Back in your box!

New councilor Doreen Mackman has raised the ire of  CEO Tim Clynch for daring to even vaguely suggest that a Council officer may have erred in refusing to allow an exhibition of photographs from Amnesty International to be displayed in the public library.

Her fellow councilors immediately fell into step with the administration, refusing to support her sensible motion for development of a policy on what material can be displayed in Shire facilities, then refusing even to hear her reasons (by refusing to second the motion) for a follow-up motion suggesting a public statement be made, explaining the decision to ban the display.

Mackman's 1st motion:

That Council formulate a policy covering the conditions for granting permission for
public displays/exhibitions in municipal venues

The reason:

The reason for the motion is to prevent personal bias, errors of judgement or

imposition of any particular belief or attitude towards the subject matter by the Shire

or any of its Officers when assessing an application for the use of a municipal facility

for a public exhibition or display, and to ensure consistency of response and

impartiality to all applicants.

The CEO's response:

The background/reasons to the motion provided by Cr Mackman suggest that a

policy is needed in order to “prevent personal bias, errors of judgement or imposition

of any particular belief or attitude towards the subject matter by the Shire or any of its

Officers when assessing an application for the use of a municipal facility for a public

exhibition or display, and to ensure consistency of response and impartiality to all

applicants”.

Whilst concurring that a policy on this subject would provide direction to staff on

Council’s position regarding displays and exhibitions in Shire venues, any suggestion

that staff acted in a biased and discriminatory manner when dealing with the recent

request by Amnesty International for a display in the library is rejected.

The result:

Lost 3/6

Crs Moore, Pratico, Wilson, Hodson, Scallan and Simpson voted against the Motion

Mackman's 2nd motion;

That Council issue a public statement, by way of a newspaper advertisement,
regretting some public anxiety that arose as a consequence of a recent decision to
prohibit a public display in municipal facilities, and reported misunderstandings about
the context.

The CEO's response:

For Council to issue a public statement expressing regret it would seem that it would

have to make a judgement that the decision by the Acting CEO to reject the request

by Amnesty International for a display in the library was an error in judgement, poor

decision or a biased decision.

The outcome:

Moved Cr Mackman - Lapsed for want of a Seconder

Mr Clynch's responses in his 'background' to the motions go far beyond his job of simply providing historical, legal, financial or administrative information to help councilors make their decision. I would suggest he is taking part in, and seeking to influence, the debate.

Rubber stamping as a form of government

Since the October 2011 Shire elections, four full Council meetings have been held.  The longest one ran for 1.5hrs and the shortest just 19 minutes.

The reason?

There is no longer any debate, no discussion and certainly no dissent.

Every single motion put forward by Council staff has been passed, unanimously.

“To see entire Council meetings go by with every item passed unanimously and without a word of debate or discussion makes a mockery of the democratic system.

“Our elected representatives are apparently content to turn up once a month and rubber-stamp everything the Council staff want to put up.

"Remember, these people were elected to represent us and are paid $8000 a year to do so. That works out to $400 for every meeting they are supposed to attend. With the meetings lasting less than an hour, that's good money for simply raising your hand and nodding your head!

“If this group of councilors are happy to let the CEO run the show, then what are we paying them for?”