Reform Wollongong City Council

Neighbourhood Forum 3 meets in Thirroul and covers an area to the south of the Clifton to Coledale Neighbourhood Forum/NF2 area. NF3 held a successful regular monthly forum in July which also included Council’s dogs on beaches policy.

The first hour of the Forum was given over to an information session in which the Council officer provided information and, with the Chair,  encouraged people to make their submissions. There appears to have been no further discussion regarding dogs in the other agenda items or in General business.

I think the experience of the dogs on beaches policy may have been far ‘hotter’ in Coledale as a result of the fact that Sharkey’s Beach has been an off-leash dog beach for some time now, and many locals have had enough. At least one long term local resident came to the August CCNC/NF2 Forum armed with a petition.

CONCERNED COLEDALE RESIDENTS – MOTION AT JULY NF2 FORUM

A no-dogs on Sharkey’s group actually attended the July CCNF/NF2 Forum and, while some of the regular attendees tried to persuade them to hold off until the dog owners could be present at the next Forum, the no-dogs group had the numbers to pass a motion in support of their own position, which they did.

The minutes of the July CCNF/NF2 Forum record:

“Dogs on Beaches- A representative from the ‘Concerned Coledale Residents’ meeting gave a presentation and summation of this meeting regarding dogs on Sharkey’s Beach.

This meeting was held on the 23rd June 2009, with 10 attendees and 2 apologies. During this meeting it was unanimously agreed that the WCC policy of allowing off leash dogs on Sharkey’s Beach was unacceptable & changes to the current policy are required.

The representative proposed a motion that CCNF write a letter to WCC in support of the banning dogs from Sharkey’s Beach.

The motion was voted on with the following result- 10 votes for, 7 votes against & 2 abstained from voting.

Outcome: A letter of support will be written by CCNF.”

These minutes were accepted as correct at the start of the August CCNF/NF2 Forum. As things stand, that is the position taken by Neighbourhood Forum 2. I doubt that it reflects the informed and balanced position of the NF2 community as required by the NF Charter which states:

“A Neighbourhood Forum is an independent community group that:

…

·  has the general support and confidence of the neighbourhood community to:

- distribute information

- facilitate discussion

- represent fair and balanced views of that community.”

AUGUST CCNF/NF2 FORUM

I was looking forward with real interest to see how that this all panned out at the August meeting, and – rather than having an event which was merely stacked the other way – was keen to see if we could form a working group with both sides in order to find a consensus.

People from outside the CCNF/NF2 area attending the August CCNF/NF2 Forum were greatly surprised to be told by the CCNF/NF2 Chair at the outset that they could neither speak nor vote. Just what kind of community forum was this? Some may have attended other community forums in the Coledale hall in the past where all could speak.

My assessment was that the majority of people present were from the NF2 area. Not sure of the actual numbers, could have been 80 to 100 present – it was a large forum by normal NF2 standards.

My impression was that most of the people not resident in the CCNF/ NF2 area seemed to come from the Austinmer area and were users of Sharkey’s Beach as a designated off leash beach. So they were certainly stakeholders in the issue, and could be regarded as locals.

(There were other people from Coalcliff etc (who use Sharkey’s as it is the closest off leash area) who were informed that they were not part of the Clifton to Coledale Neighbourhood Committee/Forum – but this was corrected when it was pointed out that the CCNF/NF2 area actually includes as far north as Stanwell Park. Some more work required on that one!)

When the CCNF/ NF2 Chair shut the Forum before it really got underway to deal with the business of the evening, some people left (in dissatisfaction was my impression) at that point. I very much doubt they were impressed by this Neighbourhood Forum process.

A Council officer then provided an ad hoc information session for those who remained and he was certainly not interested in doing any more than providing information and encouraging people to make their submissions so that Council officers could sort it all out.

As things unfolded there were voices on both sides happy to discuss compromise, but as we were not in NF mode there was no mechanism to capitalise on this opportunity.

I think that is a real pity since this is an issue which is polarising our local community, and the less polarisation we have the better. The dog matter is due for more review within a year (i understand) so having a “joint” working group between now and then could have been really productive, especially if there are some new changes to monitor and report on from both sides.

DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE A MOTION

Due to the way the August CCNF/NF2 Forum unfolded, the dog owners (present in large numbers) were denied the same opportunity to move a motion when the Forum was declared closed by the Chair after 15 minutes – and with the deadline for the dogs on beaches policy being the next day, the dog owners had no real chance of moving their own NF2 motion (if they wanted to) in General Business.

In regard to Agenda items, the Charter states:

“9 Agenda

Questions or agenda items can be made to Council’s representative in advance with additional agenda items permitted on the night. The agenda will be sent out at least one week before the meeting. The second section of the meeting will follow the set agenda, however additional agenda items can be added on the spot.” (my emphasis)

So the avenue was there for the dog owners to actively participate by adding any of their concerns to the agenda and not merely restricted to being passive recipients Council information (which does not, in itself, constitute a “forum”).

But they did not get a chance to do so.

WHO CAN SPEAK?

Some may regard the collapse of the August NF2 Forum as storm in a teacup. People heard the Council officer and could make their own submissions (same as happened at NF3). They may well be right, and we need to get a life (I increasing tend to agree – may soon declare this position vacant).

On the other hand, and in light of the different context provided by the Sharkey’s Beach experience, it raises some important consideration regarding how the Neighbourhood Forum process could be tweaked to make it work better (especially as we will not have elected Councillors until September 2012).

In addition to the failure to provide an equal opportunity to the dog owners to move a motion in General Business, to counter or balance the motion passed at the July CCNF/NF2 Forum, there is also the important issue of who can speak at Neighbourhood Forums.

Maybe it can be cast as “How does the present WCC NF model accommodate stakeholders who are not NF members at a community forum on issues of major importance to them?”

One reply would be that the Austinmer people should take their concerns to the NF3 Forum on dogs on beaches, and leave the issue of Sharkey’s Beach to NF2. But that means that there is a mismatch between the Austinmer dog owning users and the beach in question – and a mismatch between a good part of the pro and anti voices on the issue, although there are plenty of dog owners in the NF2 area as well.

SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF FORUM PROCESS

I think we do need some means by which there can be sensible participation by all stakeholders, especially in matters that involve an overlap between NF areas (such as was seen at the CCNF/NF2 August Forum with Austinmer people who use Sharkey’s Beach to exercise their dogs in NF2 area).

Based on what happened at the August NF2 Forum, I think it is worth raising the issue with all NF members regarding who can attend, speak and vote – especially when this can be done in a ‘cool’ way rather than in the heat of a contested issue.

And so that everyone understands – well in advance – which rules we are playing by. There was much confusion and dissatisfaction at the August CCNF/NF2 Forum due to this matter.

It would also be very useful to hear how Council interprets these matters in relation to the Neighbourhood Forum Charter, and for members of our communites to decide if they endorse Council’s interpretation or wish to amend that in some way in order to ensure we have an effective means of conducting important community business.

COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMS WORK

It is clear that we do need some means by which there can be sensible participation by all stakeholders, especially in matters that involve an overlap between NF areas.

The common sense view (i imagine) is that people from outside of a defined NF area who have some kind of stake in a matter – provided they comply with the requirements of the Neighbourhood Forum Charter regarding behaviour - should be allowed to attend and (subject to the time requirements and sticking to the agenda item etc) speak to put their point of view – but not to vote.

There is plenty of room for discussion in all this, including what happens in relation to matters which impact on, say, more than one NF area.

Some community discussion about these matters can only be good for all of us committed to improving the workings of a democratic process in our own local communities.

————

Postscript on NF agenda formation:

The WCC NF Charter may not be in keeping with the following, which is found in the record of Convenor’s meetings with Council for 4 February 2009

5 Process for creation and distribution of agenda.

Discussion about process of distributing agendas. By sending the agenda to the Engagement Team prior to the meeting there will be an opportunity to seek information and possibly guest speakers to address the issue and reduce turn around time on enquiries. General business and questions without notice will still occur.

All Chairs to create agenda and send to consultation@wollongong.nsw.gov.au.

Engagement team to make agendas available on Council website.” (emphasis added)

see http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/documents/Convenors_meeting_notes_040209.pdf