I am presenting today as the Co-convenor of A Better Eurobodalla
(ABE), a community forum working to achieve open, accountable and
responsive government in Eurobodalla.
ABE has applied our principles of good governance to a recent issue of
amendments to the ESC Code of Meeting Practice.
ABE has been an active participant in the process of reviewing and
amending the previous Code of Meeting Practice (the code), making
submissions, presenting to Council, attending the formal workshop, and
writing to and meeting with the general manager. As such I feel qualified
to reflect on what has happened and comment on the way forward. The
issue I am addressing is about the use of the words ‘encourage’ or
‘must’ as it relates to members of the public being obliged to provide a
copy of their presentations 24 hours in advance of presenting to Public
Access or Public Forums.
I understand that either today or at a meeting soon councillors will be
asked to consider a way forward.
To briefly reflect on the history of this issue:
In May 2022 councillors were asked to decide on the terms of the draft
meeting code that was to go on exhibition for a minimum period of 42
days as required within 12 months of the election of a new council.
Against the then GM’s recommendation, the newly elected councillors
voted unanimously to drop requirement for the advance submission of
Public Forum and Access presentations from the draft new code to go
on public exhibition. This issue had also been closely debated by the
previous Council with considerable community engagement.
In September 2022 after the community consultation process, the
councillors approved the Council’s new code which included that
advance copies of presentations be encouraged rather than required.
At the 28 February 2023 ESC meeting the new GM proposed several
changes to the existing meeting code, including a reduction in the
frequency of meetings to one per month. No mention in the relevant staff
report, or the associated draft of the proposed new code, of any
proposal to revert to providing an advance copy of a presentation. As
required by s.361 of the LG Act, this draft revised meeting code went on
public exhibition from 1/3/23 to 11/4/23.
To the recent 27 June ESC meeting where again, in the staff report in
the business papers for this meeting, no mention was made of any
reinstatement of the previously abandoned requirement for the advance
submission of Public Forum and Access presentations.
However, the day before the meeting, I noticed that this requirement had
reappeared in the code that was attached to that staff report. I
immediately brought that to the attention of some of the councillors.
When several councillors then protested at the meeting about the
reinsertion of this requirement into the meeting code without the legally
required public notice having occurred, the Mayor and the GM stated (on
advice from the Public Officer) that that proposed change had, in fact,
been in the consultation draft that had been publicly exhibited in March
and April.
This statement was untrue and importantly has since been apologised
for by the GM.
The webcast reveals some confusion then ensued. An amendment was
proposed by Clr Schutz and voted on. I am aware that at least one
councillor, and possibly more, accepted and voted on the amendment
based on the incorrect advice that the public had been invited to and so
had an opportunity to comment on a proposed change to that particular
aspect of the code.
So to now, where the governance issue is not resolved by an apology
and or commitment to this not happening again. There is a legal
requirement as previously noted and for that particular proposed change
to the code, the legally required period of public exhibition had, in fact,
not occurred.
This is not a storm in a teacup, or an attempt to make unnecessary work
for council staff. We, the public, and councillors, rely on correct
information being provided so the best decisions can be made.
Whatever the reason that incorrect advice was given to councillors, good
governance requires that Council are given the opportunity to reconsider
the Code of Meeting Practice based on correct advice in relation to this
particular issue of what was contained in the consultation version. A
simple reconsideration of that aspect, reverting to the use of ‘encourage’
as included in the consultation draft, is required.
I take you back to the recent reconsideration by Council of the creative
arts policy document. Initially incorrect advice that no submissions were
received on the consultation draft was provided to councillors by staff.
The Council made a decision based on this incorrect advice. This was
subsequently drawn to the attention of staff and as a result, quite
correctly, the matter was brought back to Council and reconsidered with
the correct advice from the staff about the consultation results. No
drama, a correction, a reconsideration and a resolution.
Errors happen and staff, and the council, must own errors when they
occur and correct the record and any decisions made. This issue will not
go away with an apology because legal requirements must be met.
Good governance relies on complying with legal requirements and on
decision making that is based on truthful information.
Bernie O’Neil
Co-Convenor
A Better Eurobodalla
A Better Eurobodalla 