Council’s doors close on the last few shards of openness and transparency — Cr Gr. Walkom, 2013.01.16

Following on the post “Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11“, censored Councillor Walkom has written the following comment. Considering its length and importance, it’s been made a full post. Subtitles are by the webmaster.

*******

Councillors and communication

The key responsibility of all councillors, according to the SA Local Goverment Act 1999 Part 3 – Role of members, section 59(b)- is to represent the interests of residents and ratepayers, to provide community leadership and guidance, and to facilitate communication between the community and council. (emphasis mine)

Note this facilitation of communication is the responsibility of ALL councillors – it is NOT the sole responsibility of the mayor or CEO although they both have defined communication roles: the CEO on operational matters and the mayor as spokesperson after a council decision is made. The mayor has no authority to make any decisions for councillors, for council, or for the CEO, so it is just as pointless asking the mayor to make a decision on something or do something as it is to ask that of a councillor.

An important means afforded councillors to do this comes under The Procedure at meetings Regulations (2000) Section 10 (1): A member may ask a question on notice by giving the CEO written notice of the question at least five clear days before the date of the meeting at which the question is to be asked. [webmaster: this represents a QoN – Question on Notice]

Council hostility to openness and transparency

Considering the editing by the CEO of my latest QoN, it is indeed ironic that the justification cited in each agenda is a reference to Council’s strategic plan: “1.3 – To provide good governance that is transparent, equitable and accountable.”

It is definitely no secret that some CEOs and mayors in the State do not support their obligations for council openness and transparency; particularly the vital aspect that comes from asking questions that by legislation are required to be answered promptly in a public forum.

Indeed in this council there is clear hostility towards the use of this provision and practice as evident from item 10.3 in this week’s [2013.01.16] council agenda http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20130116%20Council%20Agenda.pdf

As the mayor is a member of council with those same obligations to the community, it is surprising that she strongly advocates against questions on notice. This is achieved by her stifling to the extent possible in formal meetings any further clarification of an answer which may or may not have been objectively answered.

Such an attitude does damage this key foundation for open communication that the Question on Notice is; it has been very effective, with exceptional positive community feedback to asking these questions. QoN is something that was quite clearly missing from the previous council as evident by there seldom being a question on notice ever asked in that council.

Convoluted and useless answers by council

Whilst the push continues to extinguish such questions altogether, the push back by the minority of councillors to insist on maintaining this communication also continues despite the administration engaging solicitors to advise how best to frustrate such questions and how to “justify” editing any questions that they do not like.

Properly answering questions does, by necessity, take some time to prepare; but honest, relevant and objective answers don’t need a lot of time in an organised organisation.

Let’s have a look at the convoluted and useless answers provided to simple or straightforward questions:

“May I have a copy of that opinion?”

That is my question that triggered item 10.3 [in Agenda 2013.01.16] – a question of eight (8) words… and what do I get ?… Have a look in the Agenda if you have time for legalish mumbo-jumbo.

This is not unique. The answers given these days are increasingly evasive, misleading or convoluted diatribe — as in the case of the answer provided in the agenda for 16th January 2013 meeting at Item 10.3. Although this is not specifically a QoN, it is nevertheless the response to the question/request I made for the legal advice that “justified” formal questions being edited. The ‘answer’ contains one thousand seven hundred and one words (1,701) and complains extensively that it is the questions that are a waste of resources. Well folks this is the public service!

Other method: council not answering questions

So either we get convoluted, useless answers, or no answer, by all practical means. I asked a very simple question on the progress of items that form council’s key direction and management document – the four-year “strategic plan”. It was originally asked well prior to it appearing as a question on notice 8.1.1 in the 12th September 2012 agenda… No answer. Numerous follow up questions at three subsequent meetings failed to elicit any meaningful information!

So today councillors still do not have any idea of what is the status of any of the items in our strategic plan, or how complete the overall plan is. So that means feedback from our customers (the community) is out and feedback from within council itself is out too. I am not at all sure what we as councillors are needed for… but I will keep trying to find out.

