This piece covers the period from those elections to the end of August 2009, and shows some big shifts in voting behaviour by some aldermen, while others have remained more or less the same. In part, these shifts result from an increasing number of issues in which most of the Council is found on one side with most or all of the three Greens on the other. However, there are other differences that cannot be explained so easily. I will deal with these in some detail, but first a few disclaimers.
Abusive private responses to this article won’t be tolerated. Any private feedback given to the author in connection with this article, by any method, and all info associated with it, shall be treated as on the public record and mine to report on and republish however I see fit, especially if stated otherwise. This condition cannot be overridden. If you don’t like this, don’t contact me about this article in person. Sensible emails are of course welcome.
There are no right and wrong answers. The application of my own political views to council politics has been scrambled by having a family member involved in it for much of my life. I respect the underlying views (but not always the behaviour) of aldermen from across the whole spectrum of the current council, and having read through two years of minutes, I admire the amount of work that must go into taking and defending any considered position across the range of issues aldermen have to decide. I’m not entirely sure where I would fit ideologically in such a line-up over time if I were one of them, and the point of this piece is to provide info so that voters – of whatever view – have a better idea what they are voting for, politically speaking.
As noted in the previous article, this is not about hidden parties, factions, hardline voting blocs, caucusing or any of that nonsense. Council is more independent than that and even the one party represented by endorsed candidates appears to apply no party discipline. This article is about the tendencies of most aldermen to far more often decide of their own volition to vote with some of their colleagues on contentious matters than with others. It is also about general voting patterns that are sometimes seen or approached on the floor of the Council on such motions. It often makes sense to refer to the three Greens together, and this will be done where appropriate.
Sorry about all that, now on with the show.
Many motions that appear before councils are uncontentious and get passed unanimously by aldermen of all political views, and it is only a small minority that cause political differences to emerge. In the survey period, there were 166 contested motions. This count treats duplicate motions at the same council meeting (same issue with identical voting lineup) as a single motion, and excludes motions that lapsed for want of a seconder – see previous article for reasons why.
No alderman was present for all the contested motions (aldermen are sometimes away including on official delegations, or unwell, or forced to abstain by conflict of interest). Archer (note that the Archer in this article is Elise Archer not Lyn) missed three contested motions, Haigh six, Briscoe seven, Christie eight, Ruzicka eleven, Cocker and Harvey fifteen each, Burnet nineteen, Zucco 20, Valentine and Sexton 29 each and Freeman 36. At this point I add a belated apology for a silly comment I made two years ago that overcooked then-current speculation about the chances of Darlene Haigh being too unwell to recontest at the end of (or even complete) the current term. Evidently with an exemplary attendance record in the current term, it is up to Alderman Haigh to decide whether she wants to have a go at retaining her seat, and not up to overexcited election pundits paying too much heed to inaccurate gossip.
There were sixty motions or amendments that had only one recorded dissenter. Lone dissents (as a proportion of all contested motions for which that alderman was present) were recorded by Cocker 9.3% of the time, Ruzicka 8.4%, Burnet 6.1%, Christie 5.7%, Briscoe 3.1%, Haigh 1.9%, Freeman and Valentine 1.5%, Harvey 1.3%, and Zucco, Sexton and Archer were never lone dissenters in this term.
This time I have recorded all the issues on which votes were recorded so it is possible to look at which issues aldermen tend to be lone dissenters on. Ruzicka’s lone dissents were often on building approvals (mostly small scale) and sometimes Salamanca and busking related issues. Cocker’s many lone dissents were spread across a range of issues with no especially common themes, and Burnet’s were also quite eclectic. Both had more than one lone dissent on water supply related issues. Christie tends to go it alone in opposing council involvement in some broader green issues and also in holding public forums or preparing reports on matters like the Royal Hobart Hospital. For other aldermen, there is insufficient data to comment. There is a striking difference between Cocker and Burnet on the one hand, and Harvey on the other, in their tendency to register lone dissents. Whether Harvey is more moderate or much less inclined to bother will be discussed further below.
With lone dissent cases removed (again see previous article for why), the 106 remaining contested motions form the business end of my sample. Cocker (50%), Burnet (42%), Ruzicka (35%) and Harvey (31%) most often showed up in the minority. Then came Christie (23%), Valentine (18%), Briscoe and Haigh (16%) and Freeman (12%). Least often on the defeated side in this term of Council were Archer and Zucco (10%) and Sexton (8%). Cocker is much more likely to be on the minority end than in the previous council, while Valentine has almost halved the rate at which he is voted down. The remaining figures for the ten aldermen who served both terms are not much different.
Time to wheel out the table (now with extra colour-coding):
As noted in the previous version, this table shows the proportion of the 106 contested motions for which each alderman was recorded as agreeing with each other alderman. It can be seen, for instance, that Elise Archer agrees with Bill Harvey on 44% of such motions. The aldermen have been sorted in an order that shall be discussed below, based on the somewhat rubbery “ratio” figure on the right. I have decided to use colours instead of using the terms “left” and “right” as my use of those terms was misunderstood by some people last time. In context, it makes absolutely zero difference.
