Moving to meet the letter of law for meetings

Council moves in to line with regulation requirements

MEETING REVIEW: Noosa CEO Brett de Chastel considering changes to meeting records. Picture: Peter Gardiner

NOOSA COUNCIL has not been technically complying with the proper conduct and recording of its council meetings, according to its top administrator, who has now acted on legal advice.

Council lawyers have told Noosa CEO Brett de Chastel, the council's informal planning and service committee meetings have not seen motions put forward and seconded, as required.

This breaches the procedures of the Local Government Regulation and the council also has been at fault for failing to formally vote to exempt itself from recording minutes of these committee or that of the general committee.

The regulation states: "A local government may only exempt a committee under subsection (6) if the committee's only function is to advise, or otherwise make a recommendation to, the local government. (8)

"Also, a committee which has been exempted under subsection (6) must give the local government a written report of its deliberations and its advice or recommendations.”

Mr de Chastel recommended on Monday the council vote at last night's ordinary meeting, for the exemption to ensure compliance, but Cr Ingrid Jackson said this did not go far enough.

"While the motion recommended on the council agenda complies with the law, it's the bare minimum,” Cr Jackson said.

The response from Cr Brian Stockwell was : "We don't need to revert to taking minutes fitting of the Parish of Dibley”.

"Following the suggestion of Cr (Frank) Wilkie, I moved a motion which placed on record the current situation where all notes taken at the general committee meetings will be kept and made available to the public on request,” he said.

Mr de Chastel has sought advice from council solicitors after community concerns were raised. Local Michael McBride posted online : "Government at all levels need to realise that transparency is vital to maintain trust within the community. It has always concerned me that any government official feel that transparency is an option,” he said.

Mr de Chastel said the legal advice was "very clear”.

"The non-compliance is a matter of procedure, not substance, and the decisions of council are not legally invalid as a result,” he said.

"Council committees do not have decision-making power and their sole purpose is to make a recommendation to council and it is council that makes the actual decision at the ordinary (monthly) meeting.

"Neither the Local Government Act or the Local Government Regulation prescribe any specific consequences for failure to comply with the meeting procedure requirements,” Mr de Chastel said.

He said at general committee the outcomes of the meeting reported to the ordinary meeting included only the final recommendation, but did not include any lost motions/ amendments, divisions on voting, requests by a councillor to record how they voted, or specific amendments moved by councillors.

He opted for the minutes recording exemption as this "additional information is not relevant because the primary purpose of the general committee is to make recommendations to the ordinary meeting, not to make the final decision”.

Mr de Chastel said this information was "mainly relevant at the decision- making stage” of the final ordinary meetings, the minutes of which were recorded on the council website.

Councillor comment P27.