Email to Councillors Regarding Item 12.6 Council Policies Review

The proposed amendments to the Council Briefing Session policy represent a concerning departure from core principles of transparency, accountability, and community engagement that should guide local governance. These changes, which aim to remove public question time and reduce deputation speaking times, threaten to significantly impede openness and democratic discourse.

The core purpose of the Council Briefing Sessions, as outlined in the existing and proposed policies, is unambiguous. It is to provide a public forum for councillors and the community to better inform themselves on upcoming agenda items prior to decisions being made at Ordinary Council Meetings. However, the proposed policy amendments significantly undermine this core objective in several key ways:

Removal of Public Question Time

Eliminating the ability for the public to ask questions of council staff and representatives at Briefing Sessions directly contradicts the stated policy scope of applying to the "general public that attend those Briefing Sessions." It reduces transparency and the public's ability to inform themselves on agenda items, which is supposed to be a purpose of these sessions according to the policy wording.

At 50:24 of the May 21, 2024 Briefing Session live recording, the CEO, Cameron Woods, justified this removal by stating, “What I don't think adds any value is the public asking questions when they have the opportunity to ask the questions at the OCM the following week.” 

However, as Councillor Paul Poliwka noted in response, this perspective neglects the fact that public questions posed at Briefing Sessions can highlight issues or considerations that might be addressed before the final council meeting, enhancing the quality of the decision-making process.

At 53:29 of the May 21, 2024 Briefing Session live recording, the CEO further questioned the fundamental value of public questions during briefings. He stated "Who are they [the public] asking the question of?" and implied officer reports alone should suffice for the public’s understanding. Yet seemingly the same reports do not suffice for the councillor’s understanding. This dismissive perspective neglects that not all relevant information can be comprehensively captured in reports, nor does it align with the policy's intent to provide an open forum for public discourse.

Reducing Deputation Speaking Time

Cutting the time for deputation speakers in half from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, without strong justification, appears to be an arbitrary restriction that impedes the public's ability to comprehensively convey relevant information to councillors through the designated deputation channel.

Prioritising Deputations Over Public Discourse

While deputations are "encouraged", the proposed policy removes Public Question Time which previously allowed for dialogue. Prioritising one-way deputations over public questions and statements makes it more difficult for the public to genuinely inform themselves through interactive discourse on agenda items.

Limiting Total Public Participation Time

The proposed 35-minute total limit for public statements replaces the existing combined allowance of 90 minutes for public questions and statements. This represents a significant reduction in the total time allowed for public participation compared to the current policy.

Conclusion

Collectively, these proposed amendments introduce substantial new restrictions on the public's ability to inform themselves and engage with councillors and council staff on agenda items during Briefing Sessions. This directly undermines the current stated policy objectives and scope which emphasise transparency, accountability, and facilitating councillors and public understanding before council decisions.

It should be noted with concern that the words “transparent’ and “accountable” have been removed from the existing policy and the concepts of transparency and accountability are completely absent from the proposed policy.

The reasoning provided for these changes – the pursuit of greater efficiency and effectiveness – lacks substantive evidence that current procedures are deficient in those areas. No clear examples of disruptions, delays or specific incidents justifying such restrictive measures have been documented. The public should not be muzzled without demonstrated cause. Rather than removing public question time and introducing new limits, strengthening opportunities for public engagement would better uphold the current Briefing Sessions' intended purpose as an open forum.

Worse still, these amendments were drafted without any public consultation period whatsoever. This inherently flawed process is entirely incongruous with the espoused principles of transparency that briefing sessions are meant to uphold. Pushing through reforms that dramatically impact participatory rights, without first seeking resident input, is unsettling.

While improving meeting procedures is a reasonable goal, it should never come at the cost of disenfranchising the rate payers and residents the Council represents.

Transparent and participatory governance is a safeguard of democracy, not an impediment to be minimised for perceived operational gains. I implore this Council to chart a path forward that embodies accessibility, empowerment and robust civic engagement. 

I am asking you to reject these proposals that contradict the very purpose of briefing sessions as an open forum for public involvement. Our community deserves no less than uncompromising advocacy for its voice in critical decision-making processes.