The following post on Council’s secrecy has appeared on Cr. Pilling’s blog  under the heading of “Council meeting items and the issue of confidentiality”.

“The seemingly burgeoning amount of in-camera (confidential) agenda items not only here in Glen Eira but also in other municipalities including the City of Melbourne where a recent meeting had less than twenty mins of public discussion has been highlighted recently. I acknowledge the concerns raised on this issue by the local website Glen Eira debates.

Yesterday I raised the following points with other Crs and the CEO.
-“One of the issues for Glen Eira in 2012 is how to address the seemingly increasing amount of confidential items that are held in the in-camera section of the meeting agenda- increasingly so over the past few years.

Our aim as a Council should be to reduce this to the essential minimum so as to allow for as maximum public discussion as possible on agenda items.

Whilst I acknowledge that there are instances such as business tenders and OH @ S issues that require confidentiality I feel that there needs to be far greater efforts in keeping other items in the public agenda. Other councils such as Port Phillip if necessary spilt the item in two to allow for public discussion.

At each of the pre-meeting assemblies there should be an improved discussion and questioning as to the why and of the need for any proposed confidential agenda item,”

COMMENT: We acknowledge that this is a step forward in meeting community concerns and congratulate Cr. Pilling on his initiative and making his email public. However, we see a real paradox in the suggested ‘solution’.  Discussions will again be held behind closed doors; excuses and (spurious?) explanations as to why something should remain ‘confidential’ will be provided and that will be the end of the story. The solution must be open, frank, and full discussion on this issue in ordinary council meetings. The Grill’d episode is the perfect example of why there needs to be public explanation as to why Newton deemed this item as confidential. Councillors have it in their power to remove ‘confidential’ status via a vote and resolution. Even if this vote is defeated, it will serve the interests of transparency – let the community know how each councillor votes and the reasoning  behind such voting. Secondly, if councillors are really concerned about how this council operates, then they should focus their attention on the Local Law and the meeting procedures. This draconian and anti-democratic document needs to be rescinded and then rewritten. Posturing behind closed doors does not serve the public interest!

We’ve copied the following from ‘The Mayne Report’ as another example of what occurs in other councils. Firstly, there are transcripts/audio recordings; secondly the non existence of the ‘no surprises’ policy where councillor questions have to be written and submitted days ahead, and last but not least, the Mayor’s endorsement of the fact that councillors are entitled to ask whatever questions they wish of other councillors since ‘there is a right to be able to do it’. In Glen Eira such ‘rights’ have been continually and deliberately eroded.

“Mayor Geoff Gough: Cr Mayne, any questions?

Cr Stephen Mayne: Yes Mr Mayor, I note that the former mayor Charles Pick has made a fairly rapid transition from mayor of Manningham to lobbyist for local developers and I was just wishing to ask you whether we as a council need to develop a protocol about the appropriate way to engage with our former mayor now that he is financially engaged by local developers to achieve planning outcomes in Manningham.

Mayor Geoff Gough: (after conferring with CEO Lydia Wilson) Mr Goldsworthy.

EGM Corporate Services, Steve Goldsworthy: Through you Mr Mayor, there are provisions in the Local Government Act that deal with misuse of position and they apply both to current councillors and past councillors. And there are a number of provisions that are referred to, but one is in relation to information that comes to a councillor, or a member of a special committee for that matter, by virtue of their position. So it’s not information that would be readily in the community sphere. So that’s probably the extent of the legislative provisions. It may well be though that if councillors feel uncomfortable with contacts being made by a former mayor and feel that there may be community perceptions that would flow from those contacts and from developments that might occur, then it may well be worthwhile for the council to develop a protocol that councillors feel comfortable with.

Cr Stephen Mayne: In light of the fact that I’ve received calls (from former mayor Pick) canvassing and requesting information and feedback as to my feelings on things like the Coptic Church and the Mathieson pokies venue in the Yarra Valley Country Club. And in light of the former mayor’s intense activity within the council on a continuing basis, I’m asking you Mr Mayor whether you think that we, at a political level, as a group of councillors, need to actually sort of formalise the protocols around which a former mayor, active still inside the council, about how we as politicians should engage with that individual in light of the fact that he is now paid by developers to achieve development outcomes in Manningham.

Mayor Geoff Gough: Well, people must be in receipt of news that I don’t know about, about the activities of our former mayor. But as far as I’m concerned I think Mr Goldsworthy’s explanation is correct. If you’ve got any further information about his activities, I don’t know.

Cr Mayne: just one more for Cr Macmillan. Cr Macmillan, is it correct that former mayor Pick advised you and helped in the specific wording of your motion that was rescinded this evening?

Cr Macmillan: I don’t have to answer and I won’t. It’s none of his business.

Cr Stephen Mayne: And a question for Cr Downie. Is Cr Downie aware of who sent the letter to a private school principal that was discussed in a meeting of councillors last night?

Cr Downie: I don’t have to answer.

Cr Mayne: I have no further questions, Mr Mayor.

Cr Macmillan: Mr Mayor, can I just object to this line of questioning. Yet again, we see the bullying tactics of a councillor using the valuable question time to ask misleading or insinuating questions to councillors. Is this appropriate?

