19 November 2010

Jodie Healy
Engagement Cooridinator
Wollongong City Council
Locked Bag 8821, Wollongong 2500

Dear Jodie,

Membership of Neighbourhood Forum Two.

Thank you for your letter of 5 November. Your ref JH.sjm File Number CB-010.01.002.

As you acknowledge, and unlike the earlier WCC Neighbourhood Committees, the Neighbourhood Forums are not committees of Council. This means that, unless the community body which has undertaken to take on the Neighbourhood Forum role for an area is itself an incorporated body, the local Neighbourhood Forum (as is the case with Neighburhood Forum Two) functions as an unincorporated association. The regular monthly meeting, the office holders, and the keeping of minutes etc leave no room for doubt regarding this status.

One of the key reasons for incorporation of such community forms of association is to limit the financial risk of the members to that of their annual fees. I have recently had this clarified by the Department of Fair Trading in Wollongong.

Wollongong City Council established the Neighbourhood Forum process and encourages people to engage with Council by this process. That is, this method of community engagement is designed entirely by Wollongong City Council. As such , Wollongong City Council has a duty of care to ensure that those who participate in this process, by way of attending the monthly Neighbourhood Forum meetings, are protected from undue financial (or other) risk.

Nothing in your letter addresses the serious issue which has been identified in relation to the exposure to financial (or other) risk by those attending Neighbourhood Forums. Until Wollongong City Council seriously addresses this major flaw in its community engagement process, in keeping with its duty of care, I am unable to participate in Neighbourhood Forums (and others are well advised to seek their own legal advice).

Yours truly
Bruce Reyburn
cc WCC Administrators, WCC General Manager

The move by the State appointed Administrators at Wollongong City Council to sell Glennifer Brae points to the need for all community land to be managed by a local trust – in the form of a community board or Precinct Committee – and not left in the hands of Council or State bureaucrats.

To put it bluntly, and without reflecting on their personal qualities since they probably act in what they believe are the community’s best interests, they are not to be trusted with our community assets. This applies to all bureaucrats not merely the present Administrators. The problem is a structural one – where the present state laws put far too much power in the hands of far too few people about such matters.

The present move by the Administrators to have the Gleniffer Brae Community land reclassified to Operational land is the method by which these non-democratic decisions will be given a patina of legitimacy. It will be clean and lawful – but not democratic. The Administrators have already demonstrated, with the CBD parking meter fiasco and other matters, they are out of tune with how we think and feel here.

This move to sell our long-term community assets does not originate from the people of the city of Wollongong in any shape or form.

But what is really required, with a State election coming up in March, is to change the relevant State legislation to ensure that hard-won community land remains community land for as long as the local community feels that it should.

This has been on the Community Reform Agenda for a number of years. While the Community Reform Agenda – drafted in 2007 – is in need of review it presently reads:

14. 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).

We should not have to fight these battles over each piece of community land unelected officials trade off (in our name) for some short term gain. We need to reform the relevant legislation to turn the tables in our favour.

cheers

Bruce Reyburn

—————–

see Northern Leader story:

http://www.northernleader.com.au/article/public_meeting_organised_to_save_glenneifer_brae

Some Plan of Management background from WCC Website:

Gleniffer Brae

Council adopted a Plan of Management for Gleniffer Brae on 16 December 2002 which has now been superseded by this Plan of Management (POM) for the Wollongong Botanic Garden. This POM covers Gleniffer Brae, Kooloobong Oval and the Botanic Garden

The common link between these areas is Arthur Sidney Hoskins, who played a prominent role in pioneering the steel industry in the Illawarra. The land covered by this plan of management was all owned by AS Hoskins and used by him for his family home between the years of 1939 and 1949. Hoskins was civic minded and desired that Gleniffer Brae be used for educational
purposes and that the surrounding acreage would become a botanical garden once his family no longer used the residence. Over a number of years that is what happened over this land.

Gleniffer Brae

The Gleniffer Brae Manor House was built in 1939 for Arthur Sidney Hoskins. Gleniffer Brae was acquired by Wollongong City Council in 1979 and since this time has been a major focus for music in the City of Wollongong, due to its lease to the Conservatorium of Music. The Manor House has also operated as a function centre for many years. There is a conservation
management plan for Gleniffer Brea which is in the appendix and forms part of this POM.

for more see:

http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/development/communityland/pages/default.aspx

A Wollongong City Council response to the problem of liability of members of Neighbourhood Forums.

I have tried using google docs to share this pdf letter:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1pi29zHUN8Iq6ixcNnm2Ve_7f3dKwZJggM8J8T4czqFRX_zAOAstMRTjfBWl5&hl=en&authkey=CL6OhZ4M

Question 1. – does this take timely and responsible action to redress the problem?

(My answer – “No”.)

Question 2. is there a duty of care for Wollongong City Council to provide legal advice to Neighbourhood Forums regarding the potential financial risk to those who participate?

(My answer – “Yes. WCC established this means of community consultation and thereby have a clear duty of care. “)

Question – is there a duty of care for Convenors of Neighbourhood Forums to obtain independent legal advice regarding the potential financial risk to those who participate?

(My answer – “Yes – especially if WCC does not do so as a matter of urgency. Convenors may also be liable for not exercising their duty of care in this regard once the problem has been brought to their attention.”

Council still battling a culture of bullying
BY SHANNON TONKIN
04 Nov, 2010 Illawarra Mercury

Wollongong City Council administrators did not believe the council’s culture of bullying and harassment in the workplace had significantly changed 18 months into their leadership.

The revelation is outlined in the administrators’ 18-month council progress report to Local Government Minister Barbara Perry.

Both the 18-month report, prepared in December 2009 and the two-year report, dated June 2010, were released to the Mercury yesterday.

…

…the administrators also identified positive progress throughout the organisation, with resident satisfaction the highest in 10 years …

full story:
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/council-still-battling-a-culture-of-bullying/1987500.aspx?storypage=2

These happy residents would include, we may presume, those who welcomed the arrival of parking meters in the central business area; ratepayers delighted to be seeing more precious million dollar funds put into yet another Mall make-over; more rates directed into the White Elephant Bulli Gateway project; and – of course – the many people completely over the moon regarding Council’s dogs on beaches policy in relation to Sharkey’s Beach.

COMMENT: SHOW US THE REPORT AND DATA.

Without a copy of the report it is not possible to know by what means the Administrators arrived at this conclusion.

To have any confidence in this conclusion we need to know:

1. just what is the basis of their claim;
2 . exactly what (if anything) is being measured;
3. what is the research methodology;
4. what is the empirical data;
5. and who is doing the measurement (or assessment).

In the absence of such information, we could be being fed another load of self-serving spin.

With a State election coming up over the event horizon, the report of the ALP State Government appointed Administrators to their political masters (via the Minister for Local Government) needs to be subject to the highest degree of scrutiny to ensure it is free of any political bias.