As a Councillor I believe that the most important thing I must do is to try to have all decisions made as openly as possible so that the residents of Albury know what is being decided, by whom and why. The Local Government Act espouses this as a major principle in fact.
So why are Council meetings some times closed to the public?
The Local Government Act allows this in certain circumstances but in almost all cases leaves the decision to the Councillors of the Local Government area. When commercial matters are to be discussed and the disclosure of information might prejudice the interests of a company, then the matter shoudl be kept confidential.
It aslo allows the Councillors to close a meeting when a personnel matter is being discussed. But if the matter does not disclose any matters of a personal or private nature why should we do this? If it is about a job description or some perfomance parameters for example, why isn't the public entitled to know?
Last Monday we discussed the General Manager's performance agreement - a list of the things by which he will be judged! Why shouldn't the residents of Albury know what he will be judged against? Last November the Council was happy to discuss the amount of money he would receive but we are not allowed to let them know what the matters by which we will judge his performance are.
Seems strange to me and I tried to convince other Councillors that the meeting should be open. Didn't win the vote so will have to try better next time.
Thursday, 27 June 2013
Monday, 24 June 2013
National Community Safety and Security Conference
It has been some time since I posted anything so I thought I should post the report on the conference which was tabled at Council last night. The conference contained a lot of useful information and I will follow up on some of the issues that came up.
I attended the conference together with Cr Betteridge and Ms H Webster. The conference was held on Tuesday and Wednesday 4th and 5th June 2013 at the Windsor Hotel, Spring St., Melbourne.
The conference focussed generally on four issues, viz. safety, alcohol, CCTV and graffiti and the inter-relationships between each of these. As with all conferences there was a great deal of variability between speakers and presentations but, overall, the conference was valuable in my opinion.
There was no simple answer to any of the questions relating to alcohol management, violence, community safety and the use of CCTV but a number of useful insights were gained. They will help me to form my decisions and may be useful to Council in policy development and formulation. In the report I will group the information by subject matter.
Alcohol Management
There were presentations for the City of Sydney, Stonnington (Chapel Street), Blacktown (Mt Druitt), Sunshine Coast, Wagga Wagga and Auckland. It is clear that Albury is doing well in this area compared to others but some interesting points were made.
Chapel St has a saturation of licensed premises with one every 50m on both sides of the street for a distance of 2 km. This led to changes to the Planning Scheme in February 2012 and a permanent cap on licensed premises with a capacity of more than 200 people allowed to operate after 1 am. It is clear from this and other premises that a concentration of licensed premises in a small area leads to significant anti-social behaviour.
The use of ID scanners and CCTV was mentioned. At some venues the “door staff” had a small remote that could be discreetly activated to capture footage of a patron who would be advised that this had been done and this could be sent wirelessly to other venues. This may be of use given the agreement to introduce a “group banning” policy at venues in Albury.
The City of Sydney has similar problems in Kings Cross and George Street but is focussed on bringing other activities into the areas to lessen the impact of drinking. The measures include introducing food vans, lighting “dark” places and running other outdoor events. The city has produced Open Sydney: Draft Strategy and Action Plan 2012 – 2030 which contains a lot of ideas concerning the night – time economy. The strategy was developed in conjunction with Dr Phil Hadfield who operates a research and training consultancy in the field of alcohol and drugs in Leeds, UK.
Wagga Wagga results are significantly worse than Albury and have shown little improvement over the last few years. Wagga Wagga utilised a training programme called Safer Bars run by the Australian licensee, Bar Guardians
The issue of pre-loading was raised in almost every presentation and this seems to be an almost intractable problem. One suggestion made was that when police intervene and ask where a person had their last drink they should also ask where the person purchased their first drink and where did they consume their first drink This would provide an opportunity to quantify the extent and significance of pre-loading which is, at the moment, only known anecdotally.
Perhaps a survey could be conducted outside licensed premises where patrons could be asked to answer a few short questions. A small prize could be used as an incentive to participate in the survey.
Key points and resources – alcohol management
· Open Sydney: Draft Strategy and Action Plan 2012 – 2030
· Shared radio frequency and SMS communication strategy between venues
· Use of CCTV at venue entrances and ability to share footage (privacy concerns?)
· Promotion of alcohol (happy hour, discounted drinks, etc) in venues was seen as a significant risk factor with respect to violence both inside and outside the premises.
· Gain statistics on pre-loading so that we know accurately the extent of the problem.
CCTV
My conclusion after all the presentations is that CCTV does not make an area safer but it does assist in post – incident investigations by providing the opportunity to identify possible suspects. This was the conclusion of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in the case of SF vs Shoalhaven City Council. It is expensive to set up and requires significant ongoing funding for maintenance and upgrades.
