NOTICE OF MOTION: WALLSEND AGED CARE FACILITY
COUNCILLOR: M OSBORNE
MOTION
That Newcastle City Council:
1. congratulates the community of Wallsend for their steadfast defence of public health facilities in their area
2. supports the community campaign to keep the Wallsend Aged Care facility as a publicly owned and operated health facility
3. writes to the NSW Premier, Nathan Rees and to the NSW Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbut, urging the NSW Government to retain Wallsend Aged Care as a public sector facility, with copies to the NSW Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, and to the NSW Shadow Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner.
4. arranges a visit by councillors to the community picket line, as a gesture of support for the community campaign, and to discuss with campaign participants how council might further assist them in their campaign.
BACKGROUND
Councillors will be aware that members of the Wallsend community have initiated a grassroots community campaign (including an ongoing picket-line) to save the Wallsend Aged Care facility from privatisation by the NSW government.
The Wallsend Aged Care facility is the largest care centre of its kind in the Hunter Valley and provides essential, high quality nursing care for extreme-need cases, including for young people with rare and special illnesses that are not accommodated in local private nursing care facilities.
The proposed privatisation of the facility would place both the quality and scope of the current service at risk.
The site and buildings also occupy a special place in the Wallsend community.
The land on which the facility is located was donated to the community by the Newcastle Wallsend Mining Company, and the hospital was built with money raised by miners.
The current facility was established after the controversial closure of Wallsend Hospital in 1991, which stimulated a long term community picket that ended in 1993.
Earlier this year, a petition with more than 10,000 signatures supporting the current community campaign was tabled in the NSW parliament. The NSW Legislative Council has recently voted to support keeping the facility in public hands, under the operation of the Department of Health.
This motion would establish council's general support for the community campaign, to convey this support to the NSW government, and to explore other ways that the council can support the community in this important issue.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Wallsend Aged Care
Here's a copy of my Notice of Motion supporting the Wallsend community.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Tate under investigation...
Mayor John Tate is being investigated over political donations.
Lord Mayor John Tate investigated
BY IAN KIRKWOOD
NEWCASTLE Lord Mayor JohnTate is being investigated by Newcastle City Council over his relationship with businessmanCon Constantine.
Council city engagement director Martin Coates confirmed lastnight that a ‘code of conduct’ investigation was under way.
The investigation is being carried out by Newcastle barrister Mark Brady, who described himself yesterday as one of a panel of practitioners hired by the council to do arm’s-length investigations.
Cr Tate said last night from Singapore, where he was on a short break, he knew a code of conduct matter was under way but he was surprised to find that members of the public were being interviewed about it.
"All that’s happened is that [council general manager] Lindy Hyam told me about a fortnight ago there was a matter to be finalised but that was about it," Cr Tate said.
He said it was ridiculous to suggest that he was influenced by any campaign donations from Mr Constantine or his companies or that he had acted in any way in breach of council procedures.
He said he was yet to be interviewed in relation to the code of conduct investigation and would be ‘having something to say’ if he was not given the chance to respond.
Maryville resident Martin Breen said he had lodged a complaint against Cr Tate over an April 21 vote that was viewed by some at the time as helping to pave the way for Mr Constantine’s proposed Maryville markets.
On that night, Cr Tate used his casting vote to allow a change to the Newcastle Local Environment Plan to be put on public display.
A plan for the markets and a draft amendment to the local environment plan have been put on display but a vote is yet to take place.
Mr Breen said he had lodged the complaint because he believed Cr Tate had previously abstained from voting on matters involving Mr Constantine and he believed he should have done so in this case.
He said regulations to the Local Government Act stated that "perceptions of a conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest".
The Herald report of the April 21 meeting said that Cr Tate had declared donations to his 2007 state election campaign from a Constantine company before using his casting vote to break a 5-5 deadlock.
Last night, Cr Tate said he voted that way in order give the public a chance to evaluate the proposal rather than have it killed off by "a handful of objectors".
Mr Constantine said he was disappointed and saddened by the accusations against the mayor.
He said the mutual business friendship would have no influence over Cr Tate’s decisions.
"Absolutely not, no way, nothing at all to do with it," Mr Constantine said.
He said Cr Tate was motivated by a desire for the future growth of Newcastle.
