I’ve been examining voting statistics of Noosa Council meetings for the 16 months from 19 April 2018 to 15 August 2019, a good longitudinal sample. During this period there were 44 occasions on which divisions or split votes (not unanimous) were recorded at the monthly ordinary meeting of council. That’s where motions are put to a show of hands because there is not total agreement amongst councillors.
Of these 44 votes, Cr Ingrid found herself 22 times in a minority of one. And on four other occasions her motion lapsed altogether because it failed to get a seconder. This means other councillors deliberately did not allow her motion to be debated. (Unheard of in Noosa Council before the boys decided they’d teach Cr Ingrid a lesson or two.)
So, in all, there were 26 occasions on which Cr Ingrid found herself alone, representing 59% of the total split votes over 16 months. This is what the Noosa News editor refers to as “failing to get other councillors onside” and I call the boys’ club syndrome.
It’s an astonishing ratio of rejection which indicates that Cr Ingrid was either getting things very, very wrong in her judgement of major matters or there were other factors at work. Knowing my wife’s work habits, and her assiduous attention to detail, I do not believe she could get it so wrong so many times. So what might these other factors be?
To find out, I analysed the subject matter of those 26 votes where Cr Ingrid found herself alone. Eight of them related to transparency. No surprise there. It has been a considered and consistent goal of Cr Ingrid to bring the council to maximum openness in dealing with the community and she has long pressed for greater transparency, disclosure and accountability. There has been well-known pushback to this, some of it very ugly. In fact, the analysis shows just how successful the boys’ club has been in closing ranks to repel her pursuit of openness and less secrecy.
Another six votes on which Cr Ingrid found herself alone related to the lack of a business case for spending proposals. In my observation Noosa Council can play fast and loose with spending decisions – not going to competitive tender, not requiring appropriate cash flow projections or plausible (or any) business cases, shifting money from planned projects in order to fund pet projects, or loosening previously tightly defined spending protocols to incorporate activities they were never designed to include (akin to what in some places is referred to as a slush fund). So Cr Ingrid has found herself isolated in a number of her efforts to ensure what she regarded as the proper expenditure of ratepayers’ money.
There were another six votes where Cr Ingrid stood alone that related to what she judged to be lack of fairness in dealing with planning matters and small business. Again a basic value – fairness – was being defended and she made a stand where she felt this was not otherwise being afforded by her fellow councillors.
The other six instances of her being in a minority of one included votes where she was trying to promote good governance, ensure better accountability or get the council to seek more information or secure legal advice. It is also worth noting that all four lapsed votes (where she didn’t get a seconder and no debate ensued) were on transparency matters, highlighting this council’s abysmal attitude to open government.
When you look at the statistics, and the type of matters Cr Ingrid was sticking up for when she stood her ground and stood alone, you can see a consistent theme. And that is to do with representing the community earnestly and accounting to it fully. This is precisely what every councillor should be committed to. They all say they’re committed to such things, of course, but as this analysis shows, they so often go missing in action.
That said, the huge supportive response to Cr Ingrid’s recent announcement, and the dismay that she won’t stand for a second term, has shown that our community now understands that matters of good governance and greater accountability (including transparency) are the keys to unlocking the door to a better council and a better shire.
When next year’s election comes round, we must assure that the people we elect are authentically committed to unlocking that door. It will be a major task to open the community’s eyes to those candidates who are worth voting for and those who are not. Too often in local elections name recognition is the most significant criterion in voting; this needs to be changed to character and capability. Which brings me to the Glasgow-Wellington affair.
While in no way excusing Cr Jess Glasgow’s behaviour on The Bachelorette TV show (he admits it was despicable and inappropriate), let us understand the boys’ club culture that has pervaded Noosa Council. In a recent public statement, Cr Ingrid, the only woman on the council, has described her fellow councillors’ behaviour towards her as frequently hostile antagonistic, aggressive and scornful.
Among the hundreds of responses Cr Ingrid has received since her statement was published, there have been very many validating her experiences and reporting similar phenomena elsewhere of boys’ clubs, lack of transparency, collusion, cronyism and misogyny. Noosa mayor Wellington at a media conference yesterday referred to Glasgow’s behaviour as “misogynistic”, stating this was not something he would tolerate. That set me thinking: that’s what the mayor says, but how has his council behaved?
Janet Gibson commented on my own Facebook page: “….no values, no ethics and no respect for women; is this what Jess has learnt from his ‘elders’ on Council?” It is a fair point. While I don’t believe Glasgow learned his bad behaviour at the feet of the older male councillors, I would state confidently that nor would he have learned anything from them about respect for women.
