The above graphic derives from the South Australian Ombudsman’s audit of 2011 into local councils’ use of confidentiality clauses within their Act. Whilst slightly different to the Victorian Local Government Act, the overriding principles and objectives remain the same – ie. local government decision making must be transparent and accountable.

We have repeatedly commented on the secrecy which permeates much of what goes on in Glen Eira Council and our firm belief that countless decisions, or ‘straw votes’ which amount to the same thing, are made behind the closed doors of assembly meetings. Discussion of items in camera is another well used, and over used tactic by this council. An earlier post (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-record-to-be-proud-of/) detailed how many agenda items were ‘relegated’ to back room discussions and the appallingly low number of council decisions which were then made public. Not much has changed with this new council. Of the 50 agenda items decided in camera since November 2012, council announced only 30 decisions – many of which were straight out tenders.

The Local Government Act sets out the broad parameters for when a council may CHOOSE to exclude the public. Please note – this is not mandatory, but optional. The Act also requires councils to provide reasons for their barring of the public. In Glen Eira this requirement has reached the state of sheer farce. Time and again the ‘reasons’ provided are nothing more than tautologies designed to keep the masses ignorant – ie under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter. (in the minutes of 3^rd September and 15^th October 2013. Please note that neither outcome was reported upon.) Other in camera items not reported upon and which we believe have major import for the expenditure of council funds included: 

• 9^th April – 12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” and s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to compliance with the Local Government Act. (More lawyer fees, we wonder?)
• 2^nd July – which relates to the contract for internal audit services (Given the jobs for the boys approach of this Audit Committee, we wonder which company was ‘rewarded’ with another contract and how much this cost ratepayers?
• 13^th August – under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to completed capital works approved by Council. (Another stuff up? – GESAC, Duncan Mackinnon perhaps?)
• 6^th November – An item of Urgent Business under s89(2)(a) personnel and 89(2)(f) legal advice which relates to a personnel matter. (More lawyers, councillor code of conduct panels and more witch hunts? Our bet is Lobo!)
• 17^th December – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion (Has Maxtra gone? Is this a new contract to fix up the problems? How much is this costing ratepayers?)

All of the above have remained ‘secret’. Yet they undoubtedly involve hundreds of thousands of ratepayer funds and residents are no wiser as to why this money is being spent, and whether or not, it is money spent wisely. A culture of secrecy does not serve the public interest and neither does it serve sound financial management.

In conclusion here are some extracts from the South Australian Ombudsman’s findings. (full report uploaded here).  We believe that they are most relevant to the situation in Glen Eira and probably many other councils in this state.

Audit opinion

The evidence from this audit indicates that councils commonly use the confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act without fully considering or explaining the reasons for excluding members of the public from council meetings. This also results in too many meeting and document confidentiality orders being issued.

Some councils incorrectly believe that they are required to close meetings when they consider certain topics. It also appears that the special circumstances intended in the Act are being misinterpreted by some as a shield to protect their council from ‘pressure from the public’ when debating sensitive topics.

Other councils are misunderstanding or misinterpreting specific provisions in the Act when making an order to close a meeting to the public. They are consequently making orders which would be unlikely to withstand legal challenge.

I formed the view that councils are sometimes moving into confidence over matters of local sensitivity or controversy in an attempt to debate issues without pressure from the public. Such intent is contrary to the democratic objects of the Act.

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations to specify that the minutes of a council or key committee meeting must include a record of any document tabled at the meeting and/or any verbal briefing given to the meeting on a matter of council business. 

A commitment to compliance with the Local Government Act is essential to accountable administration and sound governance. It is important that councils are sensitive to the public’s demand for the open and transparent exercise of municipal power. As such, attention to both the letter and the spirit of the Act is a means of strengthening and improving relations with the community. This builds public confidence in local government.

In my view councils must, after identifying the relevant paragraph of section 90(3) of the Act, then articulate the reasoning behind the order. Details of the reasons for relying on the particular paragraphs in section 90(3) must be provided in order to allow the public to better understand the council’s decision for moving into confidence. This is part of good administrative decision-making. Further, articulating reasons would also help both the administrative staff and councillors to think more carefully about why the public should be excluded from the meeting. In the latter case, this may also help add an appropriate measure of caution to weighing up recommendations for secrecy.

As shown in Figure 3, I found that for 45 of the 80 agenda items examined there were no valid grounds for the council to exclude members of the public. On many other occasions I made the judgement that the order to invoke section 90(2) had been too broad and that many of the details of the discussion could have been held in public. The effect of this would be to limit the in camera deliberations to only those items which were properly the subject of a valid confidentiality order.  A recurring example of this is the issue of CEO performance reviews conducted regularly by councils. I advised councils that I could see no good reason to exclude the public from discussions and, consequently, from access to documentation, which covered, inter alia, the key performance indicators established for the CEO position and the criteria for assessing performance. I made the observation on a number of occasions that I can find no compelling reason for considering the matter of CEO performance reviews exclusively in confidence.

On another level, a common risk encountered by many councils during informal gatherings is the building of consensus. I note the advice on this prepared by the Queensland government for its local government sector:29

Building consensus, even in an informal manner, can effectively result in the ‘rubber stamping’ of decisions during subsequent council meetings.

Councillors are required to attend meetings with an open mind and without having predetermined the outcome under consideration. As such, avoiding situations where debate and discussion result in consensus building is imperative. 

In my view there can be neither public nor council benefit in suppressing knowledge of how a council is providing its ratepayers with value for money in a tender process. As suggested, a redacted report or ‘blind bidder’ approach can be used if names and amounts are a sensitive issue. My preference is for councils to consider these decisions in public with appropriately modified or redacted reports which can also be made public promptly when the decisions are made and the contract is awarded.

Second, there is a discrete issue with regard to the tabling of documents in confidential meetings. The concern I have is that sometimes documents which are part of the material considered by council in making a decision are not referred to in the minutes. As such, people wishing to understand a particular council decision, or the basis upon which it was made, may have difficulty following the logic and authority of the decision. I found records of meetings where a document has been considered by the council but no reference note or copy made of the material for the minutes.

Featured above is an item from a recent Melbourne City Council agenda. (We’ve also uploaded the full document here). What caught our eye was:

• The existence of a ‘Delegations Policy’ – which of course is non-existent, or secret in Glen Eira.
• The limitations put on officers
• The clear role of Council and committees to decide important issues that affect the community – again entirely ‘verboten’ in Glen Eira.

If such a policy were to exist in Glen Eira, then the included ‘criteria’ would have ensured that ALL of the following controversies would have been the domain of councillors and not unelected officials.

• The surreptitious removal of trees in Caulfield Park
• The GESAC basketball allocations fiasco
• The introduction of the Residential Zones
• Countless Planning decisions decided exclusively by the Delegated Planning Committee (ie officers)
• Lawyer fees that are astronomical and we believe unnecessary.

Under the present regime at Glen Eira, the community is basically disenfranchised since councillors have willingly ceded all control to the unelected, faceless and extremely well-paid public servants. Councillors have been willing accomplices in their own emasculation to the detriment of residents.

We unequivocally condemn this council for its continued and flagrant breaches of the Local Government Act, 1989. The latest instance of this is in response to several public questions. A little background first.

The LGA clearly defines the legal function and composition of an ‘assembly of councillors’. It says –

assembly of Councillors (however titled) means a meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present, or a planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be—

(a) the subject of a decision of the Council; or

(b) subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee—

but does not include a meeting of the Council, a special committee of the Council, an audit committee established under section 139, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation

Being a representative of Glen Eira Council to the MAV state conference is a ‘delegated’ position – ratified by a council resolution. Esakoff is thus a ‘delegated person’. The LGA then goes on to state:

Where a Council is empowered to do any act, matter or thing, the decision to do the act, matter or thing is to be made by a resolution of the Council.

For the purposes of subsection (5), resolution of the Council means—

(a) a resolution made at an ordinary meeting or special meeting;

(b) a resolution made at a meeting of a special committee;

(c) the exercise of a power, duty or function delegated to a member of Council staff under section 98—

but does not include any business transacted at an assembly of Councillors.

What all of this means is that:

• Decisions CANNOT be made at assemblies
• DECISIONS must be made via formal council resolution and tabled in the minutes
  

So, we then come to the crux of the matter – How can Esakoff, the delegated representative of council vote for various motions at the MAV conference, when NO FORMAL RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED WHICH LEGITIMISES THESE VOTES?

The only mention of a MAV conference occurred in the Records of Assembly meeting dated the 14^th May, 2013 and which eventually made an appearance in the council minutes of July 2^nd, 2013. The minutes of this assembly read –  Cr Esakoff – MAV State Council Motions – Fire Services Levy, 11, 15, 13, 18, 20, 32, 37, 48, 55, 59, 60, late No. 4, 6, 7.

At last Tuesday night’s council meeting a public question queried Esakoff on her voting at the State Conference. It asked:

“At a recent council meeting Cr Esakoff reported on the MAV’s State Conference without actually reporting on how Glen Eira City Council voted on any of the motions. I therefore ask Cr Esakoff, how she voted on behalf of Glen Eira, on the Melbourne City Council 3 part motion entitled “Transparency in Local Government Decision Making”. That is: did she vote in favour, against, or abstained and would she please explain the rationale behind any such actions?”

The response was:

Cr Esakoff provided a response. She said:

“The Melbourne City Council motion referred to was actually a four part motion, with the fourth part stating that Councils should provide at least five data sets in an open format to a common platform.

Being the consensus of the councillor group and as Council’s delegate, I voted against this motion, the reasons being that we felt the motion was overly prescriptive and that it was not the role of other Councils to tell Councils how to govern themselves. That is something for each Council to decide, within the required parameters.

The motion was defeated by close to two thirds at the State Council Meeting and, judging by the debate, many Councils shared these concerns.”

COMMENT

Here’s what the actual motion was – taken directly from the MAV agenda for this meeting in October 2013.

Motion 40: Transparency in Local Government Decision Making
Submitting Council: Melbourne City Council

Motion:
That the MAV State Council encourages member councils to voluntarily embrace the following transparency measures in order to maintain Victoria’s position as the best governed and most transparent local government sector in Australia.

1.Residents or other interested parties should have at least one 15 minute opportunity each month to ask general unscripted verbal questions at a formal meeting of all councillors.
2. Councils should endeavour to maintain a publicly accessible audio archive of council meetings in order to provide a fuller public record of proceedings than can be made available in the formal written minutes.
3. In the event of council decisions which are not unanimous, the council minutes should record how individual councillors voted on a particular item, without the need for a division being called.
4. All Councils commit to open and transparent government by providing at least 5 data sets in an open format to a common platform such as CKAN, the free platform currently used by the Federal Government and many other international governments.

Not only is Esakoff’s vote PRE-EMPTING COUNCIL DECISIONS, since we are still waiting for a report on audio recordings, but more importantly, the word CONSENSUS has no legal standing. It is not present in the Local Government Act, the Councillor Code of Conduct, nor in the Local Law. Consensus means bugger all – legally and ethically. In order to have voted for, against, or abstained from ANY motion, a resolution of full council had to occur. It did not and never does. That represents a flagrant breach of the Local Government Act and is simply another instance of DECISION MAKING THAT IS ILLEGAL AND CONDUCTED BEHIND THE CLOSED DOORS OF ASSEMBLY MEETINGS. We will be pursuing this matter further.