A summary of the Council meeting held on 26 November 2013

 

Eight councillors were in attendance for this meeting with Councillors Paterson, Drieberg and Klisaris apologies.

 

Question time

 

A total of 20 questions had been received for the meeting.  I advised that while 20 questions would take longer to deal with than the 20 minutes allowed for question time by our Meeting Procedures Local Law No 1 (Local Law No 1), I intended to allow all of the questions to be asked and answered for this meeting.

However,  I also advised that beginning from the next meeting (the December Council meeting), Council would start enforcing the 20 minute restriction for question time as is provided by Local Law No 1.  Any questions not dealt with during the 20 minutes allowed for question time would be responded to in writing.

I also advised that Council would relax the current restriction under Local Law No 1 which requires that that questions must relate to an agenda item in the current meeting’s agenda or from the immediately past Council meeting agenda.  This will be done by Council simply resolving to suspend standing orders in the event of any future question which does not relate to the current or previous meeting agenda.  The reason for this change is to open up more widely the matters on which questions may be asked of Council.

In practical effect for the December meeting, this will allow those members of the community who are interested in Council’s recent residential aged care decision to be able to continue to ask questions of Council at the December meeting in relation to this issue.  Without such a concession, Local Law No 1 would prevent them from doing so at the December meeting as there was no matter relating to the residential aged care issue at the November meeting and there is not expected to be any report considered at the December meeting either.

 

Key decisions

 

Some of the key decisions made at the meeting were:

• Item 3.1 – Web content management system: Council resolved to accept the tender of Seamless Pty Ltd for $276,345 to develop a new website for Council
• Item 5.1 – Metropolitan Strategy Review: Council approved a submission to the Minister for Planning detailing Council’s response to Plan Melbourne (the state government’s new planning blueprint for Melbourne).  Council agreed to an amendment proposed by Cr Lo to request that a greater emphasis be placed on delivering new affordable housing and that Plan Melbourne identify specific public transport outcomes
• Item 5.4 – Planning application for 5-7 Dunscombe Avenue, Glen Waverley: Council accepted the recommendation of the Director City Development to refuse this application for 25 apartments because it was considered an over-development for the site
• Item 5.5 – Planning application for 32 Adrian Street, Chadstone: Council was split on whether to accept the recommendation of the Director City Development to approve this application.  The application was for 29 double storey dwellings and a four storey building comprising 24 apartments .  I had to use my casting vote as chairperson to resolve the tied vote.  I used my casting vote in favour of the recommendation of Council’s professional officers who had assessed the application as being consistent with the Monash Planning Scheme.  The application was therefore approved.
• Item 6.2 – Council representation on organisations/committees for 2013/14: Council accepted the appointments proposed in the agenda paper with a couple of minor alterations to the report to reflect previous discussions between councillors.  Council also approved a consequential change to the Monash Gallery of Art Committee of Management Terms of Reference to reflect that there will be an increase in councillor representation on the committee from one to two councillors.
• Item 8.1 Eueneva Avenue car park: Council resolved on a procedural motion to adjourn this matter which had been brought before Council by Cr Davies without any prior discussion.  Cr Lo highlighted that the Notice of Motion was inconsistent with previous decisions of Council on 24 September 2013.  He suggested that Council should defer the Notice of Motion until May 2014 at which time Council will consider a Sustainable Transport Plan which is currently being prepared for the Glen Waverley Activity Centre.
• Item of urgent business relating to the Hanover Street bridge works (in Oakleigh) being undertaken by Metro Trains: Cr Dimopoulos raised this item because of recent news that Metro Trains would not complete the bridge works by the end of November as originally planned.  Based on the information available, the bridge (which has been closed to all pedestrians and motorists since work commenced) will remain closed until approximately February 2014.  Council resolved to write to Metro Trains expressing its disappointment that it did not meet the timeline it originally proposed.  Council also resolved to write to the Minister for Transport expressing its disappointment and requesting that a shuttle bus be provided in the meantime to assist residents who have been impacted by the bridge’s closure with access to the Oakleigh shopping centre.

 

Points of order

 

A recent trend in the past 12 months has been a significant increase in the number of points of order being pleaded by individual councillors at Council meetings.  This meeting was no exception with three points of order being raised.  In the interests of consistency and in an effort to minimise the disruption caused by points of order being unnecessarily raised in future, I have decided to record each instance in the hope of introducing some rigour (i.e. understanding and consistent approach) into how they are handled.

The three points of order at this meeting are summarised below:

•  Point of order 1 of 2013/14 (‘contrary to Local Law’): A point of order was raised by a councillor on the basis that a procedural motion moved by another councillor to adjourn consideration of a matter on the agenda was out of order.  I did not uphold this point of order because Local Law No 1 clearly provides at clause 29 for a councillor to propose that debate on a motion be adjourned to a future date and time.  This clause also requires that the councillor moving the adjournment provide reasons for the adjournment.
• Point of order 2 of 2013/14 (‘defamatory’): A point of order was raised by a councillor on the basis that another councillor’s reference to a third councillor as ‘the representative of the Napthine Government’ was ‘defamatory’.  I declined the point of order on the basis that I did not agree that the comment was defamatory.  I further explained that for a comment to be judged as ‘defamatory’ in the context of a council meeting it needs to be blatantly and unreasonably defamatory.  I said that questions over what is and what is not defamatory often take years to determine through the judicial system and we would leave such considerations to them.  It would only be in cases of gross, clear-cut and – above all – unreasonable defamation that I would uphold a point of order on this ground.  Moreover, any aggrieved councillor who considers that they have been defamed can make a personal explanation to clarify the situation from their perspective which is a better solution to a perceived problem than restricting another councillor’s freedom of speech at a Council meeting.
• Point of order 3 of 2013/14 (‘irrelevant’): A second point of order was made by the same councillor on the the basis that the same comment was ‘irrelevant’.  I also declined to entertain this point of order on the basis that I also did not consider the comment to be irrelevant.  I explained that in determining whether particular comments were relevant or irrelevant, I would be focusing more on the context of what is being said and the relevance of the total thrust of a councillor’s contribution rather than nit-picking particular comments in isolation from the rest of their contribution.  I said in this instance, the councillor in question was clearly addressing the matter before the Council and was therefore not being ‘irrelevant’.