Option 5 No Change A Winner Highlighting Unanimous Approval for LATM 3.

Option 5 No Change a Winner as Council unanimously supported the the final recommendations on the recent Clarence Park LATM 3.

 

LATM map for Clarence ParkA resolution by Council that is owned by everyone. That is the result of the recent Clarence Park Local Area Traffic Management Survey LATM 3. The big news last night was: Option 5 no change a Winner.

LATM 3, as noted in my blog post titled Draft Clarence Park LATM awaits your final input, addressed concerns around traffic in Clarence Park. Council last night unanimously supported the final recommendations provided by our staff.

During the debate Cr Jane Russo complemented Jennie & I on the work we personally did with you and our staff. This was unexpected, but appreciated.

The fact of the matter is we all need congratulating. You, the staff and Jennie & I. We all contributed positively to what I believe is a great solution.

A number of you identified the problems. Our staff back up your concerns with data they collected. We went back out to you to confirm we were on the right track.

Those of you who had concerns appreciated the options we put in front of you. Those who did not participate last year wondered why we were putting solutions in front of them for problems that did not believe existed. By engaging with each other, this was soon understood.

19 recommendations over the whole local area were made, one which was additional to the original list.  As a result of your input, some changes were made. Some remained the same.

The biggest change by far was the change to option 4. We split recommendation 4 into two parts. A stand-alone Mills Street recommendation and a south of Mills Street option.

The latter of the two saw an additional option become apparent. On that night and suggested by me in response to what I was hearing saw an additional option emerge. Enter Option 5 no change a Winner. Given this was the overwhelming response, it was adopted.

Mills Street, on the other hand, will see the biggest changes. The number of approved infrastructure recommendations should make life much better for the residents of that street.

Many of the recommendations will be completed in the current budget. Some, like the two pedestrian refuges and the Mills Street infrastructure changes will require a budget bid for next year (2020-2021).

For more detailed information check out page 8 through page 108 of the agenda which can be found here.

 

Is the New Planning & Design Code Undemocratic legislation

Communities from across the state attended a forum last night believing the New Planning & Design Code is Undemocratic Legislation.

Held at the splendid heritage listed Norwood Concert Hall, the forum was conducted by Protect Our Heritage. Protect Our Heritage is an alliance of local community organisations whose primary aim is protecting our heritage. Their website is https://protectourheritage.nationbuilder.com/

Renewing Our Heritage PlanningThe forum was designed to inform and encourage communities to respond to the State Government’s new Planning & Design Code. Speakers on the night all spoke with concern that  hard won protections for our treasured heritage places are under threat.

The common belief expressed was that the Government’s State Planning Commission is not looking to maintain those heard fought protections. This flies in the face of assurances I have received from the Chair of the State Planning Commission. Assurances expressed in blogs I wrote in May and earlier this month.

How the Commission will treat (what have been called until now) contributory items was the biggest concern. Public utterances from the Government, the Minister and the Commission have left members of the alliance believing protections are going to be removed in the new Planning & Design Code.

They are concerned that the Commission will determine, not the parliament, what will or will not be included. In other words, they believe that there is not going to be any public input into the final decisions. In other words, undemocratic legislation.

At the heart of the concerns and energy in the room last night then is a lack of community consultation.  

Rather than consult us, the Commission has been saying trust us. Given a lack of consultation to date, attendees do not trust the Commission and the Government.

I believe the problem here is when should a government (whether Federal, State or Local) commence consulting on any issue. Should they consult when a project is at the formative (blank sheet) stage. Or should it be when there has been sufficient information for informed public observation to be possible.

Here at Unley we have tried both ways. Either way we have been criticised. When consulting on a blank piece of paper for not providing substance to respond to. When consulting on a prepared position for hiding facts until the end.

As reported in my blog earlier this month the Commission will be putting their proposals out to consultation from October. At this time there should be sufficient information for informed debate by the community.

The consultation period for metropolitan council areas will extend until early next year. This should provide ample opportunity for such informed debate.

Finally, as I have said in both mentioned blog posts, we must respond when the opportunity presents itself shortly. We must look at the detail (the devil is in the detail). We then must put our submissions into the Commission. That is all us. Collectively and individually.

As I have often said in my blogs, only then can you be assured your voice is heard. Let us all ensure by participating that we are not the reason for any undemocratic legislation.

I know I will be. Will you?

Food for thought. Green Waste v Landfill. It’s up to us. You & Me.

Here is some food for thought for you. Are you helping to keep the amount of waste going to landfill or not. Are you aware of “if it grows, it goes”.

