Margot Giblin

THE chairman of the Hobart City Council’s Development and Environmental Services Committee is Alderman Lyn Archer.

At its first meeting for this year, on Monday 22nd January, Mr Archer was on leave of absence, which council minutes show he has taken continuously since 24th. July 2006.

In the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations the rules in relation to an Alderman taking leave of absence are that

(1) A councillor may request leave of absence in respect of one or more meetings.
(2) A council may decide to grant a request for leave of absence
(3) Leave must not be granted retrospectively.
(4) The purpose of the leave and the period involved are to be recorded in the minutes.

Applications for leave of absence are dealt with in closed meetings of council, to protect the privacy and security of those concerned.

If Mr Archer’s leave of absence continues beyond that date in March which is six months before the next election the status quo will be maintained. All general council meetings, and any meetings of committees of which he was a member will remain one member short. If he were to resign before that time there would be a countback of votes relating to the election at which he gained his seat — that of 2003 — to fill his position until the October election.

Tasmanian Times asked the council’s General Manager, Mr Brent Armstrong if he found the present situation unusual.
He replied that neither he, nor any other officer nor any alderman could comment on this, given that Mr Archer’s leave was dealt with in a closed meeting.

Neither Mr Archer’s request for leave of absence, nor his colleagues granting it are of concern here. What does matter is the consequence of his absence at each of the Development and Environmental Services Committee meetings I’ve been to since October 06.

Protocol and historical precedence would see Mr Archer replaced in the chair by whichever alderman on the committee has seniority and who is not already chair of any other council committee.
In this case the position would fall to Alderman Darlene Haigh.
The other members of the committee are Aldermen Helen Burnet, Jeff Briscoe and Ron Christie.
To ensure a quorum, in the absence of Mr. Archer, another alderman is co-opted at each meeting and this has usually been Alderman Eva Ruzicka. As she, or any other alderman, is not co-opted until the chair is in place the co-opted member does not affect the vote for the position of chair.

The only time I have seen Haigh in the chair was at a meeting which started promptly at five, just before Briscoe and Christie arrived, by which time she was already in place.
At the last meeting, Burnet, in an attempt to recognise protocol and precedence, moved that Haigh take the chair. There was no seconder. The result was that Burnet found herself in the chair again, a situation that Briscoe and Christie obviously found preferable to her suggested alternative. I have seen Briscoe in the position of chairman once, Christie never.

Burnett is, in her own words ‘the least senior committee member’ and while she does her competent, quick-learning best it might make better sense to allow the person with most experience to take the chair or come to some agreement on rotation.

Shuffling and manipulating around the position of chair occurs because of the considerable power it holds, both at the meeting and beyond, given that press statements on the committee’s decisions are made in the chairman’s name. If Archer remains absent until March this ludicrous jockeying for position could continue for most of this year.
It exacerbates the tension between committee members which is already often palpable and which spills out into irrelevant verbal spats during debate. All this is witnessed by both applicants and objectors to plans before the committee, to whom the decisions it makes are vitally important. The least they could expect is that the appointment of chair is clear, consistent and doesn’t appear to be a matter of personal preference.

This might also help all committee members get on with the job for which they have been elected.