Boys’ town! Where are you Lord Mayor?

Margot Giblin

Unbelievable!
THE Hobart City Council’s Development and Environmental Services Committee met at 5pm on Monday, February 19.

This is the committee that hasn’t had its Chair, Alderman Lyn Archer, since he took leave of absence in July 06.

Its other members are Aldermen Jeff Briscoe, Ron Christie, Darlene Haigh and Helen Burnet,

Briscoe and Christie have repeatedly combined to ensure Haigh hasn’t taken the Chair, which would have been hers if the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ in place had worked. Alderman Helen Burnet has consequently found herself in the unwanted position of being nominated, seconded and voted in by the two men, as their preferred option.

It’s not until the Chair is chosen that another is alderman co-opted to make up the quorum so there has been no way of preventing this outcome being repeated fortnightly.

A sensible attempt to resolve the issue was achieved at last week’s Council meeting when it was agreed that precedent, or the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ should become policy. The most senior alderman (time on council) not already chairing another committee is to take the place of an absent Chair.

On this committee this is Haigh.

But would she get it?

Mr Noye, Director of Development and Environmental Services, was in the pre-meeting role usually taken by the General Manager, Mr Armstrong, in steering this hopelessly divided bunch to settle on a Chair.

He called for nominations.

The loudest voice got through.

Briscoe: I nominate Alderman Burnet for the Chair.

Burnet: I’m not prepared to accept it. I nominate Alderman Haigh.

(Silence. No seconder)

Haigh: For the purpose of getting the meeting under way I don’t mind I if Burnet takes the chair.

Burnet: I’m not prepared to accept, given that we agreed at the last Council meeting …

Christie: It was not agreed. We are waiting for a report to come back.

Ruzicka: (present but not yet co-opted) We decided on the policy. Alderman Haigh is the proper person to be in the Chair.

Mr Noye, having confirmed that Burnet was still refusing the Chair, put the other nomination, that of Alderman Haigh, to the vote.

It was defeated.

Christie then nominated Briscoe.

That was defeated.

Haigh tried to move that Ruzicka take the Chair. Not on. As Christie was swift to point out, backed by Briscoe.

Their behaviour, somewhere on the scale between gentleman and bully, was in plain view of a disbelieving public gallery who thought they were there to support or object to applications before the committee. A chance would’ve been appreciated.

Stalemate, followed by an explanation.

Christie: I cannot vote for Darlene Haigh as she has a legal action against me. I cannot let her take the Chair. I have legal advice that she cannot.

Haigh: I don’t want that matter discussed here.

Mr Noye appealed to the Aldermen to resolve the issue. He referred to the waiting pubic and the need to get through the agenda. This leverage was applied and responded to selectively.

It cut no ice with ‘da boys’.

So again Alderman Burnet had to take the Chair reluctantly and in circumstances surely designed to set her and Haigh against each other. It is to their continuing credit that they co-operate. Burnet did a stunning job of focussing and getting through the meeting. She’s getting, by her own admission, far too much practice for the wrong reasons.

If it’s the case that Alderman Christie has legal advice that he cannot be on a committee with Alderman Haigh as its Chair is there not a better way to have sorted the consequences?

Why has this mess continued to fester and splatter at meeting after meeting? Shouldn’t everyone concerned, ratepayers included, have known about it immediately?

A Couple of Questions:

What has been the purpose of not revealing this situation earlier?

Who benefits from the continued blocking behaviour in relation to the Chair?

Who should be managing aldermanic problems that impact on Council business?

Who should be responding to unproductive behaviour in the Chamber, indefinitely extended Leave of Absence and barely concealed warfare? The latter seems to be presently managed by Christie’s lawyer.

Mr Noye, and Mr Armstrong before him, in having to take the role of peacemaker are being asked to blur the healthy distinction between aldermen and officers. They also run the risk of appearing to be complicit in manipulative behaviours.

Mr Armstrong has made his position clear to Tasmanian Times in the past. Aldermanic relations are not covered by the General Manager. His job is to oversee the competent execution of Council decisions.

Which leaves?

Rob Valentine. Lord Mayor.

For whom I have some further questions:

How long have you been aware of the reasons for Christie blocking Haigh as Chair?

Does Council have an anti-bullying policy in place and if so how does it work?

What would happen if the recipient of bullying behaviour was the Lord Mayor?

Is it in some councilors interests to have the Valentine appear to be less competent than he is? If so, keeping bad relations bubbling is an easy way to ensure this. Converting ‘gentlemen’s’ agreements to policy is futile fiddling with the tinsel unless there’s good will and real intention to co-operate.

Alderman Freeman said in related debate that it would be preferable for honour to dictate behaviour in choosing a chairman rather than policy.

Well it’s way past honour and time to ditch the empty notion of gentlemen.

The contemporary needs of workplace relations, health and safety in relation to bullying and maintaining levels of productivity might be more useful.

The Hobart City Council presently has, for instance, no ‘tick off’ for productivity.

Without it the officers manage to consistently present detailed reports.

The aldermen are floundering — on many levels.

Adult, elected and paid councilors are choosing to hide behind the fact that there is a hierarchy in absolving themselves of individual responsibility.

In insisting that process be followed only when it suits them they make it impossible for that hierarchy to operate. A ‘he should fix it’ and ‘it’s her fault anyway’ outlook is held by many.

The next election may not be until March 2008.

It’s too long to wait for replacement parts. The Council we’ve got is dysfunctional.

It needs fixing, fast.