A drop in the ocean!!

Today's Leader!

Melbourne’s councillors put under the microscope
12 Sep 08 @ 11:07am by Staff writers

COUNCILLORS will be more accountable to the public under a raft of new changes to legislation, the State Government said today.
In a statement released this morning, the government says the changes clarify councillor codes of conduct and conflict of interest.
Local Government Minister Richard Wynne said the changes strengthened governance for councils elected last November and improved transparency if behaviour was questioned.
``We will establish Principles of Councillor Conduct, which councils must include in their Codes of Conduct, so that Councillors will know exactly what is expected of them,’’ Mr Wynne said.
Councillor Conduct Panels - with power to discipline councillors - will be set up.
Councillors can be reprimanded, plus forced to make public apologies and take up to two months leave of absence.
“Panels may also require remedial action, such as training, counselling or mediation, or they may refer the matter to VCAT if a councillor’s behaviour appears to be serious misconductm,’’ Mr Wynne said.
VCAT will be given further powers, including:
* Disqualifying a councillor for up to four years;
* Suspending a councillor for up to six months;
* Declaring a councillor ineligible to be Mayor for up to four years.
``Definitions of conflict of interest have been revised to apply to gifts and election donations received from a person with a direct interest, as well as situations where a member of a councillor’s family has an interest,” Mr Wynne added.
``Conflict of interest will also be extended to council staff, who will be prohibited from exercising any delegated power or function of the council, if they have a conflict of interest.’’
According to the government statement, the Bill will amend the Local Government Act 1989 and the City of Melbourne Act 2001.
Key provisions include:
* The establishment of Principles of Councillor Conduct that will form the basis of each individual council’s Councillor Code of Conduct;
* The power to establish a Councillor Conduct Panel, on application from a council, councillor or councillors, to hear cases of alleged misconduct. Panels will consist of two people from a list maintained by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV);
* Extensive changes to the conflict of interest requirements of the Act, including completely revised definitions and a wider application of the provisions;
* Councillors will be required to submit their ordinary return of interests twice yearly – they are currently only required to do so once each year;
* The gift disclosure threshold will be reduced from $500 to $200, bringing it in-line with the threshold for disclosure of campaign donations;
* Implementation of the amended remuneration package for councillors following the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Local Government (Councillor Remuneration Review) Panel in April 2008;
* Councils may choose to elect the mayor for a period of two years; and,
* Measures to improve the transparency of councils; including the requirement to give at least seven days’ public notice of meetings, the requirement to publish local laws and public notices online and an increase in the time allowed for public submissions under the Act from 14 to 28 days.


COMMENTARY:

This bill is an improvement, but it certainly does not go far enough! Underlying everything is the simple and erroneous assumption that in most councils the 'problem' lies with councillors. It is they who often breach vague and nebulous 'codes of conduct'; it is they who have undeclared conflicts of interest, etc. Whilst undoubtedly true, this doesn't tell us the whole story. Councillors are only part of the problem. The major PROBLEM as experienced by glen eira residents is the bureaucracy - those untouchable mandarins, who pull the strings behind the scenes. The bill does introduce a 'code of conduct' for staff - but this is to be designed by the CEO. There is no mandate for this to be made public, nor is there any requirement to make public any findings of breaches of this supposed 'code of conduct'. Basically, the real troublemakers get off scot free!

My questions are simple. Why shouldn't bureaucrats be subject to the same public scrutiny as councillors? Why shouldn't their performance or failure also see the light of day? Why cede such power, to the most manipulative of CEO's?