GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 21, 2011

Who Runs Council?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[9] Comments 

Recent events such as the GESAC fiasco raise the question of who is actually running council – our elected representatives, or those faceless and unelected bureaucrats? We therefore thought it might be a good idea to remind councillors of their legal and fiduciary duties – according to the guidelines set down by the MAV, State Government, and VLGA in their combined document The Good Governance Guide. All the quotes below derive from this publication.

“It is important that issues of transparency and accountability are considered with regard to Council briefings. If councillors determine their position through the briefing process, and only go through a brief or perfunctory endorsement at the meeting of Council, this can impact adversely on the public’s ability to follow the decision-making process. The opportunity to fully explore and address an issue in private must be balanced with the accountability and transparency requirements of good governance.

To ensure transparency and accountability, it is also important that the administration is made accountable for the formal advice it provides to the Council meeting which subsequently takes place. This advice may or may not be entirely consistent with the discussions which took place at the council briefing. (page 12)

The elected body is ultimately accountable for the financial management of the local government. While the elected body should not have a hands-on role in financial management, it needs to ensure that it has the information to be satisfied that the finances are in order and that budgetary and financial planning goals are being met.

The role differentiation between the elected body and the administration is important in this area. The elected body should not be micro-managing the finances, but must demand financial reporting which provides the information it requires to meet its financial accountability responsibilities. (p.32)

Councillors must ensure that they have all appropriate financial information regarding financial performance. It is not enough merely to rely on assurances by the administration that all is well. If the financial situation is not as it should be, councillors will still be held accountable, even if they maintain that they received assurances from the administration. Councillors should ask questions, until they are satisfied that they know and understand the financial situation. Other potential sources of information and assurance are the internal auditor and the audit committee. (p.35)

QUESTIONS:

  • How often did councillors ask questions about GESAC?
  • Were the answers (if given) acceptable? If not, what did councillors do?
  • How often were councillors provided with up to date information?
  • What evidence was provided to councillors that the income from GESAC would be $2.91 million as stated in the budget?  
  • Why does it take a public outcry before any ‘action’ is initiated by councillors?

 

 

 

 

June 19, 2011

The Games That People Play

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[9] Comments 

‘Bullying’ forces CEO to take leave

6th January 2010

LOCKYER Valley local government has been thrown into turmoil after council chief executive officer Colin O’Connor took three months sick leave after claiming the mayor was a bully. It is believed Mr O’Connor is currently on paid sick leave on an annual
salary approaching $250,000.

Gatton resident Bob Fowke, 71, said Mr O’Connor had the support of a majority four-member faction of councillors. Mr Fowke worked in local government for 35 years and has attended almost every meeting of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council since the government amalgamations in March, 2008.

He said he was present at the council meeting on September 23 when Mr O’Connor started distributing an unsigned letter accusing Mayor Steve Jones of bullying staff. Mr Fowke said the situation was quite the opposite as the faction of four councillors always used their votes to carry out Mr O’Connor’s wishes.

The faction, which has previously been highlighted by Mayor Jones, includes councillors Jim McDonald, Janice Holstein, Tanya Milligan and Graham Moon. Mr Fowke said the manipulation was blatantly obvious in chambers.

“(Mr O’Connor) shakes his head, nods his head, and smiles when he wants them to do something,” he said. “It is total manipulation in my book and he’s taken stress leave because people are waking up to it.”

Mr Fowke said his fellow ratepayers were disgusted council was being run by the only non-elected member, Mr O’Connor. “The CEO is virtually running the council and the councillors haven’t got a hell of a lot of say.”

On November 27, Mr O’Connor sent an email to staff informing them that his doctor had ordered him to take three months “sick” leave. He said in the letter he felt a “deep sense of failure” for not being able to “protect” staff from the mayor. On the same day,
Mr O’Connor lodged a Workplace Health and Safety claim for compensation. Mr Fowke said the scandal had halted progress of the council.

“Because the mayor keeps asking questions, he’s labelled a bully,” he said. “But these questions need to be asked, need to be addressed and these problems need to be solved. “Council needs to move forward. “I would like to see the council open up the book as it is closed by the faction at the moment. “So much is hidden from the ratepayer and it’s absolutely hindering good decision-making.”

One example of the faction’s power was highlighted after Mr O’Connor ordered the unauthorised clearing of a fauna sanctuary at Lake Apex in April. The council is facing a $165,000 fine for tampering with an animal breeding place without approval. Mayor Steve Jones wanted an independent body to investigate the incident. However, the faction voted that Mr O’Connor would compile the report on his own decision.

