Who gets the Chair?

Margot Giblin

Distinction was made between one-off instances when a chairman is away briefly and a situation such as the Development and Environment Committee continues to face. It has been without its chairman Mr Lyn Archer since July 06 and there is no indication that his return is imminent. At its meeting on Monday 5th February Mr. Archer was recorded as having Leave of Absence.

Hobart City Council :
Strategic Governance Committee Meeting and
Special Open Council Meeting

Tuesday 6th February 2007

Election Date Shifts

The first meeting for Tuesday evening was of the Strategic Governance Committee which voted to recommend moving Council’s next (October) election and all subsequent elections to a March date.

This was in response to the Local Government Association of Tasmania requesting Council to consider a change, given that the next Federal election is due to be held between 4 August 07 and 19 January 08.

The association canvassed, and the committee considered, other options including:

• taking no action
• adjourning the Council election for 30 days if there was a clash
• bringing the planned October election to before 4 August 07

During discussion Alderman Burnet asked whether the six months during which no action would be taken to replace a resigning alderman would now relate to the new date. The answer was that the six months would apply to whenever the election takes place.

Until the Council recommends the date change to the Local Government Association and until the State Government legislates for that change the present October election date stands.

Who Gets The Chair?

The committee also considered a proposal to change Council procedures when a committee’s Chairman is absent.

Distinction was made between one-off instances when a chairman is away briefly and a situation such as the Development and Environment Committee continues to face. It has been without its chairman Mr Lyn Archer since July 06 and there is no indication that his return is imminent. At its meeting on Monday 5th February Mr. Archer was recorded as having Leave of Absence.

Alderman Sexton said that the accepted practice of the chairman choosing his own replacement (in short term situations) works well enough if not overturned by the committee — which, he said, does happen.

The accepted practice for longer term situations or for when the absent Chair is not able to choose, has been that the most senior person (in years on Council) who is not already chair of another committee presides. This has worked in the past but doesn’t now. Jockeying for the position of chair left vacant in Mr Archer’s absence is standard.

Alderman Freeman felt the behaviour of Alderman should be and could be honourable in this matter, preferring to have moral rather than legal suasion in place. He failed to convince all his fellow committee members.

The result was a vote to recommend that convention become policy — that is that in the Chair’s absence the most senior person not already chair of another committee becomes Chair.

Legal Niceties

The later Special Open Council meeting had been called to sort out the potential mess caused by an application for an extension for a planning permit having been refused without sufficient reason last week. The permit relates to proposed development at 4-14 Regent St. Sandy Bay. Its present 2 year planning permit will expire on 11th. February.

Alderman Zucco, having been the one to warn his colleagues that their decision could cause trouble, was keen to discuss the perception that their action had been illegal.

The General Manager, Mr Brent Armstrong now advised that the decision Council had made was not illegal. ‘It was incomplete’, he said.

The thing to do now was complete it.

Sounds simple.

The debate, questions and further debate left some aldermen confused. Given the intense interest in the matter by several aldermen Mr Armstrong had attempted to provide them with most comprehensive information possible by getting not just one, but two outside legal opinions.

To Alderman Zucco the result confirmed his view of lawyers. The two opinions were diametrically opposed.

Mr Armstrong’s advice was to cover both opinions in their resolution of the issue — which was then attempted.

Mr Noye, the council officer present to give legal advice was assisted by a second council legal advisor Ms. Links. There were times at which both Noye and Links were clearly bursting to illuminate debate by offering relevant information but had to wait to be asked — wait not just be asked to speak but to answer specific questions.

Alderman Briscoe was impressive in his ability to work his way through the quagmire as he cast about for and found the right question at the right time.

Briscoe’s position in the debate was that the application for increased time should not be given.

This placed him outside the bloc he is often seen to vote with and, crucially, ensured that the extension was not granted in a 6:5 vote.

Perhaps the matters of election dates and who sits in an empty chair are not the only things being considered for change on Council.