Thursday, March 22, 2012

Significant Motion and Voting: Ethical Issue

Believe it or not this is the short version!!

Cr. Bev Colomb has given notice of her intention to move the following motion:
“ Part A”
While noting we are not in breach of any regulations currently, Council wishes to lead the way in any review processes for Councillor Conduct and Local Law and requests TheMinister of Local Government to address rules around a Councillor working for another Councillor in a paid position.
“Part B” (withdrawn after much pressure)
That officers prepare a report for Council that gives us protocols to put in place for Council to monitor and manage when a Councillor is employed by another that is transparent and shows good governance, and to investigate if a Local Law can be assistance.”
“Rationale”
To address Council processes around one or more Councillors employed by another.

As discussion commenced a Motion was Moved: Cr. Shaw (who employees Cr. Smith) and Seconded: Cr. Celi to move this simple moral and ethical issue out of the transparent public domain and to hold the discussions in-camera (why we must wonder????) The motion to move this simple question of morality and conflict of interest was voted on in the affirmative by, Shaw, Smith, Gibb, Celi, Goodrum and decided by the vote of Martin as Mayor.

The Motion Was Moved by Cr. Colomb Seconded: Cr. Eustace as follows:
Part A
While noting we are not in breach of any regulations currently, Council wishes to lead the way in any review processes for Councillor Conduct and Local Law and requests TheMinister of Local Government to address rules around a Councillor working for another Councillor in a paid position.
Part B
That officers prepare a report for Council that gives us protocols to put in place for Council to monitor and manage when a Councillor is employed by another that is transparent and shows good governance, and to investigate if a Local Law can be assistance.
Cr. Colomb requested leave of the Council to withdraw Part B of the motion. Council agreed to grant leave for Part B of the motion to be withdrawn.

Then the clincher of duplicity where a Motion Moved: by Cr. Gibb Seconded: Cr. Celi: That Council resolves that the Council decision passed in camera be retained as a confidential item pursuant to Section 77(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 1989and be placed in a separate minute book for confidential items.

VOTE BY DIVISION (Requested by Cr. Colomb)
For: Cr. Celi, Cr. Gibb and Cr Smith.
Against: Cr. Bowden, Cr. Colomb, Cr. Eustace, Cr. Martin, Cr. Pittock, Cr. Rodgers and Cr. Shaw.


Substantive Motion was Put While noting we are not in breach of any regulations currently, Council wishes to lead the way in any review processes for Councillor Conduct and Local Law and requests the Minister of Local Government to address rules around a Councillor working for another Councillor in a paid position.

VOTE BY DIVISION (Requested by Cr. Colomb)
For: Cr. Bowden, Cr. Colomb, Cr. Eustace, Cr. Gibb, Cr. Pittock and Cr. Rodgers.
Against: Cr. Celi, Cr. Martin, Cr. Shaw and Cr. Smith.
Carried


It is interesting to take a close look at the voting patterns in this process. It appears to this writer that it is obvious that the patterns change just enough to make it look like a fair and impartial consideration of the issues. But when analyzed it becomes obvious that some votes make no sense based on the actors and their prior positions and are only a deception to confuse us as to the real situation.

In one case (Gibb) we have a councillor who tries to keep the result confidential and then votes for the motion. We can only wonder where some of these votes would have been cast had this motion been carried to keep the results secret.

We can understand the behavior of Shaw (the employer) and Smith (the employee) in their voting patterns. But the others who kept this simple moral and ethical issue out of the public domain … just why would they do this?

And even more interesting that Celi, Martin, Shaw and Smith.
Would vote to not present the moral and ethical problem to TheMinister.

5 comments:

  1. There should not be a problem if, as is common with other boards / councils, there is a standing agenda item at the beginning of the meeting when councillors / members state if they have a potential conflict of interest. This, according to your notes, would apply to both Councillors Smith and Shaw, who would state that they are in an employer / employee relationship and that any motion that comes up that could be seen as giving either of them an advantage would be abstained on by either of them at the time. Such a declaration would also take into account any councillors who happen to be business owners, sub contractors, etc and operate within the shire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would seem so. But they will not declare this relationship as a conflict because the Local Government Act 1989 does not specifically state that this is a conflict of interest. Forget about ethics and morals…if LGA 1989 does not quote chapter and verse they do all they can to avoid it.

      Delete
  2. wow great i have read many articles about this topic and everytimei learn something new i dont think it will ever stop always new info , Thanks for all of your hard work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. wow great i have read many articles about this topic and everytimei learn something new i dont think it will ever stop always new info , Thanks for all of your hard work!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very interesting. Obviously quite a bit of one on one discussion preceded the vote. To keep it out of the public domain though stinks of possible corruption and I dont like it one bit.
    An open council is a fair council.

    ReplyDelete