Two clusters of numbers are strongly apparent on the table (especially now that I’ve highlighted them). The cluster of green numbers in the top right-hand corner contains the three endorsed Green aldermen. These aldermen each agree with each other on about four contested motions out of five, but generally agree with any other alderman less than 50% of the time (sometimes much less).
The cluster of blue numbers in the bottom right-hand corner contains six aldermen who all agree with each other in percentages in the mid seventies and above. Some of them agree with Valentine and/or Haigh nearly that often; none of them side with any Green or Ruzicka more often than not. I have used blue as the colour for these aldermen since at least four of them have present or past links to the Liberal Party, and these aldermen are more likely to side with business, commerce and construction rather than with ecology or nearby residents on contentious issues.
The remaining three aldermen are much trickier. In my previous article Ruzicka was scored as “Left”, and Haigh and Valentine “Centre Left” with the latter two almost identical.
In this period of Council, Haigh’s average alignment with the six “blue” aldermen is higher than her alignment with any other alderman, and she votes with them much more often than with the three Greens. This contrasts to the previous council in which she most often voted with Ruzicka and Valentine, and voted with the Greens as much as with the “blues”. Haigh must be considered as leaning towards the “blue” aldermen in this period of council, whether it reflects a change in position or just a different range of issues coming up.
In the previous Council, Valentine most often voted with Haigh and Ruzicka, with a big gap to any other alderman still on council. In this council, he most often votes with Sexton and Ruzicka, and is least likely to vote with Cocker and Burnet. However he is still slightly closer on average to Haigh and Ruzicka than to the “blues”.
In the previous Council, Ruzicka most often voted with Valentine, Haigh and the Greens. In this council, Ruzicka most often votes with Valentine (although less often than in the previous council). But apart from that she does not vote especially strongly with or against any alderman, and her average tendencies to vote with the endorsed Greens (47.7%) and with the “blues” (45.7%) are very similar. This position naturally gets the intermediate colour-code “aqua”. Valentine is the hardest of the lot to colour-code, as he is also intermediate between the “non-blues” and the “blues”, but far more often agrees with the “blues” than Ruzicka does, so I have gone with “cyan”. There are many shades that are sometimes called “cyan” in different contexts, one of which is “aqua” itself, and some of which are fairly bluish, so I think that covers it nicely. Anyway, the reader can apply whatever colour-code, interpretation or labels based on the figures that they like.
The ratio I have used reflects how often an alderman votes with the five non-“blues” on average compared to how often they vote with the six “blues”. Haigh is exempted from the position calculations as cases could be made for calling her either. Other ratios that could be used produce similar results. Although the ratio figures look similar to those used last time, it is not the same scale – this Council has a different balance of aldermen since Bill Harvey replaced an incumbent “blue”, and some of the aldermen appear to have shifted their views.
Looking at changes from last time, Cocker now agrees much less often with all the non-Green aldermen, except for Briscoe and Christie who he hardly ever agreed with in the first place. This could be a result of a greater proportion of Green motions. However, Burnet has swapped places with Cocker, and now agrees more often with Zucco (up 9%), Freeman (up 7%) and Sexton (up 5%) than before. Ruzicka now agrees more often with the “blues” than she did in the previous council, and less often than before with everyone else. Valentine and Haigh are likewise, Haigh now 19 points more likely to agree with Zucco, and Valentine 16 points more likely to agree with Sexton. Sexton has moved towards the intermediate aldermen, and to show it is not just a case of them moving towards him, he has also moved away from Christie’s position. Briscoe, Zucco, Freeman and Christie all vote with each other slightly more often than in the previous term, and again, this probably reflects an increase in Green motions rather than a change in their positions. Although Freeman is more hardline now than Briscoe on the ratio I’ve used, there is very little in it, and the ordering of Freeman, Briscoe and Zucco varies depending on how the ratio is calculated.
The two aldermen who least often agree are the polar opposites Cocker and Christie (22%), although there was a hospital open forum motion that both of them, and nobody else, dissented to. The two aldermen who agree with each other most often are actually Zucco and Archer (86.67%), just shading Zucco and Freeman (86.57%). This is a highly amusing outcome in light of the reportedly intense Zucco/Archer Denison Liberal preselection-related tensions. The two voted differently three times in late 2007, three times in 2008 and six times so far in 2009 – not really enough evidence to say whether it has affected their voting patterns, but if so, not by much.
Of the 106 contested motions, in 29 cases two aldermen dissented, in 37 cases three, in 23 cases four, in 15 cases five, and there were two 6-6 ties.
In the 29 cases where two aldermen dissented, sixteen involved two of the five “non-blue” aldermen (in seven cases this was two Greens), six involved Haigh, five involved two “blue” aldermen, and only two involved a “blue” and a “non-blue”.
In the 37 cases where three aldermen dissented, twelve involved all three Greens (Burnet, Cocker, Harvey). Another nine involve two Greens and one of Haigh, Valentine or Ruzicka (in four of these cases the third Green was away), and eight involved three “blues”. Only four of the 37 cases involved at least one of the six “blues” and at least one of the five “non-blues”.
Looking at the forty motions where the losing side had four, five or six members, ten of these adhered to the 6-5 blue-nonblue pattern perfectly (ie all the “blue” aldermen present voted on one side, all the “non-blue” aldermen present voted on the other, while Haigh could appear on either side.) Another eighteen motions had only one or two departures from the pattern among those present. The aldermen to break the pattern on these votes were typically Valentine (ten times) and Ruzicka (seven). Many of these were votes in which Haigh sided with all the Greens who were there, but one or both of Valentine and Ruzicka did not. Intriguingly, Valentine voted with the “blues” on the first seven of these eighteen splits in a row, but only three more since. Other breaks with the pattern in close cases that mainly followed it were by Harvey (three times), Sexton (three times), Archer (twice) and Briscoe (once). Given that Harvey appeared opposite the other Greens on the winning side of two motions that split 8-4 and one that went 6-4, I suspect that Harvey is more moderate than the other Greens rather than just declining to record dissent on lopsided motions. However these three were not big-ticket items (a subdivision, a garage approval and a graffiti motion).
Here is an issue breakdown of those issues with 4+ votes on both sides and on which the blue/non-blue pattern held either perfectly or very well: environmental issues including symbolic gestures 7, minor business applications 5, minor building applications 5, subdivisions 4, Battery Point foreshore 2, miscellaneous 5. These are mostly the traditional HCC battlegrounds (as I suggested in my previous article without checking it out in detail) – the right to do business and to build things on the one side, environmental concerns and impacts on nearby residents on the other.
Here is an issue breakdown of those issues with 4+ votes on which three or more aldermen differed from the usual pattern (twelve such cases in all): motorbike parking (twice), pacific seastar control, motion to meet with the Parliamentary Liberal Party, water conservation rebate, amendment to wind turbine motion, motion that a motion be now put, HCC reinvigoration, two minor building applications, one road closure, bus terminus relocation.
I hope this article forms useful background to the positions of the current aldermen in the leadup to the 2009 election, which again looks very interesting. The Deputy Mayor position has been close three elections in a row, and endangered sitting aldermen will have to contend with a Greens machine that has now showed it can win two seats in a six-seat election, and an already active campaign from high-profile ex-TCCI chief Damon Thomas.
In 2005 I wrote that the results of that election were a wake-up call for some longstanding aldermen should they wish to continue their careers beyond 2009. Marti Zucco’s high profile during the election year shows that he, at least, is well and truly awake, but if all six sitting aldermen renominate then we could well see one and perhaps even two voted out. Nominations close on 28 September and the fields will be known the following day. The election count starts on 27 October.
Philip Lowe
September 17, 2009 at 11:59
Nice piece but I hope that he isn’t going to ask questions afterwards.I have found HCC aldermen hollow,false,inept,biased,ego bound.I don’t have the confidence to put in a planning request.I have been fouly sworn at by one of them,ignored,
deceived.Other than that they aren’t a bad crowd.
But who do I vote for?I can’t see the Emperors new clothes and I am considering putting a candle in a jar and going to look for an honest man in Council Chambers.Poor value for money.
William Boeder
September 17, 2009 at 15:28
An interesting article presented here, also an excellent insight into the mind of one that has rarely been identified by myself and no doubt, many others.
George Harris aka woodworker
September 24, 2009 at 04:24
Excellent piece of work, Kevin. I enjoy your contributions to tastimes.
I am glad to see the explanation of the choice of the photo of Elise Archer, though. I didn’t think Kevin really had anything to do with that!
She, or at least that image, reminds me of the ’60’s! Many Rice Davies, Christine Keeler, Doctor Profumo and all that. (see
http://www.spyschool.com/spybios/
profumoj.htm
for a good read).
Regrettably, the Hobart City Council is much more boring. Can’t imagine Bill Harvey, Helen Burnett or Darlene Haigh getting up to anything near as exciting…
George Harris aka woodworker
October 16, 2009 at 03:49
Geez, I’m disappointed! No one took the bait of my comparing Elise Archer with Mandy Rice Davies, and mentioning Dr. Profumo! Oh well, I suppose they are all a bit young….
I see Corey posting frequently, but not saying anything intelligent.
I’ve got my ballot papers, and I have figured those I want to support, a couple I will grudginly support to make up the numbers, and those I will avoid all together.
For a couple of milliseconds I courted with the idea of voting for the Greens with the idea in mind that if they all got onto the Council, they might have enough time between now and the state election to fuck a few things up, and put the frighteners on the electorate! I soon got over it, and I am not going to vote for the Green candidates. Phew!