Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on Tuesday 27 November 2012, commencing at 7:00pm.
Neil Jaksic
Peter Linaker
John Cottle
Colin Wallace
Cr K Fagg (Chair)
Crs:
T Anset
L Elli
J Farrell
K Fisher
B Harwood
M Heagney
J Irvine
E Kontelj
S Kontelj
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards
S Griffin (Chief Executive Officer
J Wall (General Manager Corporate Services
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
G Van Driel (General Manager City Services)
J McMahon (General Manager Community Services)
D Frost (General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
J Brown (Manager Administration and Governance)
R Bourke (Governance Co ordinator)
J Merlo (Senior Media Officer)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.00pm.
The Mayor acknowledged that we are here today on the land of the Wathaurong People and we pay our respects to Aboriginal elders past and present.
Nil
Cr S Konteljmoved, Cr R Nelson seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 13 November 2012 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Act, a person elected as a Councillor cannot act in that capacity unless they have made an ‘Oath of Office’. The Oath is made using a Bible, or alternately an affirmation may be made.
The Chief Executive Officer invited Cr Eddy Kontelj to come forward to make an Oath of Office.
Cr Eddy Kontelj made his Oath of Office, briefly addressed the gallery and assumed his Chair at the table.
Question Time is an opportunity for questions to be addressed to Council and while the minutes record the general content, they do not purport to be a transcript of what was said by individuals. Likewise Councillor or Officer verbal responses are in summary form only. Views expressed may not be the views of Council.
Council's practice is to provide a separate document on its website setting out questions and responses including any more detailed written responses which may be provided subsequent to the meeting.
Jason Cobb submitted a question but was not present at the meeting. A written response will be forwarded.
John Cottle asked why did CoGG (and Council) not give all residents of Drysdale an opportunity to participate in the realignment of Areas 3 and 4, as per the articles in Guidelines for Geographic Names, Sections 1.8 Principle 1 (b) “Recognising the Public Interest” where it states “…changes to existing names or boundaries will affect not only the current community but also future residents, businesses, property owners and visitors …” and “ … a proposal will be registered only when the long term benefits to the community can be shown to outweigh any private or corporate interests, or short term effect …” and 3.3.1 (b) and 3.4.1 of the Guidelines?
Jeff Wall, General Manager Corporate Services, responded that officers and councillors have been through a process with regard to advising property owners, including two community meetings, resulting in minimum objection.
Council has now advertised the proposed boundary realignment and if residents and the broader community are of a view that Council has not followed the process they have 30 days to lodge a written submission to raise those issues.
Cr Macdonald added his undertaking at the community meeting was to offer assistance from Governance in respect to explaining the decision making process. It was not his intention to reverse Council’s decision on the proposal.
Colin Wallace addressed Council as follows:
Regarding the review of the Council Meeting Procedures Local Law, I refer the Mayor and other Councillors to Part 4.12 (1) under the heading Public Question Time which states, ‘Questions without notice may be addressed to the meeting and where a question cannot be answered at the meeting, a written copy may be tabled together with the name and address of the questioner, so that a written response may be provided’, which means that a bona fide attempt must be made to obtain an answer at the meeting before a question is referred on for a subsequent written response.
Would you note that as far as I am able to ascertain this piece of the Local Law was retained intact in the last review, to my knowledge there has been no dissatisfaction expressed publicly from within or from outside Council regarding it and my view that it is fair and reasonable to all alike and provides for the transparency and accountability we expect from democratic governance?
Two part question:
I am concerned that the upcoming review may be taken as an opportunity to hobble a valuable piece of the Local law and would the Mayor especially note that this concern arises partly from the introduction to Public Question Time you read out at the previous Council Meeting, 13th November, which made the suggestion that referring a question on for a subsequent written response was an option available in the first place, whereas the Local law is clear that referring a question on for a subsequent written response only applies if a question cannot be answered at the meeting?
Would the Mayor and new Councillors, as well as any returning Councillors who are sincere about this being a new era, note that my concern also stems from the fact that, on numerous occasions over the previous term, Councillors turned a blind eye to Mayor John Mitchell circumventing the Local Law by not referring questions to the relevant person present, after which they voted to confirm the Minutes which concealed the fact that the circumvention had occurred, and that therefore, in the vote on the new Local Law and during the Councillor Briefings and Councillor-only times that precede it, the returning Councillors, who outnumber the new ones, will be deliberating on whether or not to retain a piece of the Local law they have knowingly and on numerous occasions failed to uphold?
The Mayor noted comments made in question 1 and 2.2 and referred question 2.1 to the Chief Executive Officer.
Stephen Griffin, Chief Executive Officer, responded that Mr Wallace was referring to the process when someone has asked for the question to be responded to on the night and the process to which the question is then delivered for a written response.
Cr Farrell added there is nothing in the Local Law about Council responding in 14 days. If a question is not answered on the night it is sometimes about the detail required in the response. We may not be equipped to answer on the night and therefore refer for a written response.
Mary Wallace stated Cr Farrell’s response to Mr Wallace was misleading.
Cr Irvine presented a petition from residents in Wombat Court, Whittington objecting to the proposed unit development of 25 Townsend Road, raising issues concerning increased traffic and parking problems.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