"Here is a man trying to create 1200 jobs for Newcastle and we’ve got some people out there accusing him of bias."
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Millions now know that 350 ppm of CO2 is the most that we can safely have in the atmosphere
Saturday, was the 'World's most widespread day of political action', with more than 5,200 actions in 181 countries.
Millions of people now know that scientists say that 350 parts per million carbon dioxide is the most that we can safely have in the atmosphere. The Secretary General of the United Nations was given the first delivery of a bunch of photos from around the world. More than 19,000 photos, and many hours of video, were taken documenting the day's actions.
We did our bit on a farm near Barrington...
Meanwhile, back home in Newcastle...
People from around Newcastle and Lake Macquarie gathered at the Newcastle Foreshore Playground with their children for a giant play date as part of the largest global day of climate action ever.
The event was organised by a stay-at-home mother from Tighes Hill who isn’t an activist but is terrified of one day being asked by her sons, “Mum, why didn’t you do something when the world still had a chance?”
Millions of people now know that scientists say that 350 parts per million carbon dioxide is the most that we can safely have in the atmosphere. The Secretary General of the United Nations was given the first delivery of a bunch of photos from around the world. More than 19,000 photos, and many hours of video, were taken documenting the day's actions.
We did our bit on a farm near Barrington...
Meanwhile, back home in Newcastle...
People from around Newcastle and Lake Macquarie gathered at the Newcastle Foreshore Playground with their children for a giant play date as part of the largest global day of climate action ever.
The event was organised by a stay-at-home mother from Tighes Hill who isn’t an activist but is terrified of one day being asked by her sons, “Mum, why didn’t you do something when the world still had a chance?”
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Mine subsidence in Newcastle
NOTICE OF MOTION: MINE SUBSIDENCE WORKING GROUP
COUNCILLOR: M OSBORNE
MOTION
That Newcastle City Council establishes a sunset working party to formulate recommendations on mitigating the impact of mine subsidence on the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD.
The working party should consist of relevant stakeholders and experts including but not limited to: Council staff, a representative from NSW Mine Subsidence Board, a representative from NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, a representative from NSW Department of Planning, a representative from Property Council and interested Councillors.
Investigations should include:
The working party should report back to Council within 6 months with recommended methods and actions, consistent with the City Centre Plan, on which Council can either act directly and/or play an advocacy role to other spheres of government.
BACKGROUND
Mine subsidence has been identified as a key issue affecting the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD.
Newcastle is unique in the amount of old underground mine workings under our CBD. The early history of mine subsidence in NSW is dominated by references to Newcastle (see the History section on the MSB website http://www.minesub.nsw.gov.au). For Newcastle to be revitalised, our history needs to be recognised and we need a unique solution.
The NSW Mine Subsidence Board (MSB) requires the ‘grouting’ or backfilling of old underground mine workings, up to 70 metres below ground of affected sites prior to redevelopment.
The issue has been raised in submissions to various planning studies including the Newcastle City Centre Plan and the Newcastle CBD Taskforce. The summaries of the Taskforce reports were provided at the Newcastle Panthers Club meeting listing Mine Subsidence as the highest priority.
Subsequent to the CBD Taskforce, the reports prepared by the Hunter Development Corporation completely fail to address the issue.
The MSB requirements mean that grouting usually extends well beyond the footprint of the site to be developed, under public space and adjacent sites. There is currently no mechanism for cost sharing back to the first site developed if an adjacent site is subsequently developed
Grouting is expensive, including a relatively large fixed mobilisation cost, regardless of the size of the site, just to get equipment on site and set up (before any costs for drilling and materials etc). Grouting costs add to unit costs, smaller sites generally incur much higher cost per unit.
The MSB collects levies from coal mines and uses the money as compensation for damage to buildings caused by mine subsidence.
Why can’t some of the money be used to work pro-actively to prevent mine subsidence in the Newcastle CBD given its unique nature? If this requires a change to the State legislation, then it should be changed.
The viability of both commercial and residential redevelopments in the Newcastle CBD is constrained by this issue. This leads to a reduction in housing stock at the lower end of the market within the CBD and a subsequent reduction in the socio-economic residential mix in CBD. This has flow on effects for pushing development away from our CBD, leading to transport issues across the city and ongoing issues relating to the derelict look of the CBD and the functioning of the retail sector in the CBD.
COUNCILLOR: M OSBORNE
MOTION
That Newcastle City Council establishes a sunset working party to formulate recommendations on mitigating the impact of mine subsidence on the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD.
The working party should consist of relevant stakeholders and experts including but not limited to: Council staff, a representative from NSW Mine Subsidence Board, a representative from NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, a representative from NSW Department of Planning, a representative from Property Council and interested Councillors.
Investigations should include:
- Existing and alternative construction methods available
- Existing and alternative funding arrangements, including both public and private sector models, and State and Federal funding
- Existing legislation and possible amendments if necessary (eg for MSB to proactively address mine subsidence risk by releasing funds to partly pay for grouting)
- Consistency regarding the time that an approved DA remains valid (eg MSB approvals are valid for 2 years whereas approvals under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are generally valid for 5 years)
The working party should report back to Council within 6 months with recommended methods and actions, consistent with the City Centre Plan, on which Council can either act directly and/or play an advocacy role to other spheres of government.
BACKGROUND
Mine subsidence has been identified as a key issue affecting the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD.
Newcastle is unique in the amount of old underground mine workings under our CBD. The early history of mine subsidence in NSW is dominated by references to Newcastle (see the History section on the MSB website http://www.minesub.nsw.gov.au). For Newcastle to be revitalised, our history needs to be recognised and we need a unique solution.
The NSW Mine Subsidence Board (MSB) requires the ‘grouting’ or backfilling of old underground mine workings, up to 70 metres below ground of affected sites prior to redevelopment.
The issue has been raised in submissions to various planning studies including the Newcastle City Centre Plan and the Newcastle CBD Taskforce. The summaries of the Taskforce reports were provided at the Newcastle Panthers Club meeting listing Mine Subsidence as the highest priority.
Subsequent to the CBD Taskforce, the reports prepared by the Hunter Development Corporation completely fail to address the issue.
The MSB requirements mean that grouting usually extends well beyond the footprint of the site to be developed, under public space and adjacent sites. There is currently no mechanism for cost sharing back to the first site developed if an adjacent site is subsequently developed
Grouting is expensive, including a relatively large fixed mobilisation cost, regardless of the size of the site, just to get equipment on site and set up (before any costs for drilling and materials etc). Grouting costs add to unit costs, smaller sites generally incur much higher cost per unit.
The MSB collects levies from coal mines and uses the money as compensation for damage to buildings caused by mine subsidence.
Why can’t some of the money be used to work pro-actively to prevent mine subsidence in the Newcastle CBD given its unique nature? If this requires a change to the State legislation, then it should be changed.
The viability of both commercial and residential redevelopments in the Newcastle CBD is constrained by this issue. This leads to a reduction in housing stock at the lower end of the market within the CBD and a subsequent reduction in the socio-economic residential mix in CBD. This has flow on effects for pushing development away from our CBD, leading to transport issues across the city and ongoing issues relating to the derelict look of the CBD and the functioning of the retail sector in the CBD.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Fat as Butter
The Fat As Butter event is on this Sunday, spread all over Wickham Park.
If any residents have any issues that arise as a consequence of this event, they should call the Event Hotline.
Fat as Butter Event Hotline: 0410 204 203
If any residents see any graffiti incidents, they should call the Graffiti Hotline.
NCC Graffiti Hotline: 1800 223 840
All complaints will be logged, responded to or distributed to the appropriate authority for response.
Newcastle Council's website has a Frequently Asked Questions section about Fat As Butter, though it doesn't seem to have been updated in a long while.
See earlier information I've posted here and here.
If any residents have any issues that arise as a consequence of this event, they should call the Event Hotline.
Fat as Butter Event Hotline: 0410 204 203
If any residents see any graffiti incidents, they should call the Graffiti Hotline.
NCC Graffiti Hotline: 1800 223 840
All complaints will be logged, responded to or distributed to the appropriate authority for response.
Newcastle Council's website has a Frequently Asked Questions section about Fat As Butter, though it doesn't seem to have been updated in a long while.
See earlier information I've posted here and here.
Friday, 16 October 2009
Democracy diminished...
In June this year, Newcastle councillors voted to be an “open and transparent organisation that engages the community and encourages participation in Council matters.”
This week, Newcastle councillors were presented with proposals that – if adopted – will confirm Newcastle as one of the least open and transparent councils in the state.
Proposed changes to Newcastle council’s Code of Meeting Practice and Code of Conduct would entrench a rising community perception that the Council is democratically dysfunctional.
Current media attention is understandably focused on proposed restrictions to councillors speaking to the media, but the proposed changes go much deeper than this.
The new draft Code of Meeting Practice formalises that Council workshops will continue to be held behind closed doors, away from the view of the public and the media.
These workshops, held outside the open meetings provisions of the Local Government Act, are not new in Newcastle, but they've never been used on the current scale. I’m still awaiting an answer from the General Manager on the exact number of topics discussed in the past year, but I reckon 100 wouldn’t be much short of the mark.
If many of the topics discussed at these closed workshops were on the agenda of an official council meeting, they wouldn’t qualify as legitimately confidential under the Act, and the meetings couldn’t lawfully be closed to the public and the media. The workshops provide a way to sidestep these legal restrictions.
The only reason for having these secret workshops is the desire of some councillors and council staff to discuss matters away from the public view. My attempts to make these workshops open to the public have been opposed by most councillors. The public has a right to know what is happening in these workshops and what topics are being discussed.
How this is open or transparent and how it engages the community and encourages participation is not apparent to me.
Proposed changes to the Code of Conduct would further stifle the flow of information from councillors to the community.
The most insidious proposed change is the introduction of a new category of “sensitive information”. As currently defined, this would include any information that a councillor might be given by memo or email, or during discussions at a secret workshop. Under the proposed change, a councillor could only provide such information to the community or the media if specifically authorised by the General Manager. This directly fetters the statutory role of a councillor “to facilitate communication between the council and the community”, and hands monopoly control over the flow of information on council matters to an unelected council officer. Such a fettering of an elected representative’s role would not only be a major step backward for local democracy and the community right-to-know, but may even be illegal.
This same repressive, anti-democratic approach is evident in new sections seeking to impose restrictions on councillors speaking to the media. Similar restrictions would apply to councillors using online media, such as blogs. As a councillor, I've maintained a blog for many years, as a means of conveying information about council matters to the community.
No argument has been advanced for these proposed changes, other than vague, unsubstantiated claims in the council report that they “reflect industry best practice”.
Recently, the Local Government Act was changed to clarify that a council is a “body politic”, rather than a “body corporate”. A key distinguishing feature of a body politic is that it is democratic institution elected by and accountable to the community of citizens. As a body politic, a council is part of our system of democratic government, and not simply part of a “corporate business”. We don't refer to other spheres of government as a “corporate business”. The citizens that a council serves are more than merely “customers”, and the mission of democratic governance and public policy is not the same as the mission of private enterprise or corporate management.
Democracy is diminished when elected councillors start to see themselves as more in partnership with council staff than with the community. Democracy is diminished when elected councillors think they have a greater duty to stop the community from observing the discussion of the policies of council than in facilitating community involvement and knowledge about what is going on in local government.
In this year when we are celebrating 150 years of local government in Newcastle, the credibility of Council's claim to be an open and transparent organisation that engages the community and encourages participation is on the line.
This week, Newcastle councillors were presented with proposals that – if adopted – will confirm Newcastle as one of the least open and transparent councils in the state.
Proposed changes to Newcastle council’s Code of Meeting Practice and Code of Conduct would entrench a rising community perception that the Council is democratically dysfunctional.
Current media attention is understandably focused on proposed restrictions to councillors speaking to the media, but the proposed changes go much deeper than this.
The new draft Code of Meeting Practice formalises that Council workshops will continue to be held behind closed doors, away from the view of the public and the media.
These workshops, held outside the open meetings provisions of the Local Government Act, are not new in Newcastle, but they've never been used on the current scale. I’m still awaiting an answer from the General Manager on the exact number of topics discussed in the past year, but I reckon 100 wouldn’t be much short of the mark.
If many of the topics discussed at these closed workshops were on the agenda of an official council meeting, they wouldn’t qualify as legitimately confidential under the Act, and the meetings couldn’t lawfully be closed to the public and the media. The workshops provide a way to sidestep these legal restrictions.
The only reason for having these secret workshops is the desire of some councillors and council staff to discuss matters away from the public view. My attempts to make these workshops open to the public have been opposed by most councillors. The public has a right to know what is happening in these workshops and what topics are being discussed.
How this is open or transparent and how it engages the community and encourages participation is not apparent to me.
Proposed changes to the Code of Conduct would further stifle the flow of information from councillors to the community.
The most insidious proposed change is the introduction of a new category of “sensitive information”. As currently defined, this would include any information that a councillor might be given by memo or email, or during discussions at a secret workshop. Under the proposed change, a councillor could only provide such information to the community or the media if specifically authorised by the General Manager. This directly fetters the statutory role of a councillor “to facilitate communication between the council and the community”, and hands monopoly control over the flow of information on council matters to an unelected council officer. Such a fettering of an elected representative’s role would not only be a major step backward for local democracy and the community right-to-know, but may even be illegal.
This same repressive, anti-democratic approach is evident in new sections seeking to impose restrictions on councillors speaking to the media. Similar restrictions would apply to councillors using online media, such as blogs. As a councillor, I've maintained a blog for many years, as a means of conveying information about council matters to the community.
No argument has been advanced for these proposed changes, other than vague, unsubstantiated claims in the council report that they “reflect industry best practice”.
Recently, the Local Government Act was changed to clarify that a council is a “body politic”, rather than a “body corporate”. A key distinguishing feature of a body politic is that it is democratic institution elected by and accountable to the community of citizens. As a body politic, a council is part of our system of democratic government, and not simply part of a “corporate business”. We don't refer to other spheres of government as a “corporate business”. The citizens that a council serves are more than merely “customers”, and the mission of democratic governance and public policy is not the same as the mission of private enterprise or corporate management.
Democracy is diminished when elected councillors start to see themselves as more in partnership with council staff than with the community. Democracy is diminished when elected councillors think they have a greater duty to stop the community from observing the discussion of the policies of council than in facilitating community involvement and knowledge about what is going on in local government.
In this year when we are celebrating 150 years of local government in Newcastle, the credibility of Council's claim to be an open and transparent organisation that engages the community and encourages participation is on the line.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The Googlers have done it again
Google has built a site where you “explore the potential impacts of climate change on our planet Earth and find out about possible solutions for adaptation and mitigation, ahead of the UN’s climate conference in Copenhagen in December.”
They’ve got a Google Earth mashup and an introductory video featuring Al Gore which I've included below.
Well worth checking out - as someone once said: "do yourself a favour!"
Supporting Blog Action Day on climate change...
They’ve got a Google Earth mashup and an introductory video featuring Al Gore which I've included below.
Well worth checking out - as someone once said: "do yourself a favour!"
Supporting Blog Action Day on climate change...
Stop the Ruddy dithering
The latest science says that we should be targeting an average concentration for atmospheric CO2 of less than 350 ppm if we want to avoid dangerous climate change.
That is the amount that was in the atmosphere in 1987, a few years before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
Our current level is...
And yet Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are still happy to play cat-and-mouse games with Malcolm Turnbull.
Supporting Blog Action Day on climate change...
That is the amount that was in the atmosphere in 1987, a few years before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
Our current level is...
And yet Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are still happy to play cat-and-mouse games with Malcolm Turnbull.
Supporting Blog Action Day on climate change...
The invisible hand of God
It was reported in the Guardian on Tuesday that Dr Rowan Williams, head of the Church of England, told an audience to pressure their governments to act on climate change."We need to keep up pressure on national governments; there are questions only they can answer about the investment of national resources. We need equally to keep up pressure on ourselves and to learn how to work better as civic agents."
Earlier this year Williams said that God was not a "safety net" that would guarantee a happy ending and that human pillaging of the world's resources meant the planet was facing a "whole range of doomsday prospects" that exceeded the results of global warming.
Humanity faced being "choked, drowned or starved" by its own stupidity, he said, and he compared those who challenged the reality of climate change to the courtiers who flattered King Canute, until he proved he could not command the waves by going to the seashore and trying to do so. "Rhetoric, as King Canute demonstrated, does not turn back rising waters," said Williams in a lecture in March.
What does well-known climate denier Catholic Archbishop Pell say to that?
Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Supporting Blog Action Day on climate change...
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
The gag provisions
In today's Newcastle Herald...
Newcastle councillors slam 'gag' policy as censorship attempt
BY JACQUI JONES CIVIC REPORTER
CIVIC leaders have slammed a new policy governing their conduct, saying it amounts to censorship because of a "gag provision" restraining comments made to the media.
Councillor Michael Osborne fears that Newcastle City Council's proposed revisions to its code of conduct will inhibit elected representatives' communication with the community.
"It's a gag provision," he said.
"It's trying to fetter the role of councillors."
Most councillors voted last night to put the draft code on public exhibition for 28 days.
Cr Osborne and colleagues Aaron Buman and Mike King did not support the decision.
Many councillors, including those who voted to seek public comment, had concerns about some provisions, especially a section on talking to the media.
The rules state that councillors are free to make personal statements to the media, but warns this must not include criticism of council officials, and suggests any criticism of the council's decisions would damage its credibility and unity.
The proposed code also dictates that councillors must give the administration's media officer a copy of statements given to the media.
"I think it's gagging us," Cr Buman said.
"And if I reflect back to the last council and its performance I spoke out a lot of the time about a lot of the decisions I was in the minority about.
"I wanted the general public to know how I felt."
Cr Nuatali Nelmes also expressed concern.
"I think it does need to be changed because I don't necessarily think the intention is censorship," she said.
"But I think when it's in black and white like that, that could be the end result."
Lord Mayor John Tate said he was comfortable with the rules.
"It doesn't fetter councillors' rights," he said.
Consultant Kath Roach told last night's council meeting that some provisions were based on the Department of Local Government's model code, but others were not.
A council spokeswoman said general manager Lindy Hyam declined to comment.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Secret meetings enshrined
Tonight Council considered a new Code of Meeting Practice and a new Code of Conduct and, among others things, signalled its intention to enshrine secret meetings.
Here's the minutes of the meeting...
Here's the minutes of the meeting...
GOVERNANCE
ITEM-89 CCL 13/10/09 - CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS S SHARPE/N NELMES)
That Council resolve to place the draft Code on public exhibition for a period of 42 days and that the notice of public exhibition also specify a period of 42 days, from the
commencement of the public exhibition, during which submissions may be made. In moving the motion Councillor Sharpe proposed to include in the exhibited documentation an alternative prayer that was submitted by Councillor Jackson:
We, the Councillors and Staff of the City of Newcastle, humbly recognise the responsibility placed upon us by the people of Newcastle to work together for the peace, order and good government of this great city, and we resolve to perform our duty with honour and integrity. I now ask you all to remain standing and, in silence, to pray or reflect on our responsibilities to the people of Newcastle.
The mover and seconder agree to include the alternative prayer into the motion.
Councillor Osborne asked mover and seconder to include two changes to the draft code of meeting practice.
1 Councillor Workshops 82.5. Proposed that clause 82.5 reads "All workshops are open… unless they are closed by prior resolution...".
2 Recording of Meetings 33.4 Proposed that clause 33.4 reads "Councillors shall be entitled to tape or make any copy of the recordings of the proceedings".
Councillor Sharpe accepted Councillor Osborne's changes into the motion.
Councillor Nelmes accepted the change to 33.4 but not to 82.5.
AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/S SHARPE)
That Council resolve to place the draft Code on public exhibition for a period of 42 days and that the notice of public exhibition also specify a period of 42 days, from the commencement of the public exhibition, during which submissions may be made, and including the following:
Councillor workshops Clause 82.5. Proposed that clause 82.5 reads "All workshops are open… unless they are closed by prior resolution…..".
Recording of Meetings 33.4 Proposed that clause 33.4 reads "Councillors shall be entitled to tape or make any copy of the recordings of the proceedings".
Following discussion Councillor King proposed the following amendment to Clause 12.1 (change in bold).
12.1 Any person must, on all occasions stand when addressing a Council meeting.
The mover and seconder of the motion indicated they would accept Councillor King’s amendment.
Councillor Osborne also noted that he would accept the change into the amendment.
Councillor Cook gave notice of a foreshadowed motion that being the original recommendation as moved but without the changes added by Councillor Osborne.
Councillor Nelmes asked if Councillors could receive a copy of the documents during the exhibition period that clearly identified the changes.
When putting the amendment the Lord Mayor identified that Councillor Sharpe had moved the motion and seconded the amendment.
Councillor Sharpe then withdrew his seconding of the amendment.
Councillor King indicated that he would second the amendment.
The Lord Mayor put the amendment to the meeting and called for a division which resulted as follows:
For the amendment Councillors S Claydon, M Jackson, M King, M Osborne and S Sharpe.
Against the amendment The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Connell, T Crakanthorp, B Cook and N Nelmes.
The amendment was declared defeated on the division of five votes to seven votes.
PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (Councillors A Buman)
The motion be put.
The motion was then put to the meeting and declared carried.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS S SHARPE/N NELMES)
That Council resolve to place the draft Code on public exhibition for a period of 42 days and that the notice of public exhibition also specify a period of 42 days, from the commencement of the public exhibition, during which submissions may be made and as amended at Council 13 October, 2009:
• Exhibition of the following alternative prayer:
We, the Councillors and Staff of the City of Newcastle, humbly recognise the responsibility placed upon us by the people of Newcastle to work together for the peace, order and good government of this great city, and we resolve to perform our duty with honour and integrity. I now ask you all to remain standing and, in silence, to pray or reflect on our responsibilities to the people of Newcastle.
• Inclusion of:
Recording of Meetings 33.4 Proposed that clause 33.4 reads "Councillors shall be entitled to tape or make any copy of the recordings of the proceedings".
• Inclusion of:
12.1 Any person must on all occasions stand when addressing a Council meeting.
Councillor Osborne wished his name recorded as having voted against the motion.
ITEM-90 CCL 13/10/09 - REPORT ON CODE OF CONDUCT
AMENDMENTS
MOTION: (COUNCILLOR A BUMAN)
That the draft Code of Conduct at Attachment A be adopted as Council’s Code of Conduct.
Following brief discussion Councillor Buman withdrew the motion.
PROCEDURAL MOTION
MOTION: (Councillors M Osborne)
Council receive a public briefing and open workshop on this matter.
The procedural motion was put to the meeting and declared defeated.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B COOK/G BOYD)
That the draft Code of Conduct at Attachment A be adopted as Council’s Code of Conduct.
Councillor Sharpe gave notice of a foreshadowed motion to place the draft Code of Conduct on exhibition for 28 days.
Councillor Cook then withdrew the motion before the Chair in favour of the foreshadowed motion.
There was no dissent from the meeting to the motion being withdrawn.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS S SHARPE/S CLAYDON)
Council place the draft Code of Conduct on public exhibition for 28 days.
Councillor Buman asked Councillor Sharpe to remove Sections 37.1 – 37.8 from the document for public exhibition.
Councillor Sharpe indicated that he would remove the section as outlined.
Councillor Claydon indicated that she would not support removing the section as outlined.
Councillor Connell requested the mover and seconder to consider including provision for a councillor briefing during the 28 day exhibition period.
The mover and seconder indicated that they would accept Councillor Connell’s proposal.
The Lord Mayor noted that such briefing form a Part B to the motion.
Councillor Connell further asked that the draft Code of Conduct to be placed on exhibition not include Sections 37.4 and 37.7.
The mover indicated that would accept Councillor Connell’s further changes, however, Councillor Claydon did not accept Councillor Connell’s changes.
The Lord Mayor clarified the motion remained unchanged.
As with the previous item Councillor Nelmes requested appropriate shading and shadowing to clearly identify the model Code, old Code and new Code of Conduct.
Councillor Jackson proposed that the motion be strengthened by including the words the notice of public exhibition also specify a period of 28 days from the commencement of the public exhibition during which submissions may be made.
The mover and seconder agreed to Councillor Jackson’s change.
Following the mover’s right of reply the motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:
For the motion The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, S Claydon, S Connell, B Cook, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and S Sharpe.
Against the motion Councillors A Buman, M King and M Osborne.
The motion was declared carried on the division of nine votes to three votes.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS S SHARPE/S CLAYDON)
A Council place the draft Code of Conduct on public exhibition for 28 days. The notice of public exhibition also specify a period of 28 days from the commencement of the public exhibition during which submissions may be made.
B Provision be made for a councillor briefing during the 28 day exhibition period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
