Live streaming and bad behaviour

There was only one item of significance at Noosa Council’s ordinary meeting last Thursday (20 September) and that was a motion from Cr Ingrid Jackson, strongly supported by Cr Jess Glascow, to introduce the live streaming of all public meetings of council and to ask the CEO to investigate the best method of achieving this for implementation in January 2019.

This triggered an agitated debate chaired by mayor Cr Tony Wellington, who I believe could show more strength in his efforts to preside over a civil discourse in a council where verbal abuse sometimes gets out of control.

Cr Jackson moved her motion to initiate live streaming by referring to the trend in Queensland and elsewhere for councils to be more open to the community.

She pointed out that Operation Belcarra, a review instigated by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, had enunciated four key principles for local government – equity, transparency, integrity and accountability. In addition, the Right to Information Act already made it clear that the default position of local councils should be to maximise disclosure.

Cr Jackson said that more than 50 councils in Australia, including three in Queensland, already live stream meetings and that her research showed it can be very economical – as little as $2,000 to set up (that’s all the Alpine Shire Council in Victoria had to shell out) and distributed free through the YouTube website.

But all this was lost on most of her fellow councillors. Deputy mayor Cr Frank Wilkie moved an amendment seconded by Cr Stockwell which, while largely retaining Cr Jackson’s original words that the CEO look at options, erased any notion of the council agreeing to live stream. It butchered the original motion.

This made it immediately clear to me that the fix was in and that there had been a collective agreement among some councillors (and perhaps other parties) to find a way to knock out Cr Jackson’s motion.

Before the meeting began, I had had a conversation with local businessman Jeff Nuske and ex-councillor Ray Kelly. Cr Wilkie’s move confirmed our suspicions that this would be how things would go. A number of Noosa councillors are independents in name only and voters should be aware of that. In council, they operate with the discipline of a political party.

Cr Jackson, with Cr Glasgow’s support, objected to the amended motion, said it directly negated her original motion and was out of order. The mayor disagreed, saying it was not a direct negative because it did consider options. Cr Wilkie said he’d checked the relevant act and his motion conformed to proper process. The mayor allowed the amendment to stand.

Cr Jackson then moved a motion dissenting from the mayor’s ruling which was again seconded by Cr Glasgow. Speaking to her dissent motion, Cr Jackson said her intent was to seek an in-principle agreement and that this would include due diligence by council staff. She said Cr Wilkie’s amendment negated and totally changed the meaning of this motion.

The mayor said he felt his assessment that the amendment did not negate Cr Jackson’s motion was reasonable as the amendment considered the greater ramifications of live streaming. He then put the dissent motion which lost by two (Crs Jackson and Glasgow) to five (Crs Wellington, Wilkie, Stockwell, Frank Pardon and Joe Jurisevic).

So it was back to Cr Wilkie’s amendment. Cr Stockwell declared the notified motion procedure was wrong, there had been no due process, that councillors should have been given more notice and that Cr Jackson needed evidence-based arguments. He also said Cr Jackson was “grandstanding”.

Cr Jackson immediately raised an objection under Section 31 of the council’s standing orders, saying Cr Stockwell has made an intemperate and untrue statement without any evidence and which reflected adversely on her character and motives.

Cr Wellington then asked Cr Stockwell whether he was referring to Cr Jackson and wanted to tell her he was using the word ‘grandstanding’ in terms of process and that it was not personal. Let off the hook of a possible code of conduct breach, Cr Stockwell replied that was the case; he had merely said a notified motion was a form of grandstanding.

But once again we in the public gallery had witnessed an unnecessary confrontation in which Cr Stockwell was seen to use tactics that I would describe as bullying and display explicit enmity toward Cr Jackson. I was amused when, at one point in the meeting, Cr Stockwell said – with unwitting irony – that live streaming would “encourage bullying.”

Cr Jurisevic asked several questions and said he wouldn’t support either the original or the amended motion because he had no information on process and costs. These remarks showed some confusion on his part as both Cr Jackson’s original motion and Cr Wilkie’s amendment covered both of these matters as part of their requirements.

Cr Wellington said more information was needed (ignoring that Cr Jackson’s original motion had specified that very same requirement). He said there were examples where live streaming had adverse impacts and expressed concerns about defamation. He questioned whether council should archive meeting material and wondered whether there were other issues.

After this negativity it was something of a shock to hear him say that live streaming will probably happen in Noosa Council. But he did not reveal whether he had the 21st century in mind.

In her final response, Cr Jackson re-affirmed her belief that the amendment negated her motion and should not have been accepted. She said that, in accepting it, the council was letting down the community.

Cr Jackson reiterated that the Belcarra Act was an initiative of the Crime and Corruption Commission which was attempting to increase the transparency, integrity and accountability of councils in Queensland and reminded councillors that the Right to Information Act made it clear that the default position for Queensland councils was supposed to be full disclosure.

She said Noosa Council should be innovative, that she was not against due process (on the contrary, her motion specified need for due process), that her research had covered legal risks (minimal) and costs (which could be very economical).

She also responded to an earlier claim by Cr Wilkie that notified motions were not transparent, saying notified motions are fully transparent because they are in the public arena. “That is not the case when councillors discuss suggestions behind closed doors,” she added.

This hit the spot with me because I know many people in Noosa Shire believe the council is deceptive in some of its dealings and does not offer full disclosure.

And so the amendment was put and passed 5-2 (with Crs Jackson and Jurisevic against), thus becoming a new motion.

Cr Jurisevic said he opposed the motion on principle and that he supported the intent and integrity of the meeting process without this new technology (which I felt was conservative and old fashioned but fair enough, that’s his view).

Cr Jackson said she was highly committed to the principle of live streaming and would support the motion as amended because at least it maintained some momentum and “something is better than nothing”.

The motion was then passed 6-1 (with Cr Jurisevic against).

In summary, this was a long, complex and important debate for Noosa Council. It seemed that much effort had gone into designing the means of defeating Cr Jackson, who had managed to hold up her end for a full hour, only capitulating in order to keep the live streaming initiative alive. I feel sure that she and Cr Glasgow will be back to fight for it another day.

That said, I don’t think Noosa Council will approve live streaming. This council does not want that kind of transparency. After all, it wouldn’t even back a previous move by Cr Jackson to have three important committees take minutes.

Cr Jackson is a progressive in a regressive environment. The mayor and others will find ways to delay and undermine her initiatives. In addition to all this, it is my view that she is being victimised.

Cr Stockwell again showed disrespect to Cr Jackson and, to my eye, again contravened the councillor code of conduct. Meeting after meeting he verbally attacks Cr Jackson and I hope someone reports and censures him for what, to most people, looks like nothing other than misogynistic bullying.