(http://www.gattonstar.com.au/story/2010/01/06/bullying-forces-ceo-to-sick-leave/)

 

Turmoil as councillors sue over bullying

Updated Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:43am
AEST

Peter Watson is calling for intervention after more councillors sue the city over bullying (ABC News). The Member for Albany Peter Watson has described the local council as the laughing stock of Western Australia. Two Albany councillors are threatening to sue the city after an independent investigation rejected allegations they had been involved in bullying.

Councillors Roley Paver and Jill Bostock are now claiming more than $500,000 in damages. The action comes after the dismissal of the city’s former chief executive, Paul Richards, who claimed he was bullied by councillors. Last month, the Local Government Standards panel found there was no evidence of bullying of Mr Richards who received a $250,000 payout when he left the
council. Mr Watson says the council is an embarrassment to the city and the Minister for Local Government John Castrilli is not doing anything about it.

“We’ve got a culture there at the City of Albany which is the laughing stock of Western Australia and if the Minister can’t see that, maybe he should be looking after a different portfolio and put someone into his portfolio of Local Government that’s got a bit of grunt,” he said.

Mr Watson says there must be intervention. “We have councillors suing the council, we have a CEO who’s been sacked who is suing the council, we had the previous CEO sue the council,” he said. “Obviously, there’s something wrong there and the longer the Minister sits on his hands, the worse it’s going to get.”

Mr Castrilli has declined to comment on the matter. Mr Watson says he will raise it in parliament at the next sitting.

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/25/2992687.htm)

 

June 18, 2011

More Games Versus Good Governance

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[13] Comments 

Sadly, we are becoming increasingly accustomed to the games that this administration (and some councillors) insist on playing at the expense of proper governance and adherence to council’s own policies. The latest example involves public questions that have been ‘taken on notice’. A few facts first.

Council’s Local Law states that questions may be taken on notice and that responses “shall be given within a reasonable time (usually in less than ten working days).” Most people would assume that this means more than simply a letter of response to the questioner. Then there is also this: “Where an answer is given later in writing, the question shall be resubmitted to the meeting at which the answer is available and both the question and the answer shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

At the May 17th Council meeting a series of questions from Mr. Varvodic was taken on notice. Since then we have had another council meeting and no response to these questions has been forthcoming. If included in the next council meeting minutes, that will make it 6 weeks for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the vast majority of these questions.

Readers will remember that the issue of ‘vexatious questions’ has previously come up under Lipshutz’s role on the Local Laws Committee. We simply ask:

  • Is the tardy non answering and non publication of answers merely a de facto introduction of this ‘policy’ since it would appear to achieve the same outcome?
  • Why should it take at least 3 council meetings to publish responses?
  • Is this a tactic that will now be continually employed whenever ‘uncomfortable’ public questions are asked by ratepayers?
  • Surely the combined intellectual powers of Newton, Burke, Lipshutz and Hyams can do better than this silly stalling game?
 

June 15, 2011

More On Games & Ratepayers’ Money

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[2] Comments 

The following articles from the Leader have direct relevance to what is currently going on in Glen Eira. We invite comments:

Nillumbik’s legal bill squabble continues

1 Feb 11 @ 05:54pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has hit back at claims it misled ratepayers on the cost of a legal stoush with a councillor.

Cr Belinda Clarkson last week accused it of grossly underestimating its legal fees, which the council expects will be $10,000 a day – $50,000 for the anticipated five days of the hearing.

Cr Clarkson said the figure would be closer to $150,000, including the hearing and preparation. “In my opinion, the council’s failure to take responsibility for the cost to ratepayers is seen in their statement’s only cost estimate figure of $10,000,” Cr Clarkson said. “I believe that is misleading.”

But Mayor Helen Coleman said the council had been upfront about its legal bill. “The advice that we have been given is that our legal costs will be around $10,000 a day, but we won’t know the final costs until the hearing,” Cr Coleman said.

She said ratepayers would have been spared the cost if Cr Clarkson had taken part in a relatively cheap councillor conduct panel last November. Instead, Cr Clarkson will answer misconduct allegations during a five-day hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. She faces 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act.

Cr Coleman said the council had resolved not to hire a solicitor, but had been forced to engage one when Cr Clarkson fronted the hearing with a lawyer from the firm Piper Alderman.

Cr Clarkson, who has not revealed her own legal costs, said the council was at fault for taking the matter to a conduct panel “and as part of that process, therefore to VCAT”.

More debate was curtailed.

Comments

Natalie Woodley writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 11:15pm

“Clowns” is a good way to describe these people, unfortunately elected to Nillumbik Council. Hellbent on their witch hunt after Cr Clarkson, under the guise of “confidentiality” they believed they could continue the bullying, it would never come out in the
open, spineless uninformed people. Obviously they were not cognisant of The Local Government Act, unaware a councillor being unmercifully hounded with vexatious, frivolous charges ,was able to receive “Natural Justice”. Cr Clarkson has only ever requested “Safe Planning” in this extremely bushfire prone area, surely we require all our Nillumbik Councillors to have Human Life as their priority?? If the councillors were using their own personal dollars they would have withdrawn their frivolous charges, made a public apology to Cr Clarkson and got on with attempting to govern for the good of Nillumbik, taking note of the oath or affirmation they swore on being elected.
Obviously they are a group of people who care less about spending other peoples money, hard earned dollars of the Nillumbik Ratepayers. They are a disgrace, totally unaccountable for their actions.

Melissa Eaton writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 05:27pm

When a council starts suing it’s own councillors, I have to start wondering what major secrets are they covering up to be using this ridiculous witchhunt as a deflection? As we are approaching the 2nd anniversary of the disastrous Black Saturday bushfires, I think
Nillumbik has better things to do than waste rate payers money (like mine) on legal bills to argue an alleged councillor conduct matter which only came about because same councillor was trying to get air time in council to discuss the very real risks of bush fires in the area. Clearly council needs re-education about what they are there for….I thought council was there for the community with bushfires being a real issue for Nillumbik. This money would be better spent on getting on with bushfire prevention which I can see from looking around the shire seems to be several weeks if not months behind in this fire season.

Daniel Potter writes:

Posted on 5 Feb 11 at 08:16pm

Nicole Singh……I Concur Totally. The Nillumbik Council Is Managed Totally By Overpaid Clowns.

nicole singh writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 11:54pm

i thought my Glen Eira council was dysfuncitonal thanyou to nillumbik you are No1 and have the highest rates in victoria. a council that is losing money every day is spending your hard earned persecuting a councillor, the crime? for merely trying to stop yet more of its people from being burnt in bushfires its off to court you go. Is nillumbik an open mental asylum?

J Bullock writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 12:07pm

What a waste of ratepayers money! My hard earned money! Nillumbik council should be dissolved and spilt among neighbouring urban and rural councils. The formation of Nillumbik was a mistake and since then it has been a continual battle ground between waring sides with us poor ratepayer as the victims. For the sake of good governance it should be put out of its misery!

Nillumbik Council dumps Clarkson VCAT hearing

23 Feb 11 @ 01:32pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has withdrawn a misconduct case against one of its councillors from the state’s peak tribunal.

Cr Belinda Clarkson was expected to answer 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. But at a closed meeting last night councilors resolved to drop the matter.

Mayor Helen Coleman said the decision was based on the cost of a five-day hearing, estimated at $10,000 a day.

“The costs to council in pursuing this matter in VCAT would have been too expensive when we have other financial priorities,’’ Cr Coleman said. “We need to ensure that we are spending ratepayers’ money in a responsible way.’‘

Cr Coleman said she did not know how much the council had spent so far on legal fees. She said the council would “monitor’’ Cr Clarkson’s behaviour during the next three months. Cr Clarkson said last night’s meeting was confidential and declined to
comment.

QUESTIONS:

  • What is the current total of money spent on the Newton allegations of bullying?
  • How much more will be spent?
 

June 14, 2011

The Budget & The Farce Continues

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

The following facts, which have been noted previously, need to be reiterated –

1. The draft budget was amended by council resolution

2. No new ‘version’ of the amended budget and Strategic Resource Plan has been published

3. Residents have put in submissions based on a document which technically no longer exists or has any legal status. It has been superceded.

4. Tonight’s meeting is thus irrelevant since whatever people have written, or will say, is not based on what they could say if they were privy to the new budget.

QUESTIONS:

  • Why haven’t the new budget and Strategic Resource Plan been made public?
  • Why haven’t councillors insisted that it be public?
  • Why is the public being subjected to the farce of commenting on something that no longer exists?
  • What does this say about governance at Glen Eira City Council?

 

 

June 12, 2011

Newton & A Little History

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[15] Comments 

Newton’s name first appeared officially in the Commissioners’ report. He was listed as ‘council officer’ on the finance committee. Council minutes indicate that in 1997-8 his official job title was Director, Corporate Services in charge of Business Planning, Public Relations, Finance, Corporate Assets, Risk Management, Service Centre, Human Resources, and Business Development – a finger in all the most important pies! But what we want to concentrate on are some very, very interesting agenda items bearing his name. All involve disharmony, and the publication of internal documents that we consider totally unethical. Further, each publication has had the potential to discredit various individuals, whom we assume, may have been likely critics or opponents. Sadly, there appears to be a very long list of ‘opponents’. More significantly, a distinct and consistent pattern of behaviour, tactics and overall strategy can be traced back to these early times. They are still evident today.

