Questions on Notice presented to Council meetings by each Elected Member up to 11 July 2012 Council Meeting:
Mayor Jayne Bates 0
Cr Peter Clements 0
Cr Malcolm Boxall 0
Cr Graeme Connell 2
Cr Bec Davis 0
Cr Peter Denholm 20
Cr Ken Liu 123
Cr Graham Walkom 121
Cr Joy Willson 0
[Cr Rosalie Chirgwin ERASED]
Tit for tat.
On July 12th, with the headline “Attendance record revealed”, The Islander published on its front page numbers with regards to the attendance by councillors at “council meetings”, numbers requested by Deputy Mayor Peter Clements. The article by Shauna Black included a table meant to demonstrate that the three members of the de facto opposition at Council, Crs Walkom, Liu and Chirgwin, were those with the lowest attendance at “council meetings” in the first semester of 2012.
Note the quote marks used here with regards to “council meetings”… Because the glaring table played on the ambiguity between the terms “council meetings” in their strict sense, the monthly ones, the official ones, open to the public, where decisions are made, and “council meetings” in the wider sense, including in addition all other meetings, the in camera ones, the unofficial ones, where supposedly no decisions are made but which have been proliferating lately.
The table did present three columns discriminating between “Council Meetings” (in the strict sense thus), “Special Meetings” and “Informal Gatherings”, but the table itself was labelled “Attendance at council meetings 2012” (implied in the wider sense thus)… Therefore the rightmost column, the one with marks ranging from 12% (Chirgwin) to 100%, the most obvious one and the one to which most casual readers would have had a look at, did efficiently convey a very negative message with regards to the opposition, and particularly Cr Chirgwin. It was not stated clearly that the three “low-attendance” councillors were opposed, out of principle, to the unofficial and/or closed meetings (thus their low “marks”) — only passing mention was made of this fundamental notion, and only on behalf of Cr Chirgwin, and only on page 3…
Now, thanks to this Question on Notice requested from Cr Walkom, we can look at the story from the other side. Tit for tat. It appears clearly from the numbers provided by the KI CEO that only two of the present councillors go to the trouble of raising QoNs to the administration. I fully understand those who dislike these QoNs, but as a ratepayer, I find them very useful, because they point flashes of light on otherwise rather opaque proceedings. Even though, too often, the admin answers are too vague or simply empty of content, better yet to have inquisitive questions being asked rather than a rubber-stamp council and a big blank presented at the public.
As a shareholder of the Council Inc., receiving less and less return for my money, I expect the elected board to ask hard questions from the CEO, not just to sit quietly and merrily go approvingly at all the meetings conveyed by the CEO and the President (the Mayor). This complacent attitude of councillors was more or less acceptable while the Council rates were less high than presently, and the services provided were more or less acceptable to the majority… but these easy days are gone.
I must add that, as shareholder / ratepayer, I was only mildly amused by the lecturous remarks of the CEO on this critical matter of QoNs.
He states that “the ‘political’ nature of their use in this way may cause stress to Administration in terms of resource diversion and may also cause discord within the Elected Body“… and that the QoNs have “a considerable cost element associated with them“.
Right… I can fully see why the CEO prefers unofficial, verbal exchanges with councillors… but this stuff about costs answering in writing legitimate and necessary questions… C’mon, we are talking thousands of dollars here, while the operating costs of Council are in the millions ! It’s as if one would stop using the headlights on the car to keep lower the replacement costs of the bulbs ! And prefer driving in the dark !
Moreover, the CEO and the councillors who do not question admin do not understand fully that, the rule of the game being democracy (more of less), the “demos“, the people, do need to be informed, and information does not mean only sweet, soothing so-called “communication”. It also means arguing, and wrestling. It also means stating things for the record, not just in passing.
That being said, the CEO’s answer also left an unpleasant whiff. Whatever happened to former councillor Chirgwin ? During the period in question, until only a few weeks ago, when she resigned, she did raise QoNs… Was sullying her name not enough ? Does it need to be erased from the records too ? Like in the good ol’ days of the triumphant Church, or of the Soviet Union ? I invite Mr Boardman to correct this unpleasantness and use the comments section of this post to provide the number for ex-councillor Rosalie Chirgwin.
— Dr Gabriel Bittar, KIpolis webmaster
Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012
Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO
E. Member’s Questions on Notice:
Disclosure of information to ratepayers is and should remain a significant priority for Council; it is one of the foundation stones of good governance. Ratepayers constantly ask me about different Councillor’s effectiveness in representing ratepayers concerns and Community issues. This is easy to answer but may cause some embarrassment to some Councillors who shy away from this key responsibility. The effective Councillors are those who bring issues formally to the attention of Council by asking the hard questions of the administration charged with carrying out Council’s work and insist on objective answers.
Commencing from the start of the election term in November 2010, what are the respective numbers of Questions on Notice asked by each councillor, including the mayor?
Answer E:
The following advises the number of Questions on Notice presented to Council meetings by each Elected Member up to 11 July 2012 Council Meeting.
Mayor Jayne Bates 0
Cr Peter Clements 0
Cr Malcolm Boxall 0
Cr Graeme Connell 2
Cr Bec Davis 0
Cr Peter Denholm 20
Cr Ken Liu 123
Cr Graham Walkom 121
Cr Joy Willson 0
It should be noted the above figures exclude any questions without notice asked by Elected Members at Council meetings.
It should be noted that whilst the facility to ask questions with / without notice exists there is the opportunity for questions to be asked of Officers throughout the course of the month between Council Meetings. There are also opportunities to ask questions at the informal Gatherings or specific Workshop sessions that occur regularly.
All Elected members use this facility and Officers answer many questions asked by Elected members either to satisfy their own needs or those of members of the Community that may have approached them with questions.
Note that as all Questions with Notice are recorded in the Agenda / Minutes of a Council Meeting they are officially in the public realm (noting that Questions without Notice and their answers may be recorded if so determined by Council). They can be considered to be a “political” tool – used by Councillors to show to the public that they are engaged in the process of being a Council Elected Member; they may be used to make it clear that their personal position on a topic may / may not align with the resolved position of Council; they may be used to raise issues that have not satisfactorily been answered informally to Council / Administration attention. These are legitimate uses of this provision albeit the “political” nature of their use in this way may cause stress to Administration in terms of resource diversion and may also cause discord within the Elected Body.
Questions on Notice do have a considerable time implication for Officers involved in their research and answer – they therefore have a considerable cost element associated with them – both directly in terms of time spent answering them and in terms of the costs and inefficiencies associated with not working on planned management or strategic development activities. Depending on how they are structured, the questions and answers may not add any significant value to the organisation or its objectives and may lead to Administration not being able to commit the time it should to the business plan objectives.
Officers welcome questions as they arise as we recognise that a quick answer given now can prevent the need for a lengthy answer later. If the answers given by informal means do not satisfy the Councillor fully or raise an additional concern for the Councillor that they believe the whole of Council should be aware of then the Councillor could raise a Notice of Motion. In the process of speaking to the motion, the Councillor can highlight their concerns and seeking to inform and gain support for a course of action from the rest of Council – this may be as simple as a formal report request to Council from Officers.
The CEO is privy to most (if not all) questions asked of Officers during the course of any given month and will choose to disagree with the statement made by Councillor Walkom with regards to what makes a Councillor effective. All of our Councillors, without exception, actively involve themselves in the affairs of Council and just because some chose to work quietly in the background, getting (and keeping) themselves informed does not mean that they are any less effective than others in representing concerns and Community issues. In a professional capacity, an observation is that they are often more effective within and without of the Elected Body in working in this manner.