CEO editing a councillor’s question on the Penneshaw CWMS systems

There has been an inordinate amount of questions asked about the Penneshaw CWMS system… with very good reason! There is simply no way round that this little pearler is an example of how a project should NOT be managed.

Initiated in the early days of the previous council, their four-year term achieved little if anything. Such management has included advice to the ombudsman that was simply wrong and probably contributed to the ombudsman’s telling a resident that council’s position of waiting was reasonable: his decision was largely based on the advice that council could wait for costings, which the ombudsman was assured would be available by August 2012… and council would on receipt of the costings release both plans and costs to the community (as required by an earlier decision of council) rather than just the plans. The ombudsman accepted this assurance, but in truth it is now January 2013 and the community is still waiting!

Regarding this CWMS white elephant project, in this meeting’s agenda [2013.01.16], in items 8.1.2 and 10.8, we are told — after six years ! — that we do not have a final design, do not have a project cost, do not know when it might commence nor the length of time the project will take. We are also told that it is also intended to tender this project without an estimate and without council approval (i.e. before the community consultations are complete). I suspect that many would regard this as a fairly corrupt process and perhaps confirms that community consultation is much less than fair dinkum.

Presumably the shift to CEO autocracy, by affording the Chief Executive Officer editing rights when no such provision exists in either the Act nor the Regulations for meetings, would be considered progress by CEOs around the State, and could result in any further questioning of the above matters… being edited!

Political selectivity and double standards by the CEO and mayor

Now for those who haven’t been watching all episodes of this soap opera you can have a look at the question that I offensively asked and which warrants so much of council’s negative resources:

Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11

Editing of a QoN by an elected council representative by the Council administration is not light matter, but there is more to it: by selectively editing, administration favours one part of the elected councillors (those that please it) to the detriment of the others.

It does so by pretending that the introductory comment or introduction to the actual question are not necessary… and that they are political statements. Is that argument genuine ?

Well, then it’s obvious that some political statements are OK, while others are not. Let’s look at some QoNs submitted by one of the “nice” councillors, those whose questions should not be edited, of course.

Item 8.1 of the August 2012 council meeting, QoN:

“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?”

Now is that a “pure” question without political tone? – Obviously not.

On this matter of political statements not having its place in council (whatever that could mean), have a look at the following Notice of Motion and particularly the comments published in that agenda with the motion:

13 June 2012 Item No 16.3
Report Title Notice of Motion Cr Clements – Meeting Attendance
Cr Clements’ Comments

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 Councillor’s workload, how much we get paid and how productive we are in our roles. This is very difficult to answer and could cause some embarrassment to some Councillors. On behalf of ratepayers and to allow better assessment of the value of Councillors in their roles, I would propose the following motion.

Proposed Motion

“That the CEO compile a complete dossier of attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings, formal and Informal gatherings and workshops with noted absences due to leave or sickness commencing from the start of the election term in November 2010 and that such documentation be made public at the July 2012 meeting of Council.”

Do you see any similarities between the form and terminology of this motion and its introduction, and that of the rather offensive QoN ? – I hope so.

– Was the mayor or CEO concerned about the form of this rather inappropriate statement ? – nope!

– Was there any legal opinion sought about how to edit this political comment ? – nope!

– Sorry remind me again who called the point of order to have political comment edited from questions on notice ? – ah yes it was Cr Clements.

– So it is fair to attack councillor Walkom over such a stupid and obviously politically tainted question as the one he’s asking about the Penneshaw CWMS – of course!

But now that the double standards seem more firmly entrenched, and the doors continue to close on the last few shards of openness and transparency that have managed to so far escape from this council’s clandestine operations… just how will the minority councillors be able to facilitate the ratepayer peeking in to see how their money is or is not wasted in council’s secret operations? Does the majority and the CEO really believe that their attitude will be quietly shrugged off by the electorate?

All this being my own personal views — of course.

Cr Graham Walkom
Kangaroo Island

See also:

Kangaroo Island Council not functioning properly — interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.11

How to undermine a conscientious councillor — Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.04

Ratepayers need questions and answers printed in the Council Agenda — Knight, Shirley 2013.01.28“]

5 thoughts on “Council’s doors close on the last few shards of openness and transparency — Cr Gr. Walkom, 2013.01.16

  1. “Something missing from the previous Council” – yes there was. There was no grandstanding, no wasting of Council’s time and there was excellent communication which meant that if you wanted to find something out you simply asked a question out of session so that informed decisions could be made.