Alan Grossbard, the first mayor of Glen Eira, appears to be one of these early ‘casualities’. Whatever one’s opinion may be of Mr. Grossbard, he is certainly well credentialed. The Glen Eira Annual Report of 1997/8 cites his qualifications as: B.Sc., B. Ed., Dip. Ac., MBA. MACE; MAIE, MPRIA, MGAA. We’re also told that Grossbard ‘has a strong background in business management, finance and corporate relations and is employed as one of the top executives in a major Australian company’. In other words, not a slouch when it comes to running a business. So what happened? Why were items published that had no right to be in the public domain and what was the objective? We’re referring of course to the Mayoral Gold Chain affair. Here are the facts:

  • The minutes of 23rd June 1997 have Newton writing “The Mayor has proposed additional expenditures for Mayoral regalia and civic function to be included in the 1997-98 Budget”. (Please note the syntax – making it appear as if the proposal actually originated from the Mayor, who happened to be Grossbard) and the total listed for chains,  brooches and links was $29,500
  • There was of course a public furore over this and various articles in the Southern Cross regarding ‘communication rifts’ (16th July 1997); the chain affair (16th July 1997) and an advertising conflict of interest (16th September, 1998). A special meeting was called to refute all these newspaper claims.
  • Investigation of all the above was delayed until 1998 and after the first Municipal Inspector’s report came in.

The important bit however IS THE PUBLICATION IN THE AGENDA of a Memorandum written by Grossbard and some of his personal correspondence to councillors and the CEO. The Southern Cross claimed that Grossbard had told them that ‘staff, other than departmental directors, had to report all conversations with councillors’ to the CEO. He further was alleged to have said that ‘The officers are afraid to give answers. It’s a scare syndrome’.  So how best to haul Grossbard over the coals? Perhaps publish what could be seen as denigrating to Grossbard himself?

Well lo and behold, we get exactly that! A memorandum written by Grossbard (10th June 1997) to councillors and the CEO. In this memorandum Grossbard states “I would like to strongly recommend the following items be adopted in the 1997/8 budget’. There is then the itemised list of goods and costs, totalling $29,500.

In letter after letter to the newspapers, Grossbard claims that he was given the task of discovering the costs of such paraphernalia and that his memo was in response to this task. Further, that when the issue came up at council he was overseas and that the item ‘should not have been placed on the council’s agenda’. He further said that “I was asked by Council to find out what expense would be incurred if we were to commission collarette pieces for use as the City’s Mayoral Regalia. From the quotes I obtained I submitted the costs to Council. Unfortunately I was not in attendance at the Council’s meeting to stop the quotes being regarded as a proposal rather than general information for consideration only.” (21st July, 1997).

Whatever the rights or wrongs of this issue, two things are absolutely clear:

  • The publication of internal correspondence – but only when it suits. This trend still continues.
  • Governance issues, disharmony and lack of trust involving councillors and administration go way, way back and still continue – ie latest Municipal Inspector’s report.
  • The attempted discrediting of critics and opponents via the publication of such documents. Again this practise is still rife.
  • Selective editing that fails to give full context.
 

June 9, 2011

News Flash: Newton Plays the Bully Card – Again!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[32] Comments 

Can a leopard really change its spots? It doesn’t appear so. We’ve recently learnt that Andrew Newton has made allegations of bullying against Penhalluriack. This is now being ‘investigated’ by a council hired lawyer – and probably at great expense to ratepayers. As far as we understand this is simply an ‘informal’ process to determine the validity or otherwise of the allegations.

What is immediately apparent is that such tactics are not new to Andrew Newton. He has tried this tack before as noted in the Whelan Report. We quote:

“The letter referred to a report which the CEO presented to Council following a trip by three Councillors (including Grossbard and Erlich) to the Council’s sister city, Ogaki in Japan. It stated, in essence, that the administration had submitted a report to the Council about the trip which was inaccurate and denied them natural justice, and that they would be issuing a press release calling for the dismissal of the CEO, Andrew Newton.

The Council sought legal advice from Macquarie Lawyers and Strategists and was advised on 1 July 2002 that the “… Council has breached its statutory obligation to provide a working environment that is without risk to the CEO”.  

The legal advice proposed four recommendations, including:-

  • • adopting a Code of Conduct for Councillors in the form of a Local Law with sanctions; and
  • • providing a process for resolving disputes between the Council and the CEO.

Further, it stated that:-

“I am satisfied that the sending of the memoranda and the prior behaviour of Cr Grossbard as detailed in the CEO’s report constitutes conduct which challenges the CEO’s work environment which should otherwise be free of preventable harassment. Unless a remedy is found ……. it is likely that Council will remain in breach of its statutory obligations towards the CEO”. “

So here we go again. The tactics remain identical. When questioned, it appears that Mr. Newton brings out the big guns – ie. claims of intimidation, harassment, and bullying. So who is this Andrew Newton? What drives him? What motivates him? Why does intrigue and controversy dog his every move? Why from the time he set foot in Glen Eira has there been division, mistrust, and open hostility? We can lay the blame at various councillors – perhaps! We can also blame ourselves for electing dummies. But is this the whole story? We’ve asked before, what role has Andrew Newton played in the Glen Eira dramas of the past 13 years? What other individual in the entire state has been embroiled in three formal Municipal Investigations, and god knows how many other ‘please explain’ enquiries?

The central question is: how does he operate? What are the tactics that he has possibly used in these 13 years to silence critics or to discredit them? Have these all been ethical? legal? All we have to do is look at certain sections of the Whelan Report to note several things:

  • Newton has employed the ‘safe workplace’ strategy to rid himself of certain councillors; this ploy we assume, has also succeeded in putting the fear of god into other councillors
  • He has published information that has no right to be in the public domain
  • He didn’t perform his duty of warning councillors and previous CEOs when he should have

Today, we have the same tactics being played out. This time it is directed at Penhalluriack – maybe because Penhalluriack has the temerity to actually be doing his job and asking what constitute uncomfortable questions of the CEO? What residents need to consider carefully, is whether this is the man they want to continue at the helm of the Glen Eira administration. How much is he costing us and how much will he cost us in the future? What impact will this new ‘investigation’ have on the reputation of this Council and its councillors?

WATCH THIS SPACE – MORE TO FOLLOW!

 

June 7, 2011

Notice of Motion

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[14] Comments 

Pilling moved the amendment to Item 9.11 – to introduce a Notice of Motion to the Local Law. Seconded by Magee

PILLING: Stated that he had emailed all councillors regarding his intention to move the amendment. Said that most councils already have Notice of Motion in fact 76 out of the current 79. ‘The premise (of Newton’s report) is that we councillors aren’t capable of sensibly utilising this option’….’it’s a negative type of argument’…… Pilling stated that he felt that Glen Eira councillors should have the same options as the vast majority of councillors in other municipalities. A notice of motion would also give councillors the opportunity to raise issues that ‘aren’t a majority view’….’in my mind this is a healthy feature of local government’….. ‘and goes some way to alleviate majority blocks’. Gives non majority councillors a voice and that ‘is to be encouraged’.

The report talked about ‘technical hurdles’ but countered this by saying that neighbouring councils such as Bayside and Kingston have ‘clear guidelines’ ….’Urgent business has to be deemed just that’ ….’let’s codify this….set guidelines’….’As community elected representatives I feel we are resposible enough to raise any issues that are constructive and timely’. A Notice of Motion would encourage this.  ‘It’s 10 years since we’ve had a Notice of Motion in glen eira. It’s now time to reintroduce it’.

MAGEE: Spoke about how there ‘is an opportunity there to misuse it (ie Notice of Motion) ‘but I believe the overwhelming majority within this chamber certainly wouldn’t do that….talking with groups, talking with individuals, there is times when business becomes a bit more than urgent…..I don’t think there’s a great opportunity for someone to come in and just blatantly raise issues to the detriment of the council…..(notice of motion) is …..an opportunity for us all to maybe move things along a little bit quicker…..it certainly doesn’t stop us from asking for information….or clarification in the days leading up to a council meeting…..it certainly doesn’t mean that we have to wait weeks and weeks…..sometimes months…..I feel that I would benefit from the Notice of Motion…..

