“Oppressive” planned changes to governance rules “stifling debate” at Surf Coast Shire Council have “deeply concerned” Victoria’s peak ratepayer group.
Ratepayers Victoria president Dean Hurlston this week wrote to councillors urging them to consider the “oppressive nature” of the proposed rules.
Under the draft governance rules, councillors can no longer make amendments that “amount to a direct contradiction to any part of the motion, including seeking to change or edit a document, report or policy”.
“Our view is that your proposed changes simply stifle debate … and essentially the democratic rights of elected councillors to make reasonable alterations during meetings,” Mr Hurlston said.
“This is not in the best interests of the community.”
In Tuesday night’s meeting councillor Heather Wellington proposed postponing shire officer’s recommendation to “endorse” the draft governance rules for “public exhibition” until new chief executive officer (CEO) Robyn Seymour takes up her position on July 12.
Cr Wellington, who has received legal advice from a top local government expert criticising the new amendments process, also took aim at changes to public question time.
The changes would impose “ridiculous word limits” on questions to council and require some community members to drive hours to ask their question in person, Cr Wellington said.
“There’s a whole raft of really prohibitive rules that stop people from engaging with their council.”
Councillors Gary Allen, Mike Bodsworth and Paul Barker supported her proposal.
But mayor Libby Stapleton and four other councillors voted to put the draft rules on public exhibition in their “entirety without amendment“.
Deputy mayor Liz Pattison described the move as “a great opportunity for our community to engage on our governance“ and, later, for the incoming CEO to respond to this feedback.
In a statement Cr Stapleton said the new rules provided “additional clarity” on the amendments process.
“Under the proposed rules, if a councillor would like to suggest an amendment to a motion, it needs to be consistent with the intent of the motion that is currently under consideration.
“Otherwise a councillor can propose an alternative motion for consideration, in the event that the current motion being debated is lost.”
Meanwhile, councillors voted 7-2 to retain their current remuneration levels following a finalisation of a review, including a pay rise, with Cr Wellington and Cr Paul Barker voting against.
