Past meetings of Council prior to my election as mayor had seen a pronounced decline in behavioural standards amongst a small group of councillors and persons in the Public Gallery.
This had led to meetings being unacceptably unruly, disruptive and unpleasant. In particular, there have been a number of instances where these councillors or persons in the Public Gallery have completely disregarded the rulings or directions of the previous mayor. A number of complaints have been made in response to this conduct.
It is important that Council takes action to restore its authority over the conduct of its meetings.
At the 31 May 2016 Council meeting I proposed a number of measures to make these disruptions a thing of the past. In addition to the appointment of an independent Governance and Behaviour Monitor and tough new Supplementary Standing Orders, I proposed some specific measures designed to end the disruptive tactics employed by some councillors of using Points of Order and Procedural Motions to prolong meetings, stifle debate and disrupt our meetings.
While these measures – referred to by some as the ‘hands on head’ requirements – have been ridiculed by some, they are deliberately crafted to tackle one of the main sources of disruption at our meetings. For media coverage, see this Herald Sun article, this Age article, this Waverley Leader article, this AAP article, this 3AW segment and this ABC blog coverage.
In my view, one of the key contributors to disorder and disruption at recent Council meetings has been the aggressive and belligerent way in which some councillors assert Points of Order or raise Procedural Motions. These interventions during a meeting are typically raised in a disruptive way with the councillor raising the Point of Order or Procedural Motion by standing up in their place, often demanding to be heard in a raised voice and more times than not straying off the Point of Order being raised or going beyond simply moving the Procedural Motion by entering into debate.
In particular, the councillor making such interventions has also tended to be argumentative and has regularly made a point of heckling the mayor’s ruling or treatment of their Point of Order or Procedural Motion. This conduct has sometimes extended to other councillors as well who have at times interjected to comment on or criticise the approach proposed by the moving councillor or the way that the mayor treats with it. The Supplementary Standing Orders make it clear that such conduct is disorderly and will no longer be tolerated. The Supplementary Standing Orders deal with both processes in an attempt to take the theatrics and pontification out of these processes.
I recommended that no longer will a councillor stand in their place to either raise a Point of Order or move a Procedural Motion as I believe the act of standing over the meeting when raising one of these interventions contributed to the argumentative and disruptive way that these are often presented by some councillors.
Instead, I proposed that these matters be raised by a councillor silently signalling their desire to raise a Point of Order or move a Procedural Motion. In the case of a Point of Order, this will be done by placing both hands on their head. In the case of a Procedural Motion, it will be done by placing one hand on their head.
The advantage of these approaches is that it denies a councillor intent on using these interventions in an unruly way from having that effect. The signalling process means that it is immediately apparent what it is the Councillor is wishing to raise – i.e. a Point of Order or a Procedural Motion – and the mayor is placed in the position of being able to immediately and specifically engage the councillor on the matter they are raising.
These measures are designed to make Points of Order and Procedural Motions more of an exception than the norm.
I am not concerned in the slightest if requiring someone to put their hands on their head does disincentivise a councillor from moving these – as we are getting far too many of these interventions than is warranted. By way of observation, I suspect we are now getting more Points of Order and Procedural Motions raised at a single meeting than what was experienced across the entire previous four year Council term.
The advantage of knowing what a councillor seeks to raise – be it either a Point of Order or a Procedural Motion – through introducing the signalling method proposed, is that the mayor can then immediately engage the councillor on that matter and focus the councillor quickly and succinctly on describing their Point of Order or Procedural Notice so it can be efficiently dealt with. For example, I see the process as unfolding in this manner:
- Point of Order: A councillor places two hands on their head signalling a wish to raise a Point of Order. The mayor asks any other councillor who is addressing the meeting to resume their seat. The mayor acknowledges that the councillor in question wishes to raise a Point of Order by saying something to the effect of: Ok, Cr X has a Point of Order. Cr X, which of the five grounds of Point of Order does your Point of Order relate to? Cr X then responds by indicating which of the five grounds his or her Point of Order relates to and the mayor can then ask any further questions from there of the councillor to understand the basis of the Point of Order. The mayor is then in a position to rule on the Point of Order.
- Procedural Motion: A councillor places one hand on their head signalling a wish to raise a Procedural Motion. The mayor asks any other councillor who is addressing the meeting to resume their seat. The mayor acknowledges that the councillor in question wishes to raise a Procedural Motion by saying something to the effect of: Ok, Cr X wishes to move a Procedural Motion. Cr X, which category of Procedural Motion are you wishing to move? Cr X then responds by nominating the category of Procedural Motion, such as by nominating ‘Category (e) that the question now be put’. The mayor is then in a position to put the Procedural Motion to the meeting for a vote (which Local Law No 1 makes clear is put to the meeting without debate).
In the case of Points of Order, the other advantage of this approach is that it treats Points of Order in a fairly clinical way with an aim or ensuring consistent, impartial and clear rulings. I have drafted the Supplementary Standing Orders to also require all Points of Order raised to be clearly and comprehensively recorded in the minutes, including the mayor’s ruling and the reasons for their ruling. As when I was Mayor in 2013/14, I will do my best to be very clear in explaining my reasons for upholding or refusing a Point of Order to assist with reducing the number of Points of Order being raised. By ensuring that these are set out fully and recorded in the minutes will assist with ensuring a consistent and fair approach is achieved.
Council’s challenge over the next five months is to significantly improve its meeting performance. Every councillor has a role to play in achieving this and all councillors will be held to account for their individual actions.
Recent Comments