TANG: Said he had spoken a few times with Pilling about this and the points he made were about the information that councillors received before making decisions. Went on to discuss the current agenda item stating ‘it wasn’t struck from thin air…..it came about (as a result of the last council meeting and Penhalluriack’s request for a report) …’and now we’ve got a report and councillors will take different positions…..it’s completely fair that councillors go against the advice from time to time….I don’t think (Pilling’s motion) is going to take council forward and only has the potential to take council back….(if a councillor wants a motion raised) I don’t see how a Notice of Motion will take them any further than a Request for a Report because if they don’t have the support of the majority of councillors…..if you can’t get a request for a report up you’re not going to be able to get a Notice of Motion up’. Tang then argued that if a motion was really urgent then it would fall into that category. ‘There is the potential that council could have a really persuasive argument  which could be completely founded in falsities…..and that could sway council to make a decision without any contrasting or corresponding information to support that position……that’s the risk I see with council making decisions on the run. ……I’m particularly concerned that Notices of Motion would give rise to the opportunity to make decisions without at least having advice…..better that councillors make decisions with some advice rather than none at all’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang. ‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’. Stated that ‘in reality’ councillors have 3 ways of raising matters – request for a report; urgent business and ‘we can simply ask the CEO to put something on the agenda’. ‘Generally what happens is that at our briefing meeting…..we can mull over decisions…..if a majority of people want something put on the agenda it happens that way’. ‘Every Tuesday we meet and we discuss a whole variety of things…..(councillors come up with) hairbrained ideas…..we can discuss this. We discuss it openly….and we have a very robust exchange of views….the majority comes to a decision one way or the other…..and that’s how I think it should be because (council has to decide)…I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that….Other concern is that councillors can grandstand and  can frustrate the working of a council….(agreed with Magee that no-one at) this council would do that….we act responsibly, but this is a local law that will not just be for this council but for generations….we can make the law and you look at it in a broad based way not in a specific way….(if a councillor grandstands, there are speeches, fillibuster) and frustrate the workings of council and that’s not what you want to see….I don’t think this adds anything….In my view it’s important that we maintain a collegiate atmosphere….ensure ….(since being on council since 2005) can’t remember one instance (where he couldn’t get something onto the agenda)……if it’s not broken don’t fix it….the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.

FORGE: Stated that initially she was supportuive of Cr. Magee (?) but having ‘listened to various comments ….I’m going to abstain from this because I feel that I need to know more’. Asked if she needs to go to the Local Law advisory committee …”to receive that information’. Esakoff then interrupted and told Forge that she is unable to abstain and that she would have to vote or perhaps ‘go off to the bathroom or something’ (laughter) . Forge left chambers.

HYAMS:’ I’m sick of (hearing) that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda….if there was no other way….but as has been said there are many other ways….. and other ways that I think are more responsible and will lead to us making more informed decisions….if a councillor makes a request for a report…I’ll know what they’re trying to get at….the advantage of doing it that way is that it comes back to us with a pack of information….can ignore (the information or back it)….someone said it may take ages (to get back a report) because officers need that long to make up the information …..so (if a matter is that complicated) that it’s going to take officers 8 weeks ….that we as a council should vote on it without that information at all…..surely that’s not responsible. Hyams then gave the example of Marrickville council deciding to boycott Israeli products only to discover that this would have cost them millions given that they would have to change their entire computer systems). …..if they would have made a request for a report first…and they wouldn’t have done it, but because (they voted) without background information’ they got themselves into this mess. …I don’t think anyone in this council would abuse this….but myself and the mayer have served on this council where people would have done this without hesitation….as Lipshutz said when we do these things we don’t just do it for this council …..we do it for future councils…. we can’t say (what sort of people are going to be on those future councils)…..and as long as there are adequate ways (to get things on the agenda)…..I don’t see the need to take the risk by changing anything….

TANG: raised the issue of Forge’s ‘desire to abstain from the vote’ and walk out …..I don’t think you can abstain and then walk out…(not a personal attack on Forge but conerned with) the advice that a councillor who is out of the room doesn’t have to vote….

ESAKOFF: thanks Tang and then spoke to the motion. Doesn’t support the motion for many of ‘the reasons that have already been outlined….I don’t believe that this council would misuse….but I would not like it to be brought back in to our local law for the reasons that Hyams raised…..you don’t know what, who will be in the future….I would not like to leave it at risk that way….I don’t believe that decision making should be made without proper information….never fun to do it on the run (decision making). Reiterated that there is request for reports, urgent business and in assemblies “we’re able to raise something in our general business’ ….if I thought this was going to be an improvement I’d be happy to approve it but ….our decision making is democratic….healthy debate is healthy…the difference between us is what makes a good council….the community too have a part in this….if there is a report in the agenda that they’re able to read….they can contact us, and they do….Notice of motion doesn’t offer that opportunity for there’s no report there for them to offer feedback to us….Informed decisions are always the best decisions…..I don’t think we’re lacking anything….we have opportunities available to us to get things on the agenda….

PILLING: ‘I think the whole language is overstated….(all over the country 100s of) notices of motions are put up….it’s normal business for most councils to have notice of motion….(about making decisions on the run) ‘set guidelines’ ….I think the public likes to see us debate issues….there’s a lot of reasons why I think we should have a notice of motion….I don’t think it’s the real dilemma that’s been painted….it’s just another way of raising issues as other councils do. The world hasn’t fallen in in Stonnington….I think it’s healthy to have debate….I hope we aren’t so cautious and we’re bold and go forward….

