Saturday, December 17, 2016

Council meetings held in secret to hide 'embarrassing' councillors


EDITORS’ NOTE: If this story  resonates in Tasmania with councils behaving badly in almost every possible way it should be no surprise. The Minister could well give Tasmanian ratepayers a Christmas cum New Year present and ask both the Ombudsman and the Integrity Commission to bring down a joint report on Tasmania’s councils.

That report should be focused upon the issue of accountability and be equally focused upon the elected representatives and councils operations. Anyway this story in THE AGE makes for sobering reading!

The big questions hanging in the air is just how accountable are Tasmania’s Councils and indeed how representational? The AUDITOR GENERAL might well have a role to play in answering these question in regard to some of Tasmania’s “troublesome councils.”

–•–
Council meetings held in secret to hide 'embarrassing' councillors


Council meetings are being held in secret in order to hide the "embarrassing" behavior of councillors, a detailed investigation into local government transparency has revealed.

A 184-page report by Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass found many failings by the state's councils to serve the public interest when making decisions to close meetings.

The investigation recommended that all council meetings be recorded, mandatory councillor training be introduced and that several changes be made to the Local Government Act to force councils to be more transparent.

"Overall, we found that councils were not engaging in widespread, deliberate, secretive behaviour. But there was evidence of poor practice across councils large and small, urban and rural," Ms Glass said.

One of the many concerns raised in the investigation was that councils were inappropriately closing meetings to the public to avoid embarrassment or reputation damage to the council itself.

In June this year, Frankston City Council convened a meeting to discuss comments made by councillors on social media. The mayor and councillors later told the ombudsman the meeting was closed to the public because they believed it would cause negative media attention.


"You have to ask yourself, in the public interest, what does this serve?" one councillor said.

"If it's going to be a bloody, messy procedure, if it's going to be surgery and there is going to be a bit of blood all over the joint, why do you invite everyone in to see that and witness it?"

The council later conceded the decision to close the meeting was "not in full compliance" with local government law.

Ms Glass said that closing a council meeting to avoid embarrassment put the interests of council ahead of the interests of the community.

"Ultimately, the public has a right to see how councils are operating and making decisions," she said.

"Where the source of embarrassment is councillor behaviour, voters have a legitimate interest in seeing these behaviours and their impact on council business, to inform their decision making at the next election."

Only 16 of Victoria's 79 councils make audio or video recordings of their meetings readily available to the public.

One of the justifications for this is that councillors could make defamatory comments during the meetings, exposing the council to legal action.

For example, Cardinia Shire Council in Melbourne's south east used to webcast its meetings but stopped because it did not have defamation insurance (it now releases audio of council meetings via a podcast).

The Local Government Act requires that councils record the reason for closing a meeting to the public in the minutes of the meeting, however few council provide detailed explanations.

Melbourne City Council will hold five of its 11 items in its upcoming December meeting in secret. One of the reasons listed on the agenda for the confidentiality requirement is "other confidential matter".

As part of its nine-month investigation, the ombudsman also received reports that councillors had voted on items that they had a personal interest in, or had bullied those who disagreed with their views.

Ms Glass recommended that a mandatory training program be developed for all Victorian councillors, despite some chief executives questioning if it would make any difference to councillors' grasp of the requirements of their role.

"We deliver them whatever training they need. But … training doesn't turn them into decent human beings that care about their community," one chief executive said.

Other recommendations from the ombudsman include a "public interest test" requirement for closing meetings and the development of a code of conduct for all Victorian councillors.

Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins said the Victorian government was considering the recommended changes to the Local Government Act "but can already indicate that we are supportive of many of them".

"I also call on our 79 councils to look at how they can take the recommendations into account now," she said.”

Click here to go to source http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-meetings-held-in-secret-to-hide-embarrassing-councillors-20161215-gtbxma.html



Friday, December 16, 2016

Water at centre of looming Local Govt crisis

Either Tasmania has local councils responsible for local areas or not. The State government needs to make up its mind and act and so do local councils ‘water’ is the kind of problem that will not go away.

Currently this is all about more taxpayer/ratepayer money going to highly paid bureaucrats, not to mention subsidising  inefficient and incompetent councils and in the end maintaining the status quo in the self interest of the leaners and the lift-avoiders – we all know who they are.

In the meantime aldermen/councillors sit around arguing about important things like new city logos or the wording of the Annual Report

We need to ask: if ‘water services’ are to be provided on a Statewide basis and its not an offering for a specific local geographic area, when will the State Government start a realistic  conversation about 21st C service with local government?

Pontificating and tell communities such conversations are over the horizon, after the next State election, or something else, is just not good enough. When small councils lose the financial support of TasWater’s dividends, local services will surely suffer. It does not need to be like that.

This is not jus an amalgamation issue or even one to do with getting rid of local government even either will deliver the kind of benefits. It is a conversation abot how best to deliver and at what level to deliver services to the diversity of Tasmania’s communities, especially those not in large urban centres.


TasWater's $2.4 billion in needed upgrades could see corporation sidelined, economist says
ABC_  Georgie Burgess <http://www.abc.net.au/news/georgie-burgess/7880586>

The mission to upgrade Tasmania's aging water and sewerage systems could see responsibility for the services taken out of TasWater's hands, according to a leading economist.

Two-thirds of the state's sewage treatment plants do not meet environmental licence conditions and numerous towns are still subject to boil water alerts or "do not consume" notices.

A plan to rationalise the number of sewage treatment plants, provide safe drinking water to all serviced towns and upgrade the state's drinking water system would cost $2.4 billion.

But TasWater's inability to cover the cost has been laid bare in a report by the auditor-general, according to Labor and the Greens. The council-owned body made an underlying profit of $11 million for the year to July 2016 — down $14 million on the previous year.

Over the same period, TasWater increased borrowings by $64 million to $430 million. Read more here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/taswater-struggling-to-find-enough-to-cover-upgrades/8123294?WT.ac=statenews_tas