Can I encourage you to undertake to understand the need to put your food scraps into the green bin, not the blue bin. If you already do, thank you.

If you don’t then I encourage you to take up one or both of the opportunities I speak of in this blog.

Taking waste to landfill is already the dearest form of waste disposal. It will soon, as I revealed in a recent blog post, be way more expensive courtesy of the State Government increasing the levy.

If you can follow my lead and the lead of all our councillors, you will start putting your food waste into the green bin. Speaking for myself I put out my blue bin maybe once every three or four weeks. If I could put my green bin our weekly (as I have previously blogged about) I would.

The first opportunity is to commit to the Less To Landfill October Challenge. This is a challenge put on by a group called the Adelaide Waste Collective.

Why not give it a go, challenge yourself. See if you can keep you blue bin off the street for the month of October. I wont have a problem doing so. Will you?

The Second opportunity is to sign up to Council’s own initiative. Join Council’s Take the Pledge Program.

Take the Pledge Green Bin

Take the Pledge Green Bin

If you join Council’s take the pledge program you’ll be in the running to win a $25 Mitre 10 Barrow & Bench – Malvern Store gift card. Join Unley’s war on waste by increasing the amount of items you recycle, and by diverting more food scraps and compostable paper to your organics bin.

You can take the pledge by completing the online form. Pledge takers will receive stickers to place on their green or yellow-lidded bin to demonstrate their commitment to reducing landfill.

Thank you and keep up the good work!

Community Engagement Reform a Necessary Local Government Reform

Community Engagement Reform, the 4th area of the Governments Local Government Reform proposals, is necessary.

 

Many in the community consider community engagement is something that Councils are poor at. The Government’s local government reform package must therefore include a look into community engagement.

Much of the problem with community engagement is that council’s hands are tied. Tied in regulation that is not applicable to the world today. Regulation that is a one size fits all approach.

Replacing therefore the current prescriptive community engagement requirements in the Local Government Act with a more flexible ‘Community Engagement Charter’ is a no-brainer.  The consultation requirements under which we currently have to act are way too complex and prescriptive. The whole industry therefore looks forward I believe to a complete overhaul.

An overhaul in keeping with my previous utterances about our own ability to communicate with our community. An overhaul that allows individual councils the flexibility to engage with “their” community. Furthermore, an overhaul that recognises there should NOT be a one size fits all approach.

The issue of public notices also requires attention. The Act requires publication in a local newspaper. This is hardly a recipe for good communication today.

The Government has recognised that the current “informal gathering” legislation is causing distress and limiting elected members. It is true, under the existing legislation, that elected members worry that having legitimate conversations on the business of the council, will land them in trouble. We therefore need to find a way to promote transparency in councils without criminalising legitimate conversations.

The proposals however appear to be placing (yet again) an administrative burden on councils that will add cost to local government, not reduce cost. There will need to be some deep and meaningful discussion about how to balance the two, without creating another cost impediment to Councils. An impediment that will ultimately be transferred to you.

Local Government Reform Area 3 – a positive change in the main

The State Government’s Local Government Reform Area 3, one of 4 reform areas, focuses on efficient and transparent representation.

 

This Reform Area attempts to provide a range of proposals aimed at improving the local government elections in South Australia.

 

During the earlier call for reform ideas, the most popular idea received was to introduce electronic—online—voting for councils.

 

Disturbingly there is no proposal to consider this. The government is telling us that technical difficulties are too great at this time. I would however appreciate at least new legislation recognising the potential future role for electronic voting.

 

As with my blog posts on the other reform areas I agree with many (if not most) of the recommendations.

 

I agree with their proposal NOT to move to compulsory voting. Their reasoning is that enforcing compulsory voting in a postal voting system is difficult and resource intensive. My reasoning is compulsory voting, I believe, will see the potential intrusion of the political parties into local government. This is indeed the case where compulsory voting exists in the eastern states.

I also agree with the proposal to avoid local government elections being in the same calendar year as state government elections. Being in the same year can invite voter fatigue. Of note is the next election year will be 2022. As the federal government is due for election also in that year (as part of their 3 year cycle) By the time our elections come round, there will surely be voter fatigue.

I support the re-introduce the automatic enrolment of property franchise holders. Currently they have to painstakingly re-apply before each election.

Being independent, I absolutely agree with candidates having to confirm, at the time of announcing their candidacy, any affiliation with political parties. You deserve to know about any such political affiliation before you vote, not after. The same for donations received and whether or not a candidate lives in the Ward.

Candidates should, in today’s world, be provided with a choice of receiving a paper copy (as now) of the electoral role for their ward, or a digital copy of the roll. We are the only level of government where an electronic copy is denied.

The rest of the initiatives are pretty much administrative in nature. They will simply improve things without you necessarily seeing the benefit.

All in all, the recommendations in the State Government Local Government Reform Area 3, will bring about a better more transparent local government.

Your worst fears won’t be realised in the new Planning & Design Code

YOU will get a say in the Planning & Design Code. YOUR worst fears should not be realised. The SA Planning Commission has listened and understands. your concerns.

 

Expect the new Planning & Design Code to capture many of the things you want to see. Expect also the fears of what may be lost (which have you concerned) will not happen. Having said that you will need to see this for yourself and reinforce your views when the opportunity presents itself.

.

YOU will get a say in the new Planning & Design Code. That opportunity is just around the corner. I expect, after attending a second elected member briefing by the SA Planning Commission, that the first draft will be available in October. More than that, you will have an opportunity until early in 2020 to have your say.

Your worst fears should not be realised. Indeed, the Commission has been hearing what we have been saying on several issues, important to you.

As I indicated in my blog post dated May 2, the Commission want to provide the protections for heritage and character housing that we believe exist now. It will not be done by way of zones (with which we are now familiar) but by overlays.

Tree canopy, deep soil, single driveways & carparking requirements etc WILL be included in the new deemed to comply component of the new Planning & Development Code, unlike the current Res Code. It will also introduce policy to ensure streetscape presence unlike current res code.

All numerical parameters will be retained.

Having said all that the SA Planning Commission is expecting’ that their first draft will include errors. For all the best will in the world they expect they will get it wrong. Input from you will ensure that these errors are identified and addressed. When you do please engage with them honestly but fairly.

Lower Costs and Enhanced Financial Accountability for Local Government.

Lower costs and enhanced financial accountability for Local Government. A noble 2nd area of reform in the Government’s program of Local Government Reform.

 

The Government went to the people in March of last year with a promise to lower the cost of running local governments. A noble ambition.

Eleven recommendations have been put to you and I for comment. Many I don’t have a problem with.

Indeed, Unley already voluntarily does what is proposed in the first four recommendations. That includes having more independent members on the committee than elected members. It includes those independent members having due qualifications to sit on the committee. Furthermore, our committee is already charged as an audit and “risk” committee.

As a metropolitan Council we don’t have much trouble with doing this. I can imagine however regional councils may have trouble due to a lack of suitably qualified candidates.

 

What I do have a problem with is requiring the Auditor General to oversight of all Council Audits. 

 

This I see as one of those measures I noted in my first blog post of this series that will add to the cost of local government. Significantly.

The Auditor General has got powers of investigation over the industry already. Powers he can use at his discretion. Similarly, like the powers he used recently to oversee the workings of the Brownhill Creek Project.

To have oversight over all 68 councils each year is an overkill. The AG would have to resource this work. He would likely direct the work to the same organisations/people conducting the audits on behalf of councils now.

As the AG would be responsible for the work, he would have to oversee the work. This would require increased resourcing. This adds another layer of administration, which must add to the cost of reporting and therefore to the industry.

Doubts about the adequacy of some current or past auditing contracts would be better served by the Government setting up a register of accredited auditors. Councils can seek their auditor from this list. Restricting auditors to working more than a set number of successive years with a given council would also be worth considering.

Productivity Council Publishes Draft Report Ahead of Time.

The Productivity Council has released the draft report I recently blogged about. They have done this ahead of time to maximise the Local Government sector’s opportunity for an informed response.

 

As the Productivity Council’s report will feed into the Government’s Local Government reform agenda, I interrupt my series on the reforms to include this.

After being briefed by the PC chair yesterday I am gratified at their efforts to truly understand the industry. They have consulted well. Their draft report, on the surface, recognises the constraints under which the local government industry operates. Their report certainly does not present as the Government, I suspect, may have expected.

They recognised that just under 50% of our activities are mandated. Activities over which we have no control. It recognised the cost shifting State Governments of both persuasions thrust upon local government. The chair preferred to call this cost sharing. Nonetheless it was recognised.

It also recognised the need for local government to develop in the non-mandatory areas in keeping with the needs of their community.

Finally, it recognises that wages growth in the sector has escalated beyond CPI. This is an important conversation in that wages represent 1/3rd of our costs.

In other words, the report demonstrates that the Local Government sector, by running a tape measure over it relative to each other, as being an efficient sector. This diagnosis albeit with a caveat that there is significant room for improvement.

 

The report, which can be read here, makes three distinct recommendations. They are as follows:

 

  1. Lift the capacity of local councils to identify and address opportunities to reduce their cost base and improve their operations.
  1. Facilitating bench marking by clusters of councils through an appropriate mix of incentives for councils to participate and expectations that they will report information publicly in a format consistent with the framework.
  1. Further lower council costs by addressing aspects of the relationship between the South Australian Government and local government.

The Commission is looking for a response from us (councils and the community) on the draft report. Before preparing the final report to be presented to the minister, they are asking us 19 specific questions they are still seeking answers to.

We have until the end of next month (October) to do this in order they meet the deadlines imposed on them by the Government.

Elected Member Conflict of Interest an Area in Need of Reform.

Elected member conflict of interest is the last of the areas of concern in the Government’s 1st Reform Area. I agree. It is absolutely an area in need of reform.

The ‘elected member conflict of interest’ model in the Local Government Act is unnecessarily complicated and confusing. As a result, many councillors do not participate in debates, when their expertise would be valuable.

I have seen this play out in the current council. I myself have felt compromised on occasion, unsure of whether I have a conflict or not. Worse yet, there is potential for a member to use conflict of interest as a way of avoiding voting on a contentious issue.

The rules around elected member conflict of interest are complex. They need simplifying. They need to recognise that elected members invariably will be members of other community organisations. Be that sporting clubs, service clubs, churches, neighbourhood watch or other like community based organisations.

Being a member of any such club should not in itself constitute a conflict. Often the aims of the organisation and council are the same. A conflict should therefore centre around the original intention of the act. That is that the elected member should not personally gain.

The current provisions also cloud the area of where you or your family may live as a potential conflict of interest. A member should be able to vote on matters relevant to their street or suburb. If they can’t then their immediate neighbours do not have  a voice in Council. This played out to the consternation of the community in the last Council as they dealt with the DPA in Unley Central.

If these rules are not simplified we run the very real risk of community minded people not running in future for Council. Given this, you have to ask the question. Who do we want running for Council.

The very same people I would have thought.

Unley seeking to liaise with the Government on the North South Corridor.

What is happening to South Road through Black Forest and Everard Park. Don’t know? That is why the City of Unley is seeking to liaise with the Government.

 

Residents & property owners are desperate to know what Government’s plans are for our section of South Road. That includes the section that runs through the City of Unley.

Many ratepayers have expressed concern, anguish and/or just a keen interest in what will happen to our section of South Road. And for good reason. Everywhere work has already occurred the landscape has changed dramatically.

Access into and out of Black Forest will change dramatically.

It is possible that rat running through Black Forest will disappear. Likewise we should see a reduction in traffic on East Avenue. On the other hand, residents are likely to have to use a different route to leave and return home.

And it is not just properties on South Road that are affected. It is those properties in the side streets connecting to South Road and beyond.

The last Council made overtures to the then State Government for Council to be informed. We remain without knowledge. Information has been scarce and lacking sufficiency to allay concerns and fears that many in our community have.

The current Government recently publicly announced a desire to provide a tunnel solution through our section of the north-south corridor. This is as much as we know.

Assuming a leadership role to ensure we can all be on the same page, I moved at our last Council meeting the following motion on notice.

This approach will hopefully encourage a better recognition and co-operation with local residents and business owners than we experienced during the electrification of the Seaford Rail Corridor.

Seeking to liaise with the Government, their trusting us to contribute positively does work. We saw that with a range of development plan amendments a few years back with the previous Government.

I am looking forward the Government will respond in kind. Commencing of course with a briefing of Council.

Matters of Integrity, behavioural Matters and the Role of the Mayor.

Matters of Integrity must be dealt with outside of Council and include consequences for breaches.

 

Who should deal with matters of integrity I am not sure. The Government is proposing some options.

No matter what or who it will come at a cost, just as we have now. It may not matter in the end, who.

It must however be an external body, and not handled in house.

What will matter is members who have committed a breach of integrity must be subject to swift investigation and include consequences for breaches.

We must avoid the lengthy process that occurs now. The consequences must be more than just being sanctioned as happens now.

 

Behavioural matters on the other hand are probably best dealt with in house.

 

The use of outside bodies to investigate and/or make recommendations needs to be questioned. I say that in as much as this potentially extends the time of investigation. Consequences, particularly for repeat offenders must be strengthