…

2.        Re your points 1,2,3;

2.1        NSW community groups eg RAID could hold workshops and develop a model.

2.2        Each group then lobbies their respective candidates for the State election in 2011

2.3         Call for the State referendum @ State 2011 elections.

2.4         Preceding allows eighteen months for drafting of legislation for 2012.

3.        Ban the ‘pollies” – love it!

3.1        What do you think of empowering & electing in  the Precincts in legislation rather than one or two ward councillors?

3.2        If not the precincts how about the neighbourhood forums but as entities independent of council but interacting = community democracy.

3.3        Clearly either way the empowering will require funding.

3.4        Your point 4 = spot on – the discipline is essential as a anti corruption measure.

4.        Precinct committees: This is the first time I have seen this model – so I will come  back to it at a later date.

5.        Planning Acts: The State Liberal party have given publicly a ‘pledge’ to remove Part 3A, but your point is valid.

6 One point that you may be patient with me on: At this juncture I do not see a significant  structural difference between neighbourhoods & precincts. But that is due to my ignorance  rather than any such reality.

Bruce reply:

1. Good idea for community groups to hold workshops; develop some new policies to set the discussional agenda for the State election; quiz candidates and get firm commitments (in writing if possible) from candidates (with timetables) before they are elected

2. Not so sure about state referendum by 2011 – needs a longer time for community consideration – hence suggested referendum in Sept 2012 with the NSW local government elections. But if there was a widespread movement for community democracy in NSW councils, it might be possible to do things quicker. Would need a lot of work from a lot of people to make it happen.

3. The model I prefer has two levels – elected Councillors who operate (with a more realistic workload than at the moment)  supported by the Precinct Committees (who can do a lot of the finer tuned community work), No Councillor, in my opinion, can read and digest all the matters piled on them by the present process. We need to make far better use of the resources of our local communities to assist them in addressing the real issues which come before them.

4. I think there is also a need for informal neighbourhood forums – not run as meetings – where local people can come together, as adults, over a drink of some kind, and discuss local community affairs. Such forums should be informal to allow the other part of the brain a fair go – getting away from the control trips of those who get their way by using meeting procedures.

5. Precinct model is based, roughly, on Community Boards as used at the community level with some New Zealand/Aotearoa councils. Main feature is that they have elected members (from the local community area for the Precinct) to avoid such groups being hijacked by special interest groups, and have to be open and accountable. Candidates have to declare any conflict of interest when standing and when voting.  More discussion required.

6. Irrespective of which party is elected in 2011, and whether or not 3A goes or stays, the reform required is that local community people  – who have, generally speaking, been part of the process which built up our communities – must have a real say in any new developments proposed in our communities.

7. Neighbourhoods and Precincts – I see a Precinct as a much larger area, such as a Ward, rather than a neighbourhood,  I can stroll around my neighbourhood – I can’t do that in my Ward, which extends from  Helensburgh to Bulli./Woonona. So a formal Precinct Committee could cover the whole Ward, while an informal Neighbourhood forum could be something I could walk to and back if the weather was ok.

Cheers

Bruce

COMMUNITY REFORM AGENDA – 2009-2012.

STATE GOVERNMENT MATTERS

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Draft only. These proposals are only in draft form – for purposes of discussion by people who agree that:

(a) the time is overdue for ending the domination of Council business by a ‘corporate culture’ playing games well out of sight of community scrutiny

(b) the time has arrived for moving beyond the systematic top-down corruption of our communities by the involvement of State and Federal political parties in local government. It is time for our communities to have a real say in what happens in our local areas.

(c) there is a growing threat posed by the concentration of power in the hands of executive levels of government (who may be prepared to sacrifice our communities interests for a variety of other reasons)

(d) a good part of the solution is to empower and enable everyday people to participate in decision-making at the local community level and in a democratic manner.

NEED TO REFORM THE NSW LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.

1. The newly elected State government (in 2011) to engage in properly resourced community consultation for a thorough review of the Local Government Act.
2. Discussion papers to be prepared and circulated which fully explore key issues raised by the community consultation process (by early 2012).
3. Key provisions of this review to voted on by a State wide referendum held at the time of the September 2012 local government election.
4. Remaining provisions of this review to be voted on by a State wide referendum held at the time of the subsequent State election.

SOME POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

(based on the Wollongong experience).

BAN ON STATE AND FEDERAL POLITCAL PARTIES AT LOCAL COUNCIL LEVEL

1. Change State legislation and/or the NSW constitution to ban all State and Federal political parties from direct involvement in local government.
2. Enshrine the right of people to be represented by their elected Councillors at all times.
3. Enshrine the right of people to be able to vote for a replacement Councillor as soon as a position becomes vacant for whatever reason, and particularly in the event of a Councillor being found to be corrupt by ICAC or otherwise officially deemed unfit for civic office
4. Lifetime ban for any person who has been found to be corrupt by ICAC from standing in a local government election.

PRECINCT COMMITTEES

1. Change the Local Government Act to provide for and protect properly resourced Precinct Committees as formal committees of local council. (Protection to include provision that a Precinct Committee cannot be abolished or dissolved by a simple majority of Council).
2. Precinct Committees to consist of twelve community representatives elected annually from residents within the Precinct area. (Full disclosure provisions to apply to those seeking election to Precinct Committees).
3. Precinct Committees will be provided with Council funding and resources necessary for them to fulfil their functions.
4. The provision of coordination services for a Precinct Committee shall be contracted out, with Council providing the funding for these services and the Precinct committee and Council jointly selecting the successful tenderer.
5. All general meetings of Precinct Committees to open to all residents within the Precinct Committee area, with residents having a right to speak and a right to provide an indicative (non-binding) vote; non-resident people having a right to speak on matters of mutual concern but not to vote in the indicative vote;
6. formal (binding) votes on major items shall require one month’s notice (advertised to community at least ten days prior to meeting); and be limited to elected Precinct Committee members; and shall be voted on as advertised and without amendment.
7. Committee members required to comply with Council level disclosure provisions when dealing with items of business and voting;
8. the Model Rules for organisations (modified as required) to serve as a blueprint for conduct of Precinct Committees (and as set out by other legislation).
9. Functions of Precinct Committees to be determined by community consultation, but may include the provision of a conduit between people in the local area and other levels of government; setting funding priorities for the local area; recognition of their role as an authority in determining the local character of the area (including cultural heritage matters and questions of significance in relation to the cultural and natural environment); a role in the selection and review of Council staff; a role to provide community representatives to other bodies.
10. Change the Local Government Act to ensure that Precinct Committees have an effective role to play in community consultation for major projects of state significance and have the resources required for this task.
11. Change the Local Government Act (and Planning Act) to require all major projects of state significance to be issued with a “statement of community consent” from the relevant Precinct Committee as a prior and necessary condition for the NSW Planning Minister to grant development consent (such statement of community consent not to be unreasonably withheld – with a test of ‘reason’ in contested cases being determined by a popular vote within the area of the Precinct Committee).
12. Precinct Committees to be Community Trusts for holding title to community land within their area, and in the management of these lands in keeping with community based plans for these lands, and other conditions (such as respecting the conditions of original grants).

FEDERAL LEVEL – PREVENT SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY STATE AND FEDERAL POLITICAL PARTIES.

Any changes to the Australian Constitution and/or Australian law and regulations in relation to the recognition of local government as the third level of government to include:

1. a ban on all State and Federal political parties from direct involvement in local government.
2. all forms of local government organisation to provide for properly resourced Precinct Committees as committees of Council and as local community conduits to all levels of government.

Bruce Reyburn

PO Box 257 Thirroul 2515

brucer@reformwcc.info

www.reformwcc.info

As another example of the toothless tiger’s favoured by the Administrators and the WCC General Manager, a Heritage Advisory Committee is being established. (See the WCC media release below.)

The Council paper on the Establishment of Wollongong Heritage Advisory Committee (Report of Manager Environmental Strategy and Planning (JT) 9/09/09 SU20994) says:

“To ensure that the Committee can focus on its core functions, the charter will not extend to consideration of development applications. It is proposed that Committee members will be notified of developments affecting heritage items and that they be invited to comment on these as individuals. This will ensure that members are familiar with the development issues affecting local heritage items but avoid the Committee’s priorities being delayed by the assessment of applications.”

What a joke! Committee members can make comment as individuals! When is a committee not a committee? When it is part of WCC under the NSW ALP State appointed Administrators.

All power reserved for the developers, none for our endangered communities. We know how some of those developers make “donations” to the NSW ALP.

The Neighbourhood Forums established to the specifications of the Administrators are similarly without any real say in Council’s decision making.

They spin this form of undemocratic local governance in the name of a bureaucratic notion of ‘efficiency’.

We ask “Just who benefits from these arrangements?”

————————————–

WCC Media release: Tuesday, 22 September 2009

Council sets up new heritage committee

A new committee will be set up to provide advice and promote heritage issues in the
community as part of Wollongong City Council’s commitment to preserving local heritage.

Council will soon call for expressions of interest for eight independent representatives with
contacts in the local community and expertise in natural and cultural heritage to sit on the
Heritage Advisory Committee.

Administrator Gabrielle Kibble AO, said the Committee will a community voice to further
develop Council’s heritage policies as members will be required to pass on information
and collect feedback from residents and interest groups.

