Brimbank Council is once again reviewing its ‘Meeting Procedure Local Law’ after only 2 years in operation. The law was expected to have a 10 year life span so SunRRA is wondering why Brimbank Council feels this review is so urgent.

Perhaps the changes proposed will tell us something?

The draft Local Law document states “The purpose of this Local Law is to provide for the election of the Mayor, regulate the use of the common seal, prohibit unauthorised use of the common seal, provide for the procedures governing the conduct of Council meetings and Special Committee meetings and set the rules of behaviour for those participating in or present at Council meetings and Special Committee meetings.”

Proposed changes to Public Question Time include;

• Introduction of a fifteen minute time limit for Public Question Time;
• The limit of two questions per person stands but the second question may be deferred until all other persons who have asked a question have had their questions asked and answered;
• Or the second question may not be asked if the time allotted has expired;
• Like questions will be grouped together and a single answer provided;
• A Councillor or the CEO can decide that a reply to a question should be given in a meeting closed to the members of the public;
• A question will be disallowed if it;

1. Deals with a subject matter already answered
2. Relates to personnel matters
3. Relates to industrial matters
4. Relates to proposed developments
5. Relates to legal advice
6. Relates to matters affecting the security of Council property
7. Relates to any other matter which Council considers would prejudice Council or any other person

How do the ratepayers feel knowing that we all pay millions upon millions of dollars to Brimbank Council and here Council is saying we have no right to ask questions on the above matters? Is this open and transparent government? Or is this the closing down of one of the only avenues we have of holding our Council to account and putting a question on the public record?

Brimbank Council meetings are renowned for the colourful antics of not only our Councillors but the gallery of residents also. It’s fair to say SunRRA has not always agreed with every Councillors’ motions and if required fought strenuously against some but we always believed Councillors had a right to bring motions before Council and the people of Brimbank.

Proposed changes to Division 4 (of the Local Law) – Motions and Debate could change that.

A notice of a motion is usually sent to the CEO for inclusion in the next Council meeting agenda but it now appears a new authority on such motions has been created.

Point 30, (2) states;

The Chief Executive Officer may reject any notice of motion which;

(a) is vague or unclear in intention

(b) it is beyond Council’s power to pass,

(c) if passed would result in council otherwise acting invalidly

SunRRA has compared the draft Meeting Procedure Local Law with a number of other Melbourne Council’s Meeting Procedural Local Law and hasn’t found a similar Law giving the CEO the right to reject a Councillors motion on these grounds nor any grounds at all.

Other items of concern include;

• Reasonable notice of each Ordinary or Special meeting must be provided to the public via (iii) in at least one local newspaper OR daily metropolitan newspaper. Other Council’s mandate the local newspaper must be used – not everyone buys a daily metro paper looking for their local council meetings.

• The Chair may determine whether a motion is accepted or not the guidelines for such action are open to interpretation.

• The Chair is not obliged to accept foreshadowed motions.

• Petitions must have a minimum of signatories of 12 people. Other Councils don’t have a minimum those that have that SunRRA has seen require 3 or 6 people.

• Rescission motions must now have at least 3 Councillors support. The draft Law states; A notice of rescission provided (a) must be signed and dated by at least 3 Councillors (b) the resolution proposed to be rescinded has not been acted on. A resolution will be deemed to have been acted on if ‘its contents have or substance has been formally communicated to a person whose interests are materially affected by it.

While it is understandable that Brimbank’s CEO and Council officers might want to wrest back some control over errant and troublesome Councillors in consideration of some of the spectacles of open factional warfare witnessed at some Brimbank meetings, we do think Councillors have been elected by the people and should be allowed to represent them to the best of their abilities. Shutting down debate and curtailing Councillors ability to represent residents and ratepayers only serves to reduce democracy once again in Brimbank.

The Councillors’ vote on this issue will be instructive.