Reform Wollongong City Council

The Coledale Neighbourhood Forum regarding Wollongong City Council’s proposed changes to the dogs on beaches policy, on Wednesday 5 August, demonstrated a major failing in this part of WCC’s community engagement framework.

The Clifton to Coledale Neighbourhood Forum (CCNF – WCC NF2) event got underway at about 7:15 pm and large number of people attending were informed by the Convenor that, in light of the late start, it could run until 9:15. However, the Forum was all over 15 minutes later.

The Convenor informed those attending that the Forum was the regular monthly meeting of the CCNF and not specifically about the WCC dogs on beaches policy.

Some of those attending were people who make use of Sharkey’s Beach for exercising their dogs, but live outside the area of the Clifton to Coledale Neighbourhood Forum.

WHO CAN SPEAK AND VOTE

The Convenor told people that only those who lived within the area of the CCNF would be allowed to speak and vote on any matters arising from the Forum.

As is normal practice at the CCNF, everyone attending is asked to inform the group of their name and their place of residence. While there were some from areas outside of the NF2 area a large number were from within the local NF2 area.

A Council officer attending, from the Community Engagement section of Council, also informed those attending that the Dog Policy Council Officer present was present merely as part of an ‘information session’ and they would be asking for submissions in writing (on forms provided) for the draft policy at the end of the meeting as the deadline for community consultation was 6 August.

Many of the people attending were not regular CCNF attendees and were clearly unfamiliar with the Neighbourhood Forum model as implemented by Wollongong City Council. There was no real briefing provided to them about how Neighbourhood Forums are expected to operate.

While the ‘autonomous’ character of Neighbourhood Forums was stressed by the Convenor, there was no information provided regarding how that autonomy is constrained by the Charter.

Generally speaking, the majority of the people attending fell roughly into two camps – those opposed to the use of Sharkey’s Beach as an unleashed area for dogs (in some form or other) and those who used the beach to exercise their dogs.

While there may have been others who had middle ground positions, without buying in to either side, there is a reasonably high degree of polarisation regarding this matter. This polarisation is not healthy for our communities.

COMMUNITY VOICES ASK QUESTIONS

After the minutes from the previous meeting were quickly processed, and people had had an opportunity to digest what they had been told, some started to ask questions about what they had just been told regarding speaking and voting rights and this being an ‘information session’.

One person said they had been told by Council they could attend this event to discuss the dog related matter.

There was also some confusion about the extent of the Clifton to Coledale Neighbourhood Forum as the actual area set down by Council’s map (appended to the Charter) includes as far north as Stanwell Park, and some people from that northern part had not attended another meeting (being held at the same time) as they been advised that this was more important.

Some people who had come along with something to say on an issue they felt passionately about, and clearly having no idea of the procedure to be followed, started to express their opinions. Some also requested that the Convenor bring the forum back to the agenda.

FORUM DECLARED CLOSED

The Convenor, in seeking to restore some order to the proceedings, then threatened to close the meeting if people did not allow for an orderly process and to follow his directions.

Unfortunately, this took place as part of an exchange with an elderly man who appeared to having a rush of blood to the head, and when he answered back, the Convenor closed the CCNF meeting at that point. The time was about 7:30 pm.

So what was a very important community forum was reduced to a farce and a shambles in a matter of minutes. Our community lost an important opportunity to debate a contentious issue and to move towards some degree of compromise for the next phase of an on-going experiment in getting the balance right in terms of the needs of dog owners and the needs of those using the beach for recreational purposes.

POST FORUM DISCUSSION

While some people left at this point, many remained and listened to the Council officer present to provide information about Council’s options for amending the dogs on beaches policy, and asked questions of him, until about 8:30 p.m.

There were many good points raised on both sides, and (amidst the occasional snipping by the inevitable conflict feeders) there was also a real readiness expressed from both sides for making compromises which could lead to an acceptable outcome.

But lacking the structure of a formal meeting there was no means by which this goodwill could be build on.

In light of the fact that this issue is due to be reviewed again in the near future (2010-2011) it would have been possible, for example, for a working group to be established which included representatives from dog owners and beach users to explore the extent of common ground and to work towards a balanced outcome.

As it has turned out, however, the matter will now simply depend on what Council officers make of individual submissions, group petitions and the rest of a heady mix of factors.

SOME ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

There is nothing I can see in the WCC Neighbourhood Forum Charter which prevents people from outside the specific area of the NF from speaking at a Forum.

The CCNF regular meeting is often attended by at least one person who does not reside in the NF2 area and who is a valuable contributor to the information sharing process. I am not sure if they also vote (having abstained last time I was present).

At a minium, it may be a matter which the people who live in the area could be asked to vote on = that is, a motion could be put to those attending whether or not they would like to hear what visitors from outside the area have to say.

This has happened in connection with other large forums in Coledale in the past, and generally speaking all people attending have been provided with an opportunity to speak.

Indeed, the actual wording of the Charter is somewhat unclear and ambiguous as to who can attend. I have been seeking clarification from Council’s Community Engagement regarding this matter for some time, but the relevant officer has been away.

“INFORMATION SESSION” IS NOT A NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM

The Charter, however, is perfectly clear on the role of forums as forums – in which there will be discussion and consideration of contentious issues.

In regard to the ability to discuss local issues and find solutions the Charter says:

“Neighbourhood Forums provide an opportunity for members of the community to:
•meet, raise and discuss local issues;
•find solutions to local community problems;
•promote community development within their local community;
•discuss issues and ideas with Council;
•develop and maintain communication and understanding between the community and
Council;
•encourage social networking and participation within the local community;
•provide Council with an opportunity to inform the local community about its services, facilities and projects.”

So there is clearly a role for a community conversation to take place in addition to any simple information session for which a Council officer is present.

And this discussion can be robust:

“Conduct
Council aims to ensure all participants at Neighbourhood Forums are treated
respectfully whilst encouraging robust and healthy discussion.”

The Charter goes on to spell out that:

“Participants will:
•listen respectfully to each point of view;
•contribute and participate in discussion;
•be fair and equitable;
•treat each other with courtesy;
•abide by the Customer Service Charter.”

NEED FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF WHAT WENT WRONG, AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ENSURE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN

The Charter requires that any formally recognised Neighbourhood Forum

“• has the general support and confidence of the neighbourhood community to:
- distribute information
- facilitate discussion
- represent fair and balanced views of that community.”

I am not sure that that is the case after what took place at the CCNF event on 5 August. A large number of local people may have left with their confidence diminished.

A large number of people who would not otherwise attend a Neighbourhood Forum were denied the opportunity to learn more about now our local community business is being handled via these Forums.

In the absence of elected Councillors until September 2012 we really need this means of Council-community consultation and communication to be working – and able to withstand the predictable types of stress which will be experienced in any polarised debate.

On the basis of the precedent set at the CCNF event, any hothead who wants to shut down a large gathering of community people (who have given their time to come along) merely has to be disruptive.

There must be a better way, and it is up to Wollongong City Council to take some form of real action now to ensure that our Neighbourhood Forums can be fortified and improved in light of this regrettable experience.

The worst is can do is stick it’s head in the sand and pretend nothing went wrong. From what we heard from both sides last night, in addition to the dog faeces on the sand, there are also a large number of buried disposable nappies in that sand!

Tell that to the tourist promotion department!