Margot Giblin Comment
At Monday night’s open council meeting all candidates for Deputy Lord Mayor were present. Some aspects of their present style and contributions are considered here.
Eva Ruzicka: If councilors were working toward consensus there might be a place for Ruzicka’s debating style. When it’s a Yes/No majority outcome set up how helpful is it to hear the detail of every resident listened to, every report read, every site visited? Wanting to please everyone she waters down her own opinion with too many ‘what ifs’.
Ruzicka manages to make what some other councilors do without comment sound like a supreme and unique sacrifice. While intending to give the impression that it’s all about other people Ruzicka’s thorough-going demonstrations of how hard she works awaken the suspicion that this is all about her. A holier than thou propensity to tell others how to do their job while rarely acknowledging her own mistakes does irk some.
At this meeting there were a couple of people in the public gallery for the agenda item that affected them. They got up to leave as soon as it had been dealt with. Ruzicka was hot on their heels out of the chamber, to the obvious annoyance of some other councilors who appeared to read her chasing them up as garnering approval for herself alone.
Helen Burnet: gives the impression that she’s been living with her beliefs for a long time. Her advocacy of transparency, equity and the protection of the environment colours all her contributions to debate.
This meeting saw her bring new business to Council in a motion dealing with Public Question Time Procedures. It reflected her belief that some questions don’t ever reach the light of day. She thinks it would be good if they did.
The wording of her motion caused problems as it suggested that the Chairman makes arbitrary decisions in relation to which questions are answered. It also alarmed those councilors who saw the request for a report as asking officers to do something illegal. This hinged on the reality that some questions can’t be answered because they deal with matters being considered by closed Council.
Burnet made it clear she understood and accepted this. What she failed to make clear was her desire for all questions to be asked in public, whether they could be answered or not.
The 7/8ths baked nature of her proposal is symptomatic of her length of time on Council. She is still learning and in this instance Briscoe was prepared to try and help rephrase the motion so its intent got through. He couldn’t find a seconder.
Marti Zucco: The furnace hot vehemence of Zucco’s response to Burnet’s proposal was symptomatic of his knee jerk reaction to most things Green – unless he can see a populist bandwagon that could do with another passenger, such as affordable housing, or more bicycling facilities.
Zucco probably doesn’t consider his bellowing tirades to be intimidating or bullying but those on the receiving end might disagree. They are certainly headache inducing. Clear thought is impossible while the spray is on and it can be hard to follow Zucco’s line of argument or critique it.
The microphones work fine – but they’re never enough for the When In Doubt Shout debater. While determinedly chest thumping, both in Council and the media, often in apparent defense of some-one he portrays as needing his protection, Zucco has a tendency to do the one he’s rescuing considerable damage.
In describing addicts lining up for methadone doses at a North Hobart pharmacy as being ‘treated like animals’ he does them a disservice. In charging to the defense of a fellow councilor, whose extended Leave of Absence was impacting on Council business, Zucco ignored the closed meeting in confidence rules by revealing that councilor’s private business. He may claim to be working for others but the theatricality with which he insists on doing it leaves room for doubt.
Ron Christie: A cooler customer on the whole Christie can still be brought undone by his desire to bait, his pleasure in provocation and the closeness to the surface of some longstanding animosities and irritations with other councilors.
While the presence of Briscoe or Zucco can make some councilors appear less sure of a smooth passage for their proposals Christie’s resolve is strengthened by them being at the same table.
This Council meeting saw him wholeheartedly support anything he saw as being good for businesses in the city – including permanent one way traffic in Victoria St, an extension of Flathead’s outside dining hours in South Hobart and support of Zucco’s motion in relation to establishing a Hobart City Business Chamber.
His dismissal of objections to Flathead’s application as being ‘rubbish’ brought an objection from Ruzicka. She said Christie was showing lack of respect for the debate … and so the spat was on. Followed by one with Haigh. Then Ruzicka again.
Niggle, niggle ,squabble, squabble, flare, flounce,flare.
It’s entrenched and it’s proof of the need for fresh people on Council.
Eric Hayes: There’s not a lot to say because he doesn’t say a lot. He is polite. In response to Burnet’s motion on public question time he said ‘I know what you’re trying to do, but this aint the way’. On the other hand he didn’t support Briscoe’s effort to revamp the motion to make it acceptable. Not a risk taker but not because he’s nervous. He appears to feel utterly secure.
Lyn Archer: This meeting revealed Archer’s stance on one issue – both through his facial expressions during debate and his stand alone No vote.
Briscoe was suggesting that if developing 254-286 Liverpool and 38 Barrack St revealed anything of historical significance Hobart City Council should be notified so that photographic evidence could be collected.
Briscoe was advocating advice to the applicant, rather than a condition, so that work not be delayed but even that tested Archer’s patience. Shakes of the head, grimaces and a solo No vote on the related amendment followed. His reasons remain unspoken.
Archer took no part in any debate at this meeting, seconded no motions, responded with Aye or No at the vote and raised his hand if the vote was not unanimous.
