Council meetings will now have time limits for meetings, speakers and public questions, but it will invite deputations to council meetings. The changes are part of a review of council governance procedures, the rules and guidelines of decision-making procedures, and how the public can participate.
Under the new rules, council meetings will be limited to 3.5 hours in duration, with a resolution required to extend them by a maximum of two 30-minute extensions. This would mean most meetings ending by 10 pm.
Councillor speaking times will be limited for the first time, with movers of motions limited to 4 minutes, general speakers to 3 minutes, and a final right of reply to the mover of up to 2 minutes. Councillors can request an extension of 2 minutes.
Public questions will be limited to two minutes, which is the current practice at meetings with a queue of questioners. The deadline for the public to submit questions will now be noon on the day of the meeting. Questions submitted after that deadline can only be heard at a subsequent meeting.
Petitions and joint letters to the council can now be accepted with at least 10 signatures but must be submitted by noon seven days in advance of the meeting.
Open to Deputations with Seven Days’ Notice
Deputations to the council will now be a feature of meetings, one deputation per meeting. Deputations can address the council for up to five minutes and can respond to questions from councillors and staff, but the rules state that ‘no discussion will be allowed.’
Councillor Makin, who advocated for the new feature, told TWiSK he hoped that inviting deputations would enable a genuine exchange between councillors (and staff) and the community.
‘It’s about a better exchange of ideas and information through a more interactive process than a question, petition, or letter,’ he said.
How Do You Arrange a Deputation?
We asked the council for advice on how to arrange a deputation. This was the response:
The council is developing an online request for a deputation. In the meantime, people can submit their requests via email to governance@portphillip.vic.gov.au. Requests will need to be lodged by midday at least seven days before the council meeting that a deputation wishes to address. The CEO must refer the request to the Mayor. They will then consider together whether the request meets the threshold of significant public interest. Only one deputation will be heard at a council meeting.
TWiSK will be following these changes as they unfold at the council.
Opinion
Council manoeuvres a response to internal and external threats
With councillors still in their first year of a four-year term, they are growing skilled at navigating between internal and external threats.
The internal threats include disunity and disharmony. The external threats include the State Government and its authority over councils through rate capping, reducing council authority on planning issues and the looming integrity regime changes.
The governance changes proposed by council officers were explicitly devised with the threat of state intervention in mind. Since the 2020 council elections, 56 councillors have resigned, and 11 councils have had municipal monitors appointed; one council has been suspended, and one has been dismissed due to governance issues. In the last year alone, municipal monitors have been appointed to three Victorian councils: Casey City, Whittlesea City, and Strathbogie Shire.
TWiSK is not suggesting that Port Phillip needs to have monitors or any other integrity intervention. We simply note that a common factor in all the integrity interventions is that they followed disunity among councillors and resulting arbitrary decisions. Democracy, by definition, accommodates differences of opinion, but agreement on the process of democracy is crucial.
The debate last week in Council about the new governance rules was genuine, intelligent and considerate. However, it was divided and passed by the narrowest of margins.
The most significant debate was over the scope of councillor-initiated notices of motion involving spending more than $80K (outside of already agreed budgets). The motion required that such motions be deferred until council officers could provide a report. It also granted the CEO the authority to veto such motions.
Supporters of the change argued that it was a reasonable break on ad hoc financial decisions and aligned with impending local government governance reform (that argument had five supporters – a majority).
Opponents contended that it was yet another encroachment on the decision-making powers of elected councillors. They asserted that the right to move a notice of motion is one of the very limited ways councillors can effect change.
After nine months in office, civil debate and case-by-case allegiances combined with many unanimous votes are a positive feature of this council. Let’s hope this continues because more gets done when consensus prevails and minority voices are respected.
FYI The voting blocks on Tuesday were generally:
FOR: Crs Makin, Crawford, Buckingham, Halliday, and Cunsolo
AGAINST: Crs Jay, Thomann, Mears, and Hardy.
