they are concerned with, like strategic planning, is set to “consult”. There is an asterisk there stating they anticipate it will go to the “involve” level but that will not be enforceable.
They knew they had to put “involve” for something, so they deliberately chose to state they would involve residents in areas of council responsibility which avoid topics residents have clearly been interested in and trying to influence, most notably planning.
Do they really think we can’t see this?