  2. There you go Mr Walkom, Council has excellent communication which meant that if you wanted to find something out you simply asked a question out of session so that informed decisions could be made. true answers will come forth with so much ease over tea and cupcakes

  3. 17th January, 2013

    Council Resolution 16.01.2013
    Moved Cr Clements, Seconded Cr Denholm
    That all future Questions on Notice to Council adhere to the following criteria:
    1. Questions on Notice to Council do not include any preamble or wording within the Question that embellishes, in anyway, the objective nature of the question.
    2. Where such Question on Notice is capable of being answered by Senior Officers, Councillors will utilise this opportunity first and foremost before presenting a Question on Notice to Council.
    3. For the edification of Council, knowledge of the question posed and answers provided by Senior Officers, where appropriate, will be circulated to Councillors as they are dealt with and in advance of the Council Meeting.
    CARRIED. 5 For, 1 Against (Cr Liu, in absentia Cr Walkom)

    I attended the council meeting yesterday (2013.01.16). I saw Deputy Mayor Peter Clements engineering his resolution to carry out what I consider an offensive “policy on the run” in regard to questions on notice. I was appalled ! Such a resolution effectively shuts down councillors’ questions, indispensable information to the community (and a way of keeping an eye on the administration) that only councillors Liu and Walkom go to the trouble of using. I had an altercation with Cr Clements during the lunch break.
    I told him that by calling the preamble to questions an “embellishment” he was making a huge assumption. He disagreed because “We took legal advice on this”
    I spontaneously interjected “Oh no!”. I was simply conveying the feeling of many ratepayers fed up with Council wasting money on so-called “legal advice”, using this “advice” as a means of shutting up anyone objecting to its action.
    The Deputy Mayor then told me I was not respecting Council.
    So I replied “But you are not respecting me as a ratepayer. Many in the community want councillors to ask the questions together with a preamble because how else would the community know the background to what the Council is doing.”
    Then the Deputy Mayor said something to imply I was claiming I was right which he could not validate as I had not said so. – Another incorrect assumption. He added: “ The questions are not for the community – they are for the Council” ! Does the community agree with that ?
    He did not seem to have read or understood that in his report on Kangaroo Island Council the State Ombudsman had indicated that the questions and answers were a means of getting information out to the public.
    Then the Deputy Mayor repeated, more than twice, “You are not respecting council – the resolution was passed by a majority of councillors”
    Well, I deeply feel that the attitude of the current majority in Council is disrespectful to the electorate and to the councillors in the minority — it is outrageous!

    Technically my opinion is that this resolution was unwarranted, and there is a Code of Conduct which says the opinion of members of the community should be respected and there is a moral code which says there is a time to speak up ! The implications from this resolution in regard to questions and answers will be serious and will add to the often discussed dysfunction of the council. At the very best it will not make it better.

    Thesaurus synonyms for embellish:

    adornment, coloring, decoration, doodad, elaboration, embroidering, embroidery, enhancement, enrichment, exaggeration, fandangle, floridity, flowery speech, frill, froufrou, fuss, garnish, gilding, gingerbread, hyperbole, icing on the cake, jazz, ornament, ornamentation, ostentation, overstatement

  4. “State Ombudsman had indicated that the questions and answers were a means of getting information out to the public.” I believe the community does expect and assume the councillors will ask questions as their representatives and with the lead up preamble to disclose the topic for the QoN asked. Im starting to wonder what is the purpose of councillors and mayor roles when it appears secrecy and unchallenged administration is the expected regime path to follow.

  5. I heartily concur with Councillor Walkom on this matter.
    Well done Graham for putting the information out there for all ratepayers to see and understand how they are not being well served by most of their Councillors and some of the administration personnel also.

    Freedom of speech and information in politics has been fought and died for in the past. This manipulation of the rules needs to stop now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *