by Cr Ingrid Jackson*
One of my objectives as a Noosa Councillor is to ensure the community is as fully informed as possible about the deliberations and decisions of our Council.
An informed community is a more effective community and matters such as disclosure, transparency and accountability rate very high on the list of achievements I’d like to see this current Council attain before the next elections in March 2020.
One aspect of transparency – and this may seem rather bureaucratic – is the taking of meeting minutes, the assurance that these minutes are comprehensive and accurate, and their publication and availability to the greatest number of residents as possible.
Which brings me to the Ordinary Meeting of Council last Thursday night.
In Noosa, the only meeting minutes taken and made public are of the monthly Ordinary Meeting. There are no minutes taken at the three preliminary committee meetings.
An attempt to move to greater disclosure & transparency
At Thursday’s Ordinary Meeting in Kin Kin, I moved that General Committee minutes be both taken and made public. This does not happen at present. To me, and many other people in the community, this was a small but important step towards greater disclosure and transparency.
My motion was voted down 2 – 4 (in favour, Crs Jackson & Glasgow; against, Crs Wellington, Wilkie, Jurisevic & Stockwell).
Cr Wilkie then moved to exempt all three Committees from taking minutes but to place what were termed ‘live record meeting notes’ from the General Committee on the Council website.
I moved an amendment seeking that Council specify exactly what these ‘notes’ would record and this included:
- Councillor attendance
- Details of all items deliberated on
- Details of any conflicts of interest or material personal interests declared by Councillors
- All motions and amendments moved
- The movers and seconders of motions and amendments
- Whether the motions and amendments were carried or lost
- Councillor names(s) and how they voted if requested or division called by councillors under Council Standing Orders
- Any changes to staff recommendations, and
- The final recommendations to the Ordinary Meeting made by the General Committee.
The CEO then advised that the ‘notes’ already included this information. As no councillor seconded my amendment, my attempt to formalise the content of the ‘notes’ was not accepted.
Council agrees to publish ‘notes’, but what is their standing?
Then the proposal to publish the ‘live record meeting notes’ was put to councillors and was agreed to 4 – 2 (in favour, Crs Wilkie, Jurisevic, Stockwell & Glasgow; against, Crs Wellington & Jackson).
Despite my overriding commitment to transparency, I did not vote in favour because the term ‘notes’ is undefined, such ‘notes’ appear to have no legal standing and their veracity as a true and faithful record lacks the formality of properly constituted and confirmed minutes.
Furthermore, the motion adopted does not guarantee future commitment to further transparency, an area in which Noosa Council lags best practice.
I also remain of the view that proceedings of the General Committee merit the legality of formal minutes because significant and controversial matters are debated, motions and amendments voted on, won and lost. It is my view that Council should not have exempted the taking and publication of formal minutes.
Nevertheless, I am appreciative that the adoption of ‘notes’ is a small step forward to provide the community with more information. At the conclusion of the Ordinary Meeting I publicly thanked my fellow councillors for this step towards increased transparency.
Community wants & deserves the transparency of full minutes
In support of my motion, this is what I said:
Instead of exempting the General Committee from taking minutes, we should require the General Committee to take minutes and make them public.
The recommended motion on the Agenda complies with legislation. But that’s not enough. It’s the bare minimum. One very important word is missing in the motion – Transparency.
What our community wants and deserves is full transparency. And transparency means people knowing what happens at council meetings, including committee meetings.
The General Committee should not be exempt from taking minutes and making them available to the public.
The General Committee is in many ways the first half of Council’s Ordinary Meeting. All Councillors are members of the General Committee. The General Committee is where the most significant and most controversial matters are debated and nutted out. Alternate motions and amendments are put and voted on, won or lost.
‘Starting point for public documents is that they are open to the public’
As a result, at the subsequent Ordinary Meeting of Council, there is often little debate. In fact, when it comes to Ordinary Meetings, most of the committee recommendations are not even voted on individually. They are put in omnibus motions and voted on as a group, so the Ordinary Meeting minutes show little by way of the deliberations that lead to Council decisions.
The people of Noosa Shire should have a chance to know what takes place at General Committee meetings. There should be a public record. That way people don’t have to attend the General Committee meeting to find out what happens.
What I’m suggesting is not hard to do. The meeting is already open to the public including the media. A record of meeting proceedings is already taken on computer as the meeting proceeds. And councillors are able to get a copy of this after the meeting. It would be easy to make those notes available as minutes accessible by everyone.
The Queensland Information Commissioner says on her website:
“The starting point for all public sector documents is that they are open to the public…. Agencies have an obligation to proactively release information, maximise disclosure, and otherwise provide administrative release.”
I recommend that General Committee meeting minutes be taken and made public, to provide transparent information to the community.
The greater transparency of councils elsewhere in Australia
Many local governments throughout Australia are taking steps towards greater transparency:
- In South Australia it is legislated that all informal councillor meetings which involve discussion or effectively make decisions about matters which are or will be on a formal Council agenda, must be open to the public with a schedule on council websites (also indicating and giving a rationale for any confidential sessions). Since I came onto Council we’ve had 100’s of such Councillor meetings behind closed doors.
- In Victoria it is legislated that records of all informal councillor meetings which consider Council matters must be reported at Council Ordinary meetings and included in Ordinary meeting minutes. In Noosa there are no public records of informal councillor meetings.
- Council meetings and committee meetings are being live streamed by over 50 councils across Australia including Queensland, with the recordings available on council websites. At Noosa Council, it’s time we considered this.
- In Queensland and other states, many councils routinely record who voted for and against each motion. In Noosa, the public don’t know how each councillor voted, except when a councillor requests that votes be recorded.
- Many councils in Queensland and around Australia invite public questions at Council meetings and record the questions & answers in their minutes. Not in Noosa.
- The Victorian Ombudsman has written a report on transparency of local government decision-making which includes important guidelines for councils on “What does a transparent council look like?”
An invitation to you to help us do better
Noosa Council could make a start by benchmarking itself against such examples of best practice.
There is so much more we could be doing to make our council more transparent and accountable to the public. It’s about time we got started on it.
I have publicly asked residents of our shire who may be interested in this subject to propose what further measures they think Council should be taking in the interests of greater transparency.
In the same spirit of engagement and community participation, I welcome ideas from Open Noosa readers which I will take forward to Noosa Council.
*You’ll understand that these views are my own as an independent member of Noosa Council and not necessarily those of the Council as a whole.
Thanks for reproducing your speech to councillors, Ingrid. Elsewhere on this site, this was labelled “grandstanding”. I think playing to the gallery is okay since you are saying what you believe. It shouldn’t matter that you can’t get a seconder for a motion, or that your motion will obviously fail, rather that you get your point of view across to your colleagues. And you have succeeded in having a record of the General Meeting (GM) made available to residents. That’s a good thing.
However, it appears that the new GM “Notes” will be published in the same format as the Ordinary Meeting (OM) “Minutes”. I’ve been pulled up elsewhere for calling the new GM record “Minutes”. However, if the format of both is the same, it might be argued that the OM “Minutes” are “Notes” too. Of course, minutes are required for the OM, so is is what they are called. So, it appears both meetings have similar minutes/notes, but the OM version presents the final deliberations and is the legal record.
The General Committee “notes” approved by Noosa Council last week are not Minutes and cannot be considered to be Minutes.
Minutes are the official record of the business and decisions of the Council (and its committees if not exempted as they have just been in Noosa). Minutes are a legal record and it has been argued that they are the most important records of a local government.
Last week Noosa Council voted to exempt all three of its committees from taking Minutes, including the General Committee, but to publish General Committee “notes”. These have no legal standing and will not be confirmed as a true record as Minutes must be.
At the Ordinary Meeting, I moved an amendment specifying that the “notes” must contain the same types of information as Ordinary Meeting minutes. But the other councillors rejected that. So at present there is no specification of the content of the so-called “notes”.
Perhaps Rod would like to specify exactly where the word ‘grandstanding’ was used in relation to Ingrid’s speech? Or is this just a further example of his fictional view of a world where he thinks what he wants to be true actually happened? Or was it one of the angry boys’ club who threw the epithet his way and he thought it worth repeating?
I can assure you, Keith, that I didn’t make this up. Since the comment that it appeared in has now been removed from the site, I obviously can’t point to it. And, your outburst was unnecessary, since I’ve always tried to post here politely and constructively. If there is an angry boys’ club, you’d surely be the president.
I found this comment very polite and constructive Rod. Your usual disingenuousness. Now get back to defending the man who breached the councillor code of conduct
The ON site search didn’t reveal the word, so I assumed the comment had been removed.
Not so.
The reference to grandstanding is here: https://opennoosa.org/transparency-matters/
Rod is correct. The word was buried in ON in this perhaps rhetorical question by a reader: “Is there a bit of grandstanding going on here?” To which Rod’s conclusion was: “This [speech] was labelled grandstanding.”
Of course it was not so “labelled” – that was Rod’s word and interpretation. But Ingrid has been accused of ‘grandstanding’ in other forums by a couple of people who have sought to diminish her advocacy around the legitimate issue of council transparency by alleging she was merely “grandstanding”. That is, presenting a case to gain public attention to self and not because of genuine concern about the issue.
It seems to me that Rod is always quick to try to undermine (not just civilly argue with) those he opposes or those he sees as opposing his political allies. I’ve commented on this trait before and will no doubt be compelled to do so again.
As president of CARA, a group that claims to be non political, this is a strange stance for him to take. But that’s politics I suppose.
Yes, “grandstanding” and “playing to the public gallery” (Noosa News editorial 22 June) have been bandied around because of Ingrid’s political actions, but I don’t hold her views against her. As I said above, I respect her right to hold differing opinions. I’d say my political allies on Noosa Council are all the councillors, including Ingrid. I’ve met with them all over the years and I think they are fine people, each with differences, but collectively with very many strengths.
And, although I’m president of CARA, you should understand that my views are my own and not necessarily those of CARA as a whole.
Perhaps, to avoid any misapprehension that you are grandstanding or representing the views of Cooroy area residents, you should preface your political opinions and positions with a disclaimer that they are your own genuinely held views and do not necessarily represent the considered views of CARA. Then we’re all in the clear
By the way, as you know I think, I was Ingrid’s campaign manager and gopher at the last council elections (delighted to be so I hasten to add).
I understand you were Cr Stockwell’s (a) campaign manager and/or (b) speechwriter. Perhaps you’d like to clarify.
As you know, I handed out how-to-vote cards for Ingrid. I didn’t manage Brian’s campaign and didn’t write any of his speeches, but I edited some campaign material for him. I was delighted that he got elected because his professional planning skills are sorely needed in a Council that has minimal planning experience.
I really think that adding a disclaimer to my posts would be a bit over the top, since I’m not a publically elected official, rather I’m beholden to CARA members. I stand for re-election each year and have not been opposed to date.
And, Rodney, I’m getting a bit intrusive I know, but I’m writing on this period. Noel Playford, former mayor you’d recall, he was a kind of tallyroom clerk for Cr Stockwell. It got quite nerve wracking the vote was so close. Only 10 or so in it at the end. Just avoided court action I believe. Did you have a role in this scrutineering or had you been sidelined at this stage?
I do recall it was a close race between Brian and Elaine, but I wasn’t a scrutineer. Not sure there was court action proposed, perhaps you mean a recount. Certainly don’t remember being sidelined at any stage, or even why this would have been the case. Your sources aren’t too good on this one.
At the risk of being pedantic Rodney, you’ve done the partial quote thing again in your grab from the Noosa News editorial (above) which an idle mind might think was done deliberately. In fact my mind did just that.
The actual quote, in context, was: “This may be construed as nitpicking and playing to the public gallery which I am sure is not the case with Cr Jackson” who the editorialist said earlier “keeps the council on its toes” and is helping “keep a lively democracy at play.”
Now Rodney, I know you’re not a journalist, but you do have pretensions, and you really should not take words out of context to prove some kind of ad hominem political point. That is really bordering on an ethical problem for you and is to be strongly discouraged.
Those terms have been bandied around in several places, but whatever spin you want to put on these observations is fine by me. And, yes, the quote was deliberate, obviously, since the editorialist was making the ironic statement: “may be construed as nitpicking and playing to the public gallery”, then giving it the playful qualification: “which I am sure is not the case with Cr Jackson”. If you don’t see this, well that’s okay too.
True, I’m a writer not a journo, but does this matter? As for political and professional ethics, that’s a debate I’d love to have with you one day, since it’s the proverbial can of worms in PR business practices.
As the poster who originally asked the rhetorical question ‘Is the there some grandstanding going on here?’ I’d like to weigh in on the discussion.
I think there’s been grandstanding a plenty on this issue. There have been loud protestations that Noosa is one of the most transparent of Councils and support for maintaining the status quo (because that’s what we’ve always done, or not done in this case). Both Cr. Jackson and Bettina have given good reasons why minutes should be taken and made public but I’m yet to hear anyone say WHY minutes should NOT be taken and published. It’s all been rhetoric, protestation that NC is already transparent and that it shouldn’t happen because that’s the way we have always done it.
There may be good reasons for not taking minutes or for opting instead for ill defined ‘notes’. If there are I’m yet to see them clearly outlined in any of the discussions.
Having said this I also stand by my original comment that perhaps the issue might have originally been handled in a more diplomatic way, but then I don’t really know the current machinations and power groups within Council, so perhaps it couldn’t.
I am sad to see the tone of some of the discussion here, which in my mind borders on attacking the man not the idea. Sure, Keith and Rod are big boys and can hold their own in a sparring contest, but if ON was to be a forum where all views and contributors are respected, and where ideas and positions are debated then this discussion tells me that might be a vain hope.
Judy, I love that you are resetting the focus back on the issue. And thank you, Ingrid. Especially grateful for the explanation why you thought ‘notes’ was a less desirable outcome. I too truly believe all levels of government need to build trust by being transparent, accessible and accountable – especially in this time of rapid change. Much work needs to be done. I also believe it’s time to really listen and engage with what women are saying when they speak up rather than distract with inconsequential matters.
Have a nice weekend!
Bettina
Good points Judy. I have to say, though, that the reasons for not taking minutes for the two committee meetings have been well enuncited, at least at the General Meeting I attended last Monday. The argument goes that these meetings report deliberations to the General Meeting where the debate occurs (or not) and where recommendations get transferred into motions that get voted on and sent to the Ordinary Meeting for ratification. Now that we have a record of the General Meeting and minutes of the Ordinary Meeting, is that not enough to Understand council business.
Anyway, the debate occurred, the councillors have voted, and the motion limiting an extra set of Notes to be taken was passed. Are we to keep on debating this topic here?
Or, should we do what Ingrid is asking and suggest ways to make the council even more transparent? Thats certainly something useful to discuss and debate here.
As to the tone of discussion, I’d much prefer discussing and debating the issues and not going for the man, but that’s not always possible, since I’m under constant questioning, snide criticism, and insinuation. Keith is using all the tricks of his former trade on me. Of course, I can return fire, and I do enjoy the exercise as I’m sure Keith does, but it must get boring, I’m sure, for other readers.
For the sake of transparency can you declare if you will be a mayoral candidate at the next local government elections?
Many thanks
Clare 4 mayor’s first meeting, what happens? Live streaming gets turned off. Transparency at its finest.