Once again we’re grateful to one of our readers who has alerted us to the following. The sublime irony of course is that councils such as this (and Glen Eira one would suspect) are desperate to be officially installed as the ‘third tier of government”.

Councils in confidence

Updated          October 06, 2011 15:29:42

At Parliament House in Canberra, taxpayer-funded staff film the deliberations of the both houses (and their various committees) and distribute the recordings to hungry journalists. Reporters are largely free to roam the halls, crossing paths with MPs and staffers.

A similarly relaxed environment exists at the Victorian Parliament, where journalists are also allowed free rein, can dine at the parliament’s eatery and film and record the Legislative Assembly and Council.

In each place, a set of guidelines exist so the media don’t get in the way, but access is generally unencumbered.

But it seems these liberties don’t extend to Australia’s lowest level of government.

Not if this reporter’s experiences at the Casey Council this week are any guide.

I visited Melbourne’s largest council, to the city’s south-east, to report on a heated local debate about whether the city’s veteran CEO should have his contract extended without the position being advertised.

I spoke to the council’s media liaison officer earlier in the day and as a courtesy (or so I thought) told her I’d be attending that night’s meeting with a camera crew.

An email soon appeared in my inbox.

In relation to your request to film, Casey’s Local Law states that … any application for … consent [to film] a Meeting must be made, in writing, at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting to which the application applies.

Accepting this, we arrived an hour prior to the meeting to film the empty meeting chamber, but our camera was barred entry from the entire building.

Two, uniformed ‘Local Law Officers’ politely but firmly enforced this restriction.

The pair preceded to watch me for the duration of the council meeting, at one stage summoning me into the hallway to enquire if I’d been taking photos or making recordings on my mobile phone.

(For the record, I had taken some photos on my phone and the officer watched as I followed his request for it to be deleted.)

Similar restrictions are in place at other Victorian councils, though some do welcome and encourage media coverage.

The local government sector in Victoria employs about 42,500 people and spends roughly $6.1 billion of residents’ money each year.

The reality is that most ratepayers don’t attend council meetings.

If they’re to have any confidence that money is being spent wisely, it has to come through the media’s access and scrutiny of events.

If it’s good enough for state and federal parliaments to run an open-shop, why isn’t it good enough for some councils?

Ryan Sheales is an ABC journalist and former Victorian State Political Reporter.    First posted          October 06, 2011 12:51:05

Last night’s Special Committee meeting was arguably the lowest ethical point in the history of this Council. Following the formation of this secret Committee (and the failure to record this in official minutes, nor to undertake adequate,widespread advertising) the committee outdid itself in refusing to grant Cr Penhalluriack permission to speak – twice!

Penhalluriack sat in the gallery, thereby providing concrete evidence that he has been excluded from this Special Committee. Twice he requested permission to address council and twice this was refused. Given that it is the Mayor’s prerogative to allow anyone to address any council meeting, such a decision is abhorrent to all residents concerned about democratic principles of transparency, accountability and open government.

The gallery was asked to leave so that the entire proceedings could occur in camera – that is, in secret, away from public gaze, and with no expectation that anything will be reported in the minutes.

On another issue, we recommend that residents look at the published agendaand note that the specific reason why the meeting was not to be public has not been declared as required under the Local Government Act. With three lawyers on council, a corporate counsel with a budget of over $1.3 million, one is entitled to start asking questions about the legal processes, and prowess of these legal eagles!

To quote Andrew Bolt, free speech was assassinated last night in a performance that will go down in history as the antithesis of what good governance is all about.

Lucas dodges council email scandal

Ken Vernon   |  August 5th, 2011

From Channel 9 News –

Permission needed to vet councillors’ email

10:48 AEST Tue Aug 9 2011

Bureaucrats will no longer intercept  the emails of Gold Coast City councillors without their permission. A row erupted last week when Mayor Ron  Clarke discovered emails from two people classed as serial pests were being  intercepted and screened by senior officials.

Some emails, threatening violence, have  been referred to police.

While a few councillors are happy to  have nuisance emails screened, most objected.

Council voted on Monday to immediately  stop officials intercepting incoming emails or letters.

The mayor’s motion that “under no  circumstances can the Chief Executive Officer or any administrative staff,  intervene or censor any mail, be it electronic or standard” was carried  nine votes to four.

Mr Clarke says any councillor who does  want pest emails diverted or stopped can simply give the CEO permission to  intercept them.

“To me the principle is that no bureaucrat interferes in any way, shape or form, with any email or mail or  telephone calls to councillors,” he told AAP on Tuesday.

“Councillors are there to represent the people and for better or worse, wherever they come from, they should be able to handle their correspondence otherwise they shouldn’t be in  the position.

“More importantly the ratepayers  should be confident that whatever they send to their councillors will get to  them.”

The mayor said he’s happy to get emails  even from serial pests labelled as “vexatious complainants”. “You don’t want emails saying what  a good job you’re doing all the time, you want to find out what you’re not  doing right and who is being upset,” he said.

COMMENT: Several public questions over the years have asked why emails to councillors have at times been intercepted by various officers PRIOR to their being received by the councillors to whom such emails were addressed. The responses have been that councillors ‘agreed’ to this ‘policy’. As far as we know, such a ‘policy’ has never seen the light of day, and certainly the current crop of councillors have never officially voted on such a surveillance technique. Perhaps councillors would be willing to state openly their opinion(s) on this issue and whether or not they believe that their private communications to residents and colleagues, (whether or not it is on so called ‘council business’) should be hijacked by various unelected officials?

More fun and games are in the offing with the creation of a Special Committee to consider whether or not to reappoint Andrew  Newton. An alert reader notified us of this fact via an advertisement placed in today’s (Monday) Business Age. Questions thus abound:

• Why a Special Committee? Does this mean that we will have another C60 fiasco where not all councillors will be included on this committee?
• Special Committees must have agendas, minutes, and notification to the public. There’s nothing up on the council website – yet there’s been time to place an ad in The Age where the chances of anyone finding it are practically zilch!
• Will the committee work behind closed doors and ‘confidentiality’ to avoid publishing minutes, etc?
• Will Lipshutz, Hyams or Esakoff chair this committee?
• What are the terms of reference? This must be made public.
• And don’t you love the title!