MOTION LOST

Hyams then moved that the motion as printed be put. Lipshutz seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: responded to Pilling’s comments with ‘we do have debate’.

TANG: thought that Pilling ‘tackled the points that had been raised well’. Commented that if councillors look at other reports and the ways other councils do things, then he would welcome then bringing this information to council and ‘we’d have a look at it’ Examples he gave were: public toilets in restaurants, ‘pavilions that other councils build on’ ‘no smoking in public playgrounds…there’s all sorts of decisions that I’ve seen other councils make…and all the ones I’ve been interested in are all the ones where there have been reports’. couldn’t think of any one that had come from a Notice of Motion.

MOTION CARRIED ON ESAKOFF’S CASTING VOTE.

 

June 6, 2011

Council Meeting: Notice of Motion

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[9] Comments 

A brief report (with further details tomorrow) on tonight’s motion by Neil Pilling to introduce a Notice of Motion into the Local Law. It was defeated. The votes were as follows –

Magee, Penhalluriack and Pilling in support of motion. Forge abstained and Lobo was still on leave. Vote against motion – Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff.

Arguments by ‘the gang’ were astounding – ie. introducing a Notice of Motion was ‘dangerous’; Lipshutz was concerned about the future and safeguarding future councillors and council. There was also ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ line. Councillors need advice and information otherwise a real threat to responsible decision making, and so on.

Some other ‘highlights’ –

  • the Duncan McKinnon redevelopment will go ahead. Cost is now 8.8 million!
  • ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ is no longer a policy, but termed a ‘mantra’!
  • Lipshutz now urges resident objectors to ‘have a go’ at VCAT – obviously forgetting his previous dictum that ‘we know best’ and that residents will come out worse if they object! The VCAT overturning of a council decision obviously meant that his long standing arguments also had to be ‘overturned’.
  • McKinnon development – not seven double storeys, but 6.
  • Public question on the accuracy of council responses remains unanswered.
  • Importantly, Newton’s spiel on Notice of Motion and the normal process of ‘noting’ the report did not gain an unanimous vote – it was merely ‘carried’. A first in Glen Eira!
  • Decision on Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed buildings now to go to a Panel.
 

June 3, 2011

Newton: Deconstructing The Master Of Spin

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[23] Comments 

Item 9.11 of the Agenda Items contains Newton’s response to Penhalluriack’s ‘request for a report’. It reads: “That officers prepare a report on suggested changes to the Local Law that will provide for Councillors to raise a notice of motion.”

Newton begins by stating that Glen Eira “does not provide for Notices of Motion” and, in part, the justification is that previous  councils (ie 2003-5; 2005-8 and the present council) “‘have all decided against having such a provision.” Does this mean it is set in concrete and untouchable for ever more?

We then get a page and a half “summary”’ of the Queen’s Avenue issue, which precipitated the last Council Meeting fiasco. Newton deflects the argument stating that the path is narrow, unsafe, etc. and that “people should not be encouraged to use that side of the road in its present state”. He concludes that “it would be undesirable to make minor changes which increased use without increasing safety”. In what appears to be an incredible statement, Newton then refers to the MRC agreement where improvements” have been scheduled (with MRC approval of course) within 5 years! So are we to presume that this currently “unsafe” strip of land will remain untouched for up to 5 years, regardless of the fact that people are obviously using it? And this in itself begs the question of

  • for how long has it been in this state?
  • how many residents have already complained and for how long have they been complaining?
  • SURELY RISK MANAGEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT ANY POTENTIAL DANGER TO RESIDENTS BE SEEN TO IMMEDIATELY? But No! It sounds as if Newton is prepared to leave the path untouched until the MRC benevolently grants
    permission for works – whatever the current risk!

Newton then neatly sidesteps the actual intent of the Request for a Report and rephrases it to his own purposes – namely “how can a Councillor get issues on the agenda of a council meeting?” These are admittedly Penhalluriack’s words, but they in no shape or form represent the actual “request for a report” that became a Council resolution.

Newton goes on to outline the 3 ways of getting issues onto the agenda.

1. Councillors can ‘ask’ for the matter to be included in their briefing meetings. However, in Glen Eira it is the CEO alone who has been delegated the authority to decide what goes onto the agenda. Councillors are thus reliant on his benevolence. One could well ask: How many ‘suggestions’ from councillors have been accorded entry into the agenda over the past few years? How many have been refused? How many have been conveniently forgotten? How many suggestions have got onto the agenda months and months later? Further, why should such ‘negotiations’ take place behind the closed doors of councillor assemblies?

2. Then there is that old chestnut of requesting a report under Urgent Business. What Newton conveniently neglects to tell us is that “urgent business” has to have occurred in the period following the publication of the agenda items and the actual council meeting. That is a matter of days and precisely the problem that Penhalluriack was grappling with at last Council Meeting!

3. However, the section which really demands close reading is Newton’s vision of decision making. Apparently, Councillors can only decide on something after ‘information and advice’ has been provided. He also states that “reports are regularly requested. They are submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting”. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Newton warns us that ‘considering decisions without necessarily having an accompanying submission setting out relevant information and advice’ is bad news. This of course assumes two things: (1) that officers’ advice is always comprehensive, balanced, accurate and truthful, and (2) that councillors are incapable of doing their own ‘research’, fact finding, discussions with residents, etc. Typically, Newton warns councillors that only by receiving officers’ reports and deciding on that bases will this ‘almost always be an adequate defence’. Defence to what Mr. Newton? It is councillors who run council and they are legally empowered to make any decision they like. All that’s required is a majority vote to have legal and binding force.  Newton’s final admonition to councillors is – “In the history of Glen Eira, virtually all the decisions which have ‘blown up’ have been taken on-the-run ie without any supporting submission of information or advice”.

Next, we have a really important section entitled ”Technical requirements for Notices of Motion’. We are then assailed with 12 bullet points – all Dorothy Dixers implying almost insurmountable ‘technical’ problems. It’s strange that practically every other council in the state can simply include several unequivocal sentences or paragraphs into the Meeting Procedures and hey presto – the technical problems are all solved! Here are a couple of examples:

Bayside:

(1) A notice of motion must be in writing signed by a Councillor, and be lodged with the Chief Executive Officer by no later than 12 noon at least 4 business days before the meeting at which it is intended to be considered.

(2) The full text of any notice of motion accepted by the Chief Executive Officer must be included in the agenda.

(3) The Chief Executive Officer must cause all notices of motion to be numbered, dated and entered in the notice of motion register in the order in which they were received.

(4) Except by leave of Council, each notice of motion before any meeting must be considered in the order in which they were entered in the notice of motion register.

(5) If a Councillor who has given a notice of motion is absent from the meeting or fails to move the motion when called upon by the Chair, any other Councillor may move the motion.

(6) If a notice of motion is not moved at the meeting at which it is listed, it lapses.

(7) If a notice of motion is moved but not seconded, it lapses.

(8) Except where the notice of motion is to confirm a previous resolution of Council, the notice of motion may be amended.

(9) If the Councillor who has lodged or is moving a notice of motion wishes to amend it, he or she may do so by seeking leave of Council to amend the notice of motion prior to it being seconded.

(10) Once a notice of motion has been moved and seconded, the mover cannot amend it.

(11) Notwithstanding sub-clause (10) another Councillor may move an amendment to the notice of motion, which motion must be dealt with in accordance with clause 35 of this Local Law.

(12) No member of the public may speak to a notice of motion when presented at an Ordinary meeting or a Special meeting. Individuals may request to speak to issues associated with the notice of motion under Division 10 in the event of a report on the item being considered by a Special Committee at a later meeting.

Kingston –

21. (1) A notice of motion must be in writing, signed by a Councillor, and be lodged with the Chief Executive Officer by 12:00 midday on the Wednesday preceding an Ordinary Council meeting. Any notice of motion received after that time must, unless withdrawn in writing, be included on the next relevant meeting agenda;

(2) The Chief Executive Officer must arrange for every notice of motion received by him or her to be endorsed with the date and time of it being received and for it to be kept or entered, in the order received, in a register of notices of motion.

(3) The Chief Executive Officer may include on the agenda immediately following a notice of motion any comment which provides relevant factual information in regard to the issues dealt with in such notice of motion.

(4) If the member who has given a notice of motion is not present at the meeting when the matter is the next item on the agenda to be considered, the Chairperson may move it or may call upon any other member to move it and if the motion is not moved (and
seconded) it lapses.”

Simple isn’t it? Surely, our 9 intelligent councillors can cope with such ‘technical problems’! And let’s not forget that we have three lawyers on Council to oversee the matter.

Here’s the $64 question though –

  • Will this report be accepted as it stands? Will it be ‘noted’ and that’s the end of the attempt to introduce a ‘notice of motion’ (and hence real democracy) into Glen Eira?
  • Will Newton be asked to rewrite his response and ensure that it directly answers the original ‘request for a report’, or will councillors  once again allow this to go through to the keeper?
  • Will Newton be asked to clarify and correct his errors of fact?
  • How much more spin will ratepayers put up with?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »