I have discovered an abnormality in Item 10.2 of the March Council meeting minutes. Please note below where Cr Denholm seconded twice to a motion and subsequent an amendment to the same motion:
| Item No | 10.2 |
| Report Title | 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government |
|
Moved Cr Willson Seconded Cr Denholm That Council authorise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CEO to attend this conference as representatives of Council. 1st Amendment: Moved Cr Liu Seconded Cr Walkom That Council authorise the Mayor to attend this conference as the representative of Council. LOST 3 For 6 Against 2nd Amendment: Moved Cr Clements Seconded Cr Denholm That Council authorise the Mayor and CEO to attend this conference as representatives of Council. CARRIED. 6 For 3 Against The 2nd Amendment became the motion which was put and CARRIED. 6 For 3 Against |
|
After reviewed my notes taken at the meeting, I would like to make the following comment:
Item 10.2 of 14th March 2012 Council Agenda
National General Assembly in Canberra on 17-20 June 2012
The CEO, Mr Boardman sought Council approval for Mayor Bates, Cr Clements and himself to attend the National General Assembly in Canberra on 17-20 June 2012, at a cost of $8,610 of ratepayers money. In his report (Item 10.2) to the March ordinary meeting of Council, he advised that Council needs to maintain as high a profile as possible within both Local Government and Federal Government. Last year the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Acting CEO attended the conference.
Mr Boardman’s report can be found on Council’s website: (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120314%20Council%20Agenda.pdf )
At the March meeting of Council at American River, Cr Willson moved a motion which was seconded by Cr Denholm to support the CEO’s recommendation to authorise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CEO to attend this conference as representatives of Kangaroo Island Council.
I opposed the motion saying that it was too costly to send 3 delegates to the conference on a yearly basis and moved an amendment to the original motion that Council authorise only the Mayor to attend this conference as Council’s representative, which was seconded by Cr Walkom although he did not believe that anyone from this Council should attend given that we had 3 representatives who attended last year’s conference.
This amendment was put to the vote and lost by 3 to 6.
The Deputy Mayor, Cr Clements subsequently moved a 2nd Amendment to approve the Mayor and CEO as Council’s delegates to the conference, agreeing that he would be prepared not to attend the Assembly, which was seconded by Cr Denholm who had already spoken to the original motion.
This amendment was put to the vote and was carried by 6 to 3.
The 2nd amendment became the motion which was put to the vote and carried by 6 to 3.
The decision of Council on the attendance to the 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government was recorded in the minutes (Item 10.2) of the meeting which can be found on Council’s website: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120314%20Council%20Minutes.pdf.
The Minutes of March meeting was confirmed at the April meeting: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120411%20Council%20Minutes.pdf,
The main issue is: should Cr Denholm be allowed to second the ‘2nd amendment’ when he was the seconder of the original motion?
From reading Section 13 of Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000, my understanding of Regulation 13(9) is that the seconder of a motion must speak to the motion at the time of seconding the motion and that the seconder is taken to have spoken to the motion.
Under Regulation 14(1), only Elected Members who have not spoken in the debate may second an amendment. An amendment will lapse if not seconded at the appropriate time under Regulation 14(2).
According to the Regulations, the ‘2nd amendment’ moved by Cr Clements should not be accepted by the Mayor due to the lack of a seconder. The ‘2nd amendment’ should therefore lapse as Cr Denholm had already spoken to the original motion.
In light of the above situation, I believe that the issue relating to the attendance to the National General Assembly in Canberra has not been resolved as the motion passed does not comply with the Regulations and that technically there was no decision made on this matter by the Council at the March meeting.
NB: The above comment is my understanding of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000 and is not the view of the Council and its CEO.
Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE SA 5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823 Mobile: 0428 322 005
For goodness sake Councillors, will you please get on with the job of some positive action about the future of the Island. For 18 months all we have had is endless nonsense drilling down into absolute negative minutiae which has no bearing on the well-being of our community. Enough!
Craig,
Do you think then that certain elements of council in the majority may dispense with proper process when it suits their agenda, yet come down like a ton of bricks on a minority member of council for some perceived minor irregularities ?
Meeting Regulations are to keep proceedings in order and to prevent perversions of justice.
As council decisions are legally binding it is important to stick to the rules.
Or put another way, would you pay for an inaccurately/improperly served traffic infringement expiation ? Most people would be happy to refuse on account of technical irregularities.
How much more then should the expenditure of ratepayers money fall under due process ?
If this matter needs to be raised at all, it should be raised in a Council meeting. It is of such small consequence – surely there are more important matters which need your attention? I am entirely in agreement with Craig Wickham. Enough, enough!
Being a successfully self-funded, independent, retired builder/property developer /motel operator and fiscal realist… (but – only a property owner/ratepayer on this Island since 1987)… I am utterly disgusted with the dysfunctional and non feasible manner in which we here are fiscally governed and managed… I applaud the attempts by the persecuted Councillors who may not be perfect in every administrative procedure… but are definitely perfectly correct in financial aims – and thus the Island’s fiscal future…
As I see it Mssrs Cowans, Renfrey, Black, Bates, Denholm and Clements etc… your continued denigration of reality and waste of public funds is disgusting… as is your continued promotion of unrealistic, financially unviable and unsustainable Island infrastucture.
There is no such thing as a free lunch – and never will be!
I also suggest you check your ability to afford any unjust criticism you may aim at me for my above mentioned comments – and disregard any grammatical errors which my retarded wobbly typing finger may have committed!
Sorry, Peter, I dont recall ever expressing “denigration of reality and waste of public funds is disgusting… as is your continued promotion of unrealistic, financially unviable and unsustainable Island infrastucture”.
Perhaps you could enlighten me?
David
No need to apologise Mr Cowans…..to enlighten you I have carefully re read my comments and consider them precise and correct….just as I assume your last two submissions published in this public forum…..would appear to imply you do indeed disagree with my views on the referred subjects and matters.
And may I add at this opportunity…..onya Rosalie and Graham-your due diligence and steadfast efforts are admired by the silent majority!
Roll on next Council elections…….
Hi Craig,
I am sure there would be a significant number of islanders who would like to hear some specifics about your ‘(…) positive action about the future of the Island’: your obscure comments here are meaningless. Perhaps you could start with the financially successful initiatives you achieved in your term in the last council, because from where I sit on this council the finances that were hand-balled to this council were and admittedly still are a basket case.
PB is absolutely right with his comment that there is no free lunch – somebody pays.
And as you also know, each additional tourist that arrives on this island is subsidized by council. How would you suggest that the free lunch tourist operators on this island should pay their share of these costs?
Irrelevant of the ‘dodgy’ procedure, I suggest if the Mayor, Deputy Mayor & CEO wish to attend this conference they do so by paying for the trip themselves. No doubt they plan on attending this bag giving, brown nose event in style. Boardman’s reason that KIC “…needs to maintain as high a profile as possible within both Local Government and Federal Government.” is very flimsy. I really don’t understand how a council under as much financial pressure as KIC can afford to have three delegates attend an event that has no real purpose other than for three of it’s members to support their own feelings of self importance. On’ya for bringing this up.