Mayor Geoff Gough: Look I actually have to agree, that this question time is really to ask questions to get things onto the paper. I think other questions could be wisely put otherwise. It’s not the sort of behaviour that I would undertake at question time, but it is clearly, I suppose, someone’s rights to be able to ask that question. I would not be doing those sorts of questions and I think it brings council into disrepute and makes allegations that are unsubstantiated and unproven. It’s disappointing, I feel, that it’s happened. However, it has, and there is a right to be able to do it.

From Manningham Leader – Anna Prytz

No gag on councillors: Free speech a winner as councillor’s bid to quieten colleagues is defeated

“PLANS to investigate a gag on Manningham councillors and ban public access to meetings has been quashed. At last Tuesday’s council meeting, Cr Graeme Macmillan’s motion to bar the public’s access to the recordings of meetings on the council’s website — and to pass bylaws prohibiting councillors publicly criticising each other — was defeated after a recision motion by Cr Stephen Mayne. The motion was carried. Executive manager of corporate services Steve Goldsworthy said it was illegal for a council to impose the proposed bylaws and penalties.

‘‘Local councils pass laws in accordance with the Local Government Act,’’ he said.

‘‘If your new laws diminish what is already available in law or in society, that is not legally acceptable.’’

Cr David Ellis said he was astonished the matter had gone so far.

‘‘This is a seriously deficient motion,’’ he said. ‘‘Now is the time for us to reaffirm our commitment to transparency.’’

In the absence of the three Koonung ward councillors who voted to investigate the proposed ban at last month’s meeting, only Cr Macmillan and Cr Meg Downie supported the motion.

Both denied the move was about restricting free speech, but rather about ending ‘‘bullying’’ by Cr Mayne.

‘‘Cr Mayne thinks it is fair game to criticise,’’ Cr Downie said. ‘‘This is harassment and bullying.’’ Cr Macmillan said Cr Mayne’s ‘‘cowardly’’ blog posts were unfair and unbalanced. Addressing Crs Macmillan and Downie, Cr Mayne vowed to continue to be an advocate of free speech.

‘‘I’ll defend your right to make the very aggressive, highly critical and attacking comments you’ve just made,’’ he said, adding he was ‘‘relieved the illegal and embarrassing motion is finally off the table.’’

The full audio recording of this motion is available at: http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/maccwr/_assets/main/lib90295/13%20december%202011%20audio%20notices%20of%20motion%2014.1.mp3. Please note this is a large file and may take several minutes to download. It is however worth listening to!

Below is the amended version of the post from Cr. Pilling’s blog on the ‘discussions’ re the GESAC basketball allocations. The original post has been altered (without identifying the changes) and we now have this new version of history and thinking:

“I will post details of the motion passed and comments re item 12.8 GESAC Multi-Use Courts that involves the allocation of basketball as soon as publically available which normally takes several days.

Council considered the issue over the the past two nights after reaching the 11pm time limit at the Tuesday night meeting.

The main problem in my view has been the design and oblectives of the original process. I feel the emphasis was too much on fees and ‘future marketing plans’.

I have no critisism of the way officers administered the expression of interest process but question the criteria and objectives that have led everyone to the present situation.

Like the increased childcare fee issue I feel Council has taken a too narrow economic rationalist approach at the expense of genuine community need. This really goes to the heart of the matter. There is certainly a need to review the whole process for future basketball allocations at GESAC in the new year.

please note- the posting date can be a day behind”.

COMMENT

• Is this a mea culpa to placate Newton and Burke? – ie. no criticism of officers?
• Questioning ‘criteria and objectives’ is surely questioning the planning/strategic direction of the whole project and who set these criteria and objectives? If officers then the blame must be laid at their feet. If councillors, then they are all implicated in the failure to meet community needs. More relevant, is the issue of councillor involvement in the creation of these ‘criteria and objectives’. Did councillors know what was happening? If they didn’t were they derelict in their duty?
• Is it ‘intellectually dishonest’ for Pilling to amend his original blog posting without indicating that this is now a new, updated version?
• And what does the last sentence really mean – that there still is no decision and that this will linger on until ‘sometime in the new year’?

A reader has just alerted us to the latest posting on Cr. Pilling’s blog. It concerns the GESAC basketball allocations and the failure to reach a decision after nearly 7 months of lawyers, discussions, mediation and teeth gnashing. There was another assembly of councillors following the public reception last night. As our reader stated in his comment, there is obviously great division and disarray in this ‘cohort’ of councillors. Whether or not a decision was finally made last night we won’t know until the official minutes come out.

On this point Pilling wrote: “I will post details of the motion passed and comments re item 12.8 GESAC Multi-Use Courts that involves the allocation of basketball as soon as publically available which normally takes several days.”

We find such a statement mind boggling. Why can’t the decision be announced before the minutes are made public? After all, this has only been dragging on for 7 months! Secondly, the motion in camera must have been to make the decision public – so it is technically no longer ‘confidential’. Yet, Cr Pilling obviously is a real stickler for Newton’s and Burke’s made up rules – rather than serving the needs of the community first. All it takes councillors is a smidgeon of courage and there is change, progress, and an end to autocratic rule by bureaucrats. The community deserves such councillors – not ones who regard the letter of the law as more important than the spirit of the law. There’s a name for that – pusillanimity!