Read the rest of this entry »

UNCORRECTED PROOF (NSW Hansard)

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3

Tuesday 15 September 2009

Examination of proposed expenditure for the portfolio area

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PRESENT
The Hon. B. M. A. Perry, Minister for Local Government, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health
(Mental Health)
Department of Premier and Cabinet
Mr R. Woodward, Deputy Director General, Division of Local Government
Mr G. Gibbs, Director, Performance Management and Compliance, Division of Local Government

Extract:

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Minister, I now turn to the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into Wollongong council. What specific steps and timetable have you taken to ensure that the 27 recommendations by the ICAC in relation to corruption allegations affecting Wollongong City Council have been implemented?

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: You might be aware that although the ICAC report in relation to Wollongong council contained 27 corruption prevention recommendations, most of those recommendations were directed at Wollongong council or local councils generally. Only seven of the ICAC’s recommendations are directed towards the Government more broadly. In relation to my aspect of those recommendations, there is only one recommendation directed to my department, and that is recommendation 27.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: That all New South Wales councillors consider a prohibition on binding caucus votes in relation to development applications during their next code of conduct review? Is that the recommendation you are referring to, recommendation 27?

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: Yes.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Recommendation 26, which is on the same topic, provides that Wollongong City Council amends its code of conduct to include a prohibition on binding caucus votes in relation to development applications. Minister, can you explain why you have not moved to ensure that the State-appointed administrators have implemented this recommendation?

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: May I just say that the model code of conduct already sets out that binding caucus votes are inappropriate where merit-based decisions are required. Clearly, a merit-based decision is a development application. I know that Wollongong council has adopted a code of conduct. As I said in response to earlier questions, the model code of conduct had to be adopted—nothing less—but could be even more strenuous than the model code of conduct adopted by each individual council. I am aware that every council across New South Wales has now got a code of conduct in place, including Wollongong.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: You are saying that, so far as those binding caucus decisions are concerned, that recommendation has been implemented by the administrators of Wollongong council?

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: Yes. You asked me earlier about something to do with votes, did you?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Yes, binding caucus votes in relation to development applications.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: Wollongong council, like every other council in New South Wales, has adopted a code of conduct. You would be aware that currently there are three administrators at Wollongong council administering that council.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I gather you are happy with the performance of the administrators. Unfortunately, from my talking to residents of Wollongong I know that they are deeply unhappy and feel that the community has in effect been excluded from the decision-making process down there. They are also concerned about the lack of response to any queries or requests for information from those administrators. Given that the old council has been dismissed, that there has been an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation and that the administrators have been in office for some time now, can you explain to me why the people of Wollongong should continue to be denied their democratic right to elected representation by councillors of their own choosing?

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: I firstly say that I have every confidence in the administrators at Wollongong. I secondly say that the three administrators have been hard at work addressing the issues and matters that have been well traversed around Wollongong through the Independent Commission Against Corruption report. Those matters are being addressed through their day-to-day work and activity both within the community and within the council. Now that takes time. It takes time to rebuild and it also takes time to address the cultural issues within an organisation. That work is on track and it is not ready to return to the democratic process that you refer to, although the democratic process is very important. Remember, this is a recommendation by the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption that the council be wound up and that administrators be appointed. That is what the Government has done. I can tell you today that until I am told otherwise the council will stay in administration until September 2012.

Get full transcipt:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/183ACF5501A0438ACA25763200810283

2009 Conference Wrap up Posted: 17 Sep 2009

“Check out the conference site for presentations and selected Audio. Sessions available include the opening keynote from Senator Kate Lundy, as well as the lightening talks from staff at councils. You can also check out some pictures on Flickr!

We’re really looking forward to next year, and are very keen for you to be more involved, so don’t be shy, get in touch, let us know what you’re interested in and want to see at the conference next year, or if you want to help out.”

For more see:

http://lgwebnetwork.org/

17.09.09

Bruce,

1. I always submit to the informed and experienced and clearly Terry has been around these traps longer I.

2. If the issue had been around six months why was it allowed to gain  such a head of steam?   Apparently the ‘engagement’ had not been with the local NF? I am  not sure how long the reconstituted NF’s have been operating. NF 4, for one did not close down.

3. Can I assume that the relevant areas were letter boxed with information in order to inform the public? Six months appears to be sufficient time to call a non  NF special issues community meeting? It can and does happen.

4. Can I assume that information handouts were available to the uninformed at the NF meeting?

5. Somewhat surprising is the comment that ” many years of individual  submissions”.  Apparently such submissions were not successfully addressed by the local Councillors? Or were they addressed but not to the satisfaction of the ‘issue’ group?

6. I am surprised that Terry would consider a ‘Chairperson’ informing  the meeting of  ‘procedure’ as patronising.

7. Agree wholeheartedly that the intent of suspension of Standing Orders was / is to have the the debate/discussion, return to SO and make appropriate resolutions  here necessary and  that they are minuted. And of course acted upon.

