Margot Giblin
The reference by Briscoe to a ‘Gentlemens’Agreement’ and Haigh’s reaction to it throws up a question.
Hobart City Council
Open Council Meeting
Tuesday 13 February 2007
5pm.
Aldermen
Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Darlene Haigh, Marti Zucco, Jeff Briscoe, Eric Hayes, Ron Christie, Helen Burnet, Philip Cocker
Leave of Absence: Peter Sexton, Lyn Archer
Apologies: Nil
(Not present – John Freeman)
The Strategic Governance Committee’s attempt to sort out who takes an absent Chairman’s place may have come to grief on the prong of the Local Government Regulations.
It was agreed at last week’s meeting to adopt the previous convention as policy so that the replacement would be the most senior alderman (time on Council) who is not already chairing another committee.
The rider ‘noting that such nomination requires ratification at the meeting of the respective committee’ had been added to this on last night’s agenda.
Back to square one. Alderman Sexton had noted last week that committees had often overturned chairing decisions made according to convention.
They would have the same freedom to do this with the proposed change.
Alderman Briscoe, in bringing the proposal to this meeting, referred twice to the previously accepted but now abused ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’. This new proposal, he hoped, would be an improvement.
Alderman Haigh held low hopes of this being the case. She has often been prevented from taking the chair of the Development and Planning Committee, continuously vacant since July 06 when Alderman Lyn Archer took Leave of Absence. The Chair would have been hers if convention had been followed.
Haigh now smelt a rat in the new proposal’s rider and took umbrage at the mannered, masculine description of Rafferty’s Rules.
Haigh: ‘I’ve had a gutful. This is just a face-saver. It makes the Council look so good. It’s not about experience or seniority. It’s about personalities and keeping personalities down.
I’m not tricked by this.
Twice he’s said it — ‘Gentleman’s Club’ —
Briscoe: ‘I said ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’.
Haigh: ‘ Well you’re not allowed to say Gentlemen’s Anything. Not even off duty — not in the Aldermen’s Room, apparently. And as for convention — it’s all gone — in clothes, hair, behaviour. Once it was accepted that you looked neat and tidy for Council meetings. Gone.
I didn’t come down in the last shower and all this means is that the decision on Chair can still be overturned.’
Alderman Haigh is right. But it’s not a trick.
The rider is a legal requirement in accordance with Regulation 10 (3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 as reiterated now by the General Manager, Mr Armstrong.
Debate continued.
Valentine: ‘Council needs to be able to work. It needs consistency. Officers need to know who they’ll be briefing.
We have a job to do — and we should do it.
When it comes to the business of Council we need to be effective and efficient.
Yes, the rider is there, because that’s the law — but it’s up to us to make it work. Time will tell — let’s hope it does work.’
And so said all of them — except Briscoe and Cocker who advocated rotation of the position of all committee Chairs.
Cocker was wryly aware that it’s the only way he’ll get to be Chair of anything for a while. As most junior alderman he acknowledged this but went on to suggest change on a six monthly or yearly basis for other reasons.
‘It would be fairer. More democratic. A chance to learn to work with officers.’
Briscoe agreed with him and together they voted against the motion, which was carried, converting convention to policy, with the necessary rider attached.
Through With a Fight
13 and 15-17 St Canice Ave Sandy Bay. Southern Cross Homes want to build 37 apartments and 42 townhouses here.
The need for aged care was argued by some aldermen as if it were a clinching rather than a ‘motherhood’ point of view. Objections to the application had in fact been related to the impact of the development’s density, height, bulk and set-back on its neighbours.
Council felt that whatever was decided at this meeting would ensure the development’s reappearance before the Tribunal but for the moment approval with conditions was given.
43 Arthur St wants to formalize an existing situation. As this would mean allowing a subdivision (with no proposed building) of an area less than 300 metres sq. the question was whether this would be setting up a troublesome precedent. Despite these concern, and Burnet, Cocker and Haigh voting against it the application went through.
20 Kirby Court, West Hobart has applied for a Motel Restaurant and Function Centre. Debate was largely over a reasonable finishing time for weddings — 11 or 12 pm being the choices, on Friday and Saturday nights. 11 pm won.
Through Without a Murmur
Yes to —
334 Davey St. Tennis court, swimming pool, deck, outbuilding and fencing.
82A Montagu St New Town New house.
16-20 Molle St &212-218 MacquarieSt (St Michael’s Collegiate School) Internal alterations & Pedestrian underpass
No to —
20 Nutgrove Ave. Sandy Bay. Subdivision of Council land.
53 Runnymede St Battery Point. Visitor Accomodation
Other Bits
All aldermen agreed, with varying degrees of vehemence, to resist any attempt by the State Government to take over management of water and sewerage from Council.
There was some tightening up of Council and committees meetings procedures to improve functioning while adhering to Local Government Regulations. This was with particular reference to written officer advice in response to any aldermanic request (prior to debate on a connected matter) being made available to all aldermen simultaneously.
Election Date
Council will advise the Local Government Association of Tasmania that its ‘preferred course of action for the 2007 Local Government elections, should the Federal election be held in October 2007, is for the Local Government elections to be postponed until early 2008’.
Overall
The reference by Briscoe to a ‘Gentlemens’Agreement’ and Haigh’s reaction to it throws up a question.
Is the Hobart City Council a ‘Gentlemen’s Club’?
Three out of twelve aldermen are women.
None of these chairs a committee, of which there are six — City Services, Development and Environment, Finance and Corporate Services, Community Development, Strategic Government and Parks and Customer Services.
The administration of the Council is overseen by the General Manager and his Director of Corporate Services. The Corporate Management Team, has eight divisions.
Here women are even more thinly sprinkled, if you can call one woman a sprinkle.
Heather Salsibury, the only female Divisional Director, heads Community Development.
So the Hobart City Council has few women at the decision making end of things, even if you include the Queen, who looks down on Council meeting from directly above Rob Valentine’s head.
Is the result a blokey culture detrimental to its women members?
Do aldermen treat each other equally in relation to gender?
At last week’s Strategic Governance Committee meeting its Chair, Jeff Briscoe went round the table introducing each alderman to Mr Graham Chambers from Totally South. When he’d finished and been thanked a female voice piped up —
‘And me’.
‘I’m so sorry,’ said Briscoe, ‘I always do that.’
‘I know’, replied Burnet, — ‘You all think I’m the secretary’.
(The writer is a neighbour of 53 Runnymede St and was an objector to its application for Visitor Accomodation)
