MORNINGTON Peninsula Shire councillors have rejected a call that would have allowed officers to be questioned in public about the contents and possible consequences of their reports.
The bid by Cr David Gill to clear the way for the public questioning of officers was defeated last week on the casting vote of the mayor, Cr Steve Holland.
With one councillor absent, the vote was tied five all and Holland, in line with accepted procedure, used his extra vote as meeting chairperson to retain the status quo, which prevents the officers being questioned at public council meetings.
In the lead up to the vote at the 5 September council meeting, Gill said officers had to accept that “embarrassing questions come with the territory”.
“The elephant in the room is the embarrassing questions. A lot of people in this room, and they’re not necessarily around this part of the table (pointing to councillors), see questions as embarrassing,” Gill said.
“If they see it that way, then they shouldn’t be. That is unacceptable, that is not transparency.
“Some councillors in this room never supported question time, the questioning of officers. So, it will be interesting to see how they vote.
“My view is simply [that] we believe in transparency and accountability.
“Officers’ reports affect the lives of the people in our community, and they should be held accountable. They should be able to answer questions in public from the representatives of the public of our community, which is us.
“Until this term of council there was never an occasion where an officer didn’t present a report and questions were allowed to be asked. Never. It was part of the way we operated.
“We tried to be accountable, we tried to be transparent. Something has been lost.”
Cr Debra Mar said if some questions had not previously been aired in public councillors “may even sound as if we’re talking in tongues”.
Holland said councillors had several ways of asking officers about their reports away from public meetings.
He said councillors were able to ask questions of officers “at absolutely any time, and that is the privilege of being a councillor”.
Questions could be asked on behalf of a resident at any time through an online portal “and get a response from the relevant officer”.
“Council meetings are not an opportunity for individual councillors to save up a bank of questions while we all sit here and members of the public sit here wanting to get on with the business of what’s on the agenda while we have 20 minutes of questions per agenda item,” Holland said.
As mayor he allowed questions during public meetings about the quarterly report and town planning matters.
Gill said the “portal system … limits and controls questions”.
“You never know when you’re going to get an answer. It is not a real substitute for transparency.”
Cr Despi O’Connor said councillors sometimes did not question officers in the “correct way, [questions] are utilised for platforming or debate, and so it skews what a question looks like, sounds like”.
Cr Sarah Race said she had seen junior officers “uncomfortable with line of questioning, and I think that was quite difficult to watch when they were just trying to present a report to us”.
Cr Simon Brooks said Gill’s motion to allow officers to be questioned publicly “aligned well” with recommendations in a report into corruption at the City of Casey by the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (“‘Transparency’ call for council” The News 5/9/23).
Brooks said the IBAC recommendation urged councils to ensure that “pre-meetings do not supplant council meetings and encourages open government”.
Councillors who voted to allow the questioning of officers at public meeting were Gill, Brooks, Lisa Dixon, Antonella Celi and Kate Roper. Against: Holland, O’Connor, Race, Mar and Anthony Marsh. Cr Susan Bissinger was absent.