8. Model constitution and voting rights. In my ignorance I was not aware that such guidelines were not practiced. NF4 appears to operate under such guidelines, so I assumed all did.

9. Apparently we are on the same page w.r.t timeliness of information  and response.

10. NF’s appear to be our best opportunity to restore community democracy to Wollongong and formalising meeting procedure may be seen as but one step towards a  community that is not patronised by the political system and the developer lobby.

Thanks Terry, Thanks Bruce.

Ray

With regard to most of Ray’s comments on the reform WCC site, I would disagree with most of his posting.

During the recent Dogs On Beach issue, the situation arose that the “special issue” lobby did actually out number the ‘regulars’ at a vote, however this was a conclusion to an overlong process of engagement on the issue with NF2 for six months.

The concerned residents required formal support or rejection of their concerns on the issue through the chair of our representative local committee i.e. NF2. They also wanted that support sent to council if successful. This support or rejection by NF2 was fundamental to the position of the group if they were to continue with the NF process. This was a result of many years of individual submissions as private individuals just disappearing into a black hole of frustration and inaction at WCC.

While being dealt with fairly at NF2 and given adequate time at all of the meetings, I also thought that the NF2 could have resolved this issue earlier.

What I consider should be of concern to Ray and NF2 is the current structure where NF2 draws down its authority to act on behalf or represent the local community.

At any democratic open forum with no defined membership rules or voting rights, if a majority hold a view and have the numbers they may also be tempted to call for a motion of no confidence in the chair to force the issue and install their preferred chair until the issue is resolved to their satisfaction. This position can be maintained if they have the numbers as long as membership or voting rights are not defined. This is a clear possibility at the Neighbourhood Forums as they are currently structured. The WCC representatives appear as wanting to be apart from defining the voting rules and this scenario would not be regarded as abuse of the chair as currently defined. The WCC will take submissions from a new chair in this event as a recognised majority.

The issues of voting rights and authority to act should be Ray’s concerns before he considers asking for the suspension of Standing Orders. Any well led lobby group may be triggered to call for a motion of no confidence if they feel they are by being patronised or requiring an education in meeting procedure as in Ray’s comments. Suspension of standing orders to let off steam for a defined period of time may be useful to foster free and open discussion in a defined meeting but it can also give the appearance of action but only the appearance if the matter is not discussed again and then resolved when Standing Orders are reinstated, as none of the positions or agreed actions during the suspension are recorded in minutes.

To address the issue of voting rights perhaps adopting a Model Constitution to define rules and in turn, a quorum etc would be the best option. These rules can then be a basis for individual NF by-laws which when agreed by all in within a Forum boundary can then be used to define membership and voting rights. These structures also act as a protection of previous decisions made and rules made under the constitution and can be structured to protect the forum from meetings being stacked for single issues to force an issue in one night.

The chair and co chairs (x2) can then act/vote to act on urgent issues as a committee between meetings if required, and are then also required to take back their decisions for ratification by the members. There are models for these meeting structures available and they are effective. N.E Renton’s Guide for Meetings, for example.

From the Council’s charter and comments they are trying to foster meetings without defining the character of the Forum. This constitution model would also satisfy ‘the regulars’ wishes to recognise and retain the history and autonomy of NF2 and open up the process with defined voting rules for new members with single issues.

I agree with Ray that WCC have a responsibility to ensure that response deadlines allow adequate time for all NF’s to have open and public discussion on issues before closing off submissions and if WCC are receiving enquiries about a particular issue(s) then they should inform the Convenor(s) of the developing lobby and to be prepared for same.

However, if the forum is prepared, they should also be prepared to act.

But hey, Bruce… that’s only my view ………

Best Regards

Terry

Good thoughts Bruce and they would add to the respect for Chair and procedure.

A few more thoughts:

1. A situation may well occur, and I see that you appear to have covered same, that the special issue lobby may well out number the ‘regulars’.  Then have sway and continue on their self interest and perhaps abusive ways even with a new chairperson.

2. Perhaps, there could be a suspension of standing orders, let all let off steam for a defined period of time, and then return to standing orders, respect and resolutions.

3.  The question then becomes does the meeting deal with issue under discussion to a point of resolution and then go back to ‘ordinary’  business, or does the meeting make the lobby group wait until general business?

The latter approach may well cause further anger, but also may well ‘educate’ the lobby group on NF issues and concerns. Normally lobby people usually walk out after their concerns have been dealt with.

4.  Clearly WCC have a responsibility to ensure that response deadlines allow adequate time for all NF’s to have open and public discussion on issues before closing off submissions.

Secondly, if WCC are receiving enquiries about a particular issue(s) then they should inform the Convenor(s) of the developing lobby and to  be prepared for same.

Regards

Ray

10.08.09