Monitoring is a huge cost burden and most councils who presented no longer, or never have, monitored their cameras on a continuous basis. Examples were given of police monitoring but generally this was limited to having a display in a police station that would be passively monitored by a duty officer. It would be rare to detect an incident in real time.
Key points - CCTV
· A useful tool but clearly not the answer to all ills and comes with a big cost for equipment and monitoring.
· Significant privacy issues in NSW
· Maribyrnong Council will present a report on CCTV use in August
Graffiti
It is clear to me that Albury is doing very well in this area. The message seems to be that you need to clean it up as quickly as possible because it attracts others. Gold Coast City Council policy is to remove offensive graffiti on the same day it is reported and other graffiti by the next working day. It costs GCCC $1.5 million per annum and they spend $600k removing graffiti from private property at no direct cost to the ratepayer. Last year they distributed 500 graffiti removal kits (each cost $27). They have artists produce art work on laminate to be stuck on things such as signal control boxes and power distribution boxes to avoid the occupational health issues of working outdoors and in proximity to traffic.
An interesting point made in a later presentation (about terrorism) was to look at graffiti and see if it contains any “messages” that may be significant.
While at the conference I inspected Union Lane (between Bourke Street Mall and Little Collins Street. The area had been lit and both walls were covered in authorised graffiti. It was once a dark and dingy lane full of litter but it now looks terrific in my opinion. Melbourne City Council will also allow two artists Rone and Phibs to paint graffiti in Hosier Lane (between Flinders Street and Flinders Lane) as part of the Age’s Forever Curious Campaign.
Key issues – graffiti
· Rapid clean-up.
· Use of artwork to cover “targets”.
· Consider allowing authorised graffiti art in laneways and public spaces to be done under supervision (see Union Lane and Hosier Lane in Melbourne CBD).
Community safety
This was a huge area and presented some innovative ideas that may not be directly relevant to the day to day operations of Albury City but could provide the opportunity for mentoring and sponsorship to achieve long term attitudinal changes.
There was a disturbing presentation from Professor Greg Barton of Monash University concerning recent terrorism incidents around the world. In his opinion it is “not if but when” for Australia. A Councillor from Glen Eira described the high concentration of synagogues and Jewish schools in their local government area who all have guards. The take home message is that we need to consider the possibility of such incidents in our emergency planning.
There were several papers that looked at the issues of risky behaviour including use of alcohol and drugs and even risky sexual behaviour by young people. While the latter is not in Council’s purview, we could be involved in programmes that look at changing behaviour in the other areas.
Trinity Grammar at Kew has produced a book called “the Trinity Parent’s Drug and Alcohol Resource Book” and it was launched by the psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg and Professor John Toumbourou, who holds the Chair in Health Psychology at Deakin University. Albury City may be able to promote this to schools in partnership with a local sponsor such as a service club.
Professor Toumbourou is the CEO of Communities that Care Ltd which is a collaboration between the Royal Children’s Hospital, the Murdoch Institute, Deakin University, the University of Washington and the Rotary Club of Melbourne. It looks at evidence based research concerning youth and risk – taking behaviour, especially in the areas of drugs, alcohol and sexual behaviour. The aim is to intervene to prevent youths from getting into these areas. There are a number of programmes running under this umbrella, including one at Myrtleford. There may be an opportunity for Albury City to sponsor a programme with a suitable partner or partners.
Key issues – community safety
· Emergency planning that considers terrorism.
Conclusion
The two day conference represented good value for money and met the criteria for councillor attendance. There are a number of initiatives that Council could pursue that would enhance the status and reputation of council in the eyes of the community and which could provide significant long term benefits to the community.
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Fiscal responsibility and the Art Gallery redevelopment
The Art Gallery decision certainly got things going with over 100 online comments on the Border Mail website and plenty were directed at me for my "backflip".
When interviewed in August last year during the election campaign I said that I was in favour of the project but I was not happy that the Mayor had simply said that the project would go ahead whether or not the NSW Government contributed $3.5 million. I repeated this position at the November Council meeting when it was voted 5-4 to seek further community consultation and to look at alternative sources of funding. So I don't accept it was a backflip. I changed my mind based on the evidence put before me.
At the February meeting we had several hundred pages of reports including surveys and submissions. After reading all of them I came to the conclusion that there was support (not overwhelming but a majority of those who responded) for the project. In addition the staff had discussed with various experts in the field the opportunities to raise money from philanthropic sources. Note this is not asking for donations from the general Albury community.
I was convinced that the burden on Albury ratepayers would be less than the $7 million caused by the State Government withdrawal and could be funded without adding further burdens to ratepayers. Remember the special variation in rates had already been approved by the previous council and will continue for another two years.
Have I been fiscally responsible? Just knocking back one project does not make me fiscally responsible and as I have had to remind people, if I had voted against the project it would have been 4 - 4 and the Mayor would have used her casting vote to give it the go-ahead anyway.
I am scrutinising all expenditure by this Council and soon we get to look at the proposed budget for 2013 - 2014. I will scrutinise every line item and with the support of fellow councillors I hope to make savings by reducing unnecessary expenditure and waste. I have a several in mind but I will discuss these in detail in later posts after I have looked at the information given to councillors in the draft budget papers.
On Tuesday I am going to an all day training session about financial matters in local government. Not one other Albury Council is going even though one for example told me, "I don't understand that stuff. I leave it to others!" So I take my obligations seriously.
When all is said and done I will have to live with my decisions and, if I stand again, the voters will have the opportunity to say how they feel about me as a councillor
When interviewed in August last year during the election campaign I said that I was in favour of the project but I was not happy that the Mayor had simply said that the project would go ahead whether or not the NSW Government contributed $3.5 million. I repeated this position at the November Council meeting when it was voted 5-4 to seek further community consultation and to look at alternative sources of funding. So I don't accept it was a backflip. I changed my mind based on the evidence put before me.
At the February meeting we had several hundred pages of reports including surveys and submissions. After reading all of them I came to the conclusion that there was support (not overwhelming but a majority of those who responded) for the project. In addition the staff had discussed with various experts in the field the opportunities to raise money from philanthropic sources. Note this is not asking for donations from the general Albury community.
I was convinced that the burden on Albury ratepayers would be less than the $7 million caused by the State Government withdrawal and could be funded without adding further burdens to ratepayers. Remember the special variation in rates had already been approved by the previous council and will continue for another two years.
Have I been fiscally responsible? Just knocking back one project does not make me fiscally responsible and as I have had to remind people, if I had voted against the project it would have been 4 - 4 and the Mayor would have used her casting vote to give it the go-ahead anyway.
I am scrutinising all expenditure by this Council and soon we get to look at the proposed budget for 2013 - 2014. I will scrutinise every line item and with the support of fellow councillors I hope to make savings by reducing unnecessary expenditure and waste. I have a several in mind but I will discuss these in detail in later posts after I have looked at the information given to councillors in the draft budget papers.
On Tuesday I am going to an all day training session about financial matters in local government. Not one other Albury Council is going even though one for example told me, "I don't understand that stuff. I leave it to others!" So I take my obligations seriously.
When all is said and done I will have to live with my decisions and, if I stand again, the voters will have the opportunity to say how they feel about me as a councillor
Monday, 25 February 2013
Art Gallery Redevelopment
According to some of the submissions made in favour of the redevelopment I was "an ill-informed grandstander" but after last night's vote I am "a sane and intelligent person". Marvellous how people's opinion of you changes when you agree with them.
So I am sane and intelligent because I agree with the senior staff. What a pity that the senior staff didn't listen to the elected representatives a little earlier and get out there and do the hard work of identifying other funding sources instead of taking the default position advocated by the Mayor last August; the project will go ahead and if necessary we will fund the shortfall.
As in indicated in the Chamber last night, I have always said that I support the project but wanted to hear again from the public and to have council staff identify some other possible sources of funding. While it is not locked in, I think that there is a very good chance that at least $1 million of outside funding can be found. You can be sure that I will not forget this and will regularly ask about progress.
To everyone who contacted me, both for and against, I thank you for your input and hope that you will continue to keep in touch. On this one I have disappointed some and made others happy but that's how it will be many more times in the next 3 1/2 years. I listen and I read the reports and try to make the best decision I can.
So I am sane and intelligent because I agree with the senior staff. What a pity that the senior staff didn't listen to the elected representatives a little earlier and get out there and do the hard work of identifying other funding sources instead of taking the default position advocated by the Mayor last August; the project will go ahead and if necessary we will fund the shortfall.
As in indicated in the Chamber last night, I have always said that I support the project but wanted to hear again from the public and to have council staff identify some other possible sources of funding. While it is not locked in, I think that there is a very good chance that at least $1 million of outside funding can be found. You can be sure that I will not forget this and will regularly ask about progress.
To everyone who contacted me, both for and against, I thank you for your input and hope that you will continue to keep in touch. On this one I have disappointed some and made others happy but that's how it will be many more times in the next 3 1/2 years. I listen and I read the reports and try to make the best decision I can.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Is Albury Council efficient?
As a new Councillor (only been going 4 months) I ask myself how does this council compare with other similar councils in NSW and elsewhere for that matter.
The Division of Local Government publishes annual comparison reports in which they give statistics for such things as number of employees, rates, expenditure on various things. They group similar councils together and we are in group 4. The comparisons are interesting but don't give me a real feel for how good we might be. We are certainly towards the top with respect to the number of employees and the cost of rates in all categories. But perhaps we provide better services than other councils and that costs more?
TCorp also published annual reports in which they give a lot of ratios such as debt service ratio, operating deficit, infrastructure backlog and so on. Useful but I still don't feel that I have a feel for how good or bad the council is.
Perhaps we should be involved in some meaningful benchmarking with other councils such as Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Bathurst, etc. I'd be happy to hear your suggestions on this one.
I did a quick exercise last week looking at lost time injury frequency rates and what this means for employee health and workers compensation premiums. Our LTIFR is 12 – 15 and we pay almost $1.5 million in workers compensation insurance premiums (as well as having significant injuries to our employees). By comparison, Melton City Council in Victoria has an LTIFR of 5, Wodonga’s is currently 2 and Norske Skog’s is 0. The paper nill has not had a lost time injury for 2 years. A huge opportunity to save money and to look after our employees.
I was not able to get the actual figures from councils so I used a proxy which is the annual amount of salaries and wages divided by the workers compensation premium amount. The higher this ratio is the better is the council's safety record. It's a bit crude but it gives an idea of the issue. The ones I calculated are Albury 18, Wagga 26, Bathurst 14 and Tamworth 40. On this basis we are not doing too well.
If you have any other ideas of what we should be benchmarking I would like to hear from you.
The Division of Local Government publishes annual comparison reports in which they give statistics for such things as number of employees, rates, expenditure on various things. They group similar councils together and we are in group 4. The comparisons are interesting but don't give me a real feel for how good we might be. We are certainly towards the top with respect to the number of employees and the cost of rates in all categories. But perhaps we provide better services than other councils and that costs more?
TCorp also published annual reports in which they give a lot of ratios such as debt service ratio, operating deficit, infrastructure backlog and so on. Useful but I still don't feel that I have a feel for how good or bad the council is.
Perhaps we should be involved in some meaningful benchmarking with other councils such as Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Bathurst, etc. I'd be happy to hear your suggestions on this one.
I did a quick exercise last week looking at lost time injury frequency rates and what this means for employee health and workers compensation premiums. Our LTIFR is 12 – 15 and we pay almost $1.5 million in workers compensation insurance premiums (as well as having significant injuries to our employees). By comparison, Melton City Council in Victoria has an LTIFR of 5, Wodonga’s is currently 2 and Norske Skog’s is 0. The paper nill has not had a lost time injury for 2 years. A huge opportunity to save money and to look after our employees.
I was not able to get the actual figures from councils so I used a proxy which is the annual amount of salaries and wages divided by the workers compensation premium amount. The higher this ratio is the better is the council's safety record. It's a bit crude but it gives an idea of the issue. The ones I calculated are Albury 18, Wagga 26, Bathurst 14 and Tamworth 40. On this basis we are not doing too well.
If you have any other ideas of what we should be benchmarking I would like to hear from you.
Thursday, 10 January 2013
The start of a new year
Ready to begin a new year and it is hot, hot, hot! It feels like one of the old summers we used to get here in Albury.
On a personal note I am back on my bike and slowly building up my fitness after the little health scare last year and am enjoying the break and hot weather to laze around and read. Just finished the 2012 Book of Australian Science Writing - perhaps it should be compulsory for various radio commentators and others who have such strong opinions but little knowledge about many things.
We are having a break from Council and we resume on the 29th of January for what will be the most important meeting of the 4 year term. We get to choose the new General Manager for Albury City!
The petition about the Art Gallery is interesting. I am encountering a lot of resistance when asking people to sign. People think they are endorsing the redevelopment and the Council contribution of $7 million. I explain that it is only asking the NSW Government to help fund the project but there is certainly resistance.
I support the redevelopment but I am not happy with the way Council has gone about it. WIth 4 independently elected councillors, you would think that the mood for change would be well understood. Unfortunately I don't get that feeling at all.
On a personal note I am back on my bike and slowly building up my fitness after the little health scare last year and am enjoying the break and hot weather to laze around and read. Just finished the 2012 Book of Australian Science Writing - perhaps it should be compulsory for various radio commentators and others who have such strong opinions but little knowledge about many things.
We are having a break from Council and we resume on the 29th of January for what will be the most important meeting of the 4 year term. We get to choose the new General Manager for Albury City!
The petition about the Art Gallery is interesting. I am encountering a lot of resistance when asking people to sign. People think they are endorsing the redevelopment and the Council contribution of $7 million. I explain that it is only asking the NSW Government to help fund the project but there is certainly resistance.
I support the redevelopment but I am not happy with the way Council has gone about it. WIth 4 independently elected councillors, you would think that the mood for change would be well understood. Unfortunately I don't get that feeling at all.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Art Gallery Redevelopment
At the Council meeting on Monday 26th November there was a vote 5-4 to defer the decison to go ahead with the $10.5 million redevelopment until further consultation with the ratepayers between now and mid-February. Many people will be disappointed with this decision as they believe that a redeveloped art gallery will be a great assset for the city.
I was one of the 5 Councillors who voted to defer the decision and I was very disappointed to have to vote this way but I felt that there were some important issues. I have been a collector of art in various forms for many years and I know that the gallery will be good for Albury.
So why did I vote this way? The original decision reached by the last Council was to approve the redevelopment on the basis of tripartite funding of $3.5 million from Albury Council, Federal Government and State Government. On August 17th it was clear that the State Governement was unlikely to commit its share of the funds yet, with an election pending, the Mayor stated that the project would go ahead anyway and that she couldn't rule out extra borrowings. Between then and now little seems to have been done to look at alternative ways of funding the project other than using cash and reserves or borrowing more money.
The election came and 5 new Councillors were elected; surely an expression of dissatisfaction with the actions and decisions of the past Council.
At the meeting Councillors were under pressure to make a decision immediately in case we lost the Federal funding but no one could say what the deadline was for jepoardising this money and a report in today's Border Mail appears to show that there was not the urgency being portrayed.
So let's have a look at this issue of the state of Albury City's finances and its ability to put another $3.5 million into the project. Much is made of the debt service ratio being less than 10% which is viewed as good. This is true but it is not much below the magic number of 10%. It should be noted that Albury has had operating deficits for the last 4 years and is projected to have deficits for the next 3 years. This is not a comfortable position and will need good management over the next few years.
We have already had a special rate rise and this will continue for another 2 years so there are some serious financial issues to be faced.
What can we do to get the Art Gallery redevelopment in these circumstances? We need to to keep lobbying the State Gallery to give proper funding to an electorate that has overwhelmingly voted Liberal for some time now and support a worthwhile project and we need to actively seek other sources of funds rather than fall back on hte easy solution of taking it from Albury ratepayers.
Have your say both for and against by contacting your Councillors and letting them know how you feel.
I was one of the 5 Councillors who voted to defer the decision and I was very disappointed to have to vote this way but I felt that there were some important issues. I have been a collector of art in various forms for many years and I know that the gallery will be good for Albury.
So why did I vote this way? The original decision reached by the last Council was to approve the redevelopment on the basis of tripartite funding of $3.5 million from Albury Council, Federal Government and State Government. On August 17th it was clear that the State Governement was unlikely to commit its share of the funds yet, with an election pending, the Mayor stated that the project would go ahead anyway and that she couldn't rule out extra borrowings. Between then and now little seems to have been done to look at alternative ways of funding the project other than using cash and reserves or borrowing more money.
The election came and 5 new Councillors were elected; surely an expression of dissatisfaction with the actions and decisions of the past Council.
At the meeting Councillors were under pressure to make a decision immediately in case we lost the Federal funding but no one could say what the deadline was for jepoardising this money and a report in today's Border Mail appears to show that there was not the urgency being portrayed.
So let's have a look at this issue of the state of Albury City's finances and its ability to put another $3.5 million into the project. Much is made of the debt service ratio being less than 10% which is viewed as good. This is true but it is not much below the magic number of 10%. It should be noted that Albury has had operating deficits for the last 4 years and is projected to have deficits for the next 3 years. This is not a comfortable position and will need good management over the next few years.
We have already had a special rate rise and this will continue for another 2 years so there are some serious financial issues to be faced.
What can we do to get the Art Gallery redevelopment in these circumstances? We need to to keep lobbying the State Gallery to give proper funding to an electorate that has overwhelmingly voted Liberal for some time now and support a worthwhile project and we need to actively seek other sources of funds rather than fall back on hte easy solution of taking it from Albury ratepayers.
Have your say both for and against by contacting your Councillors and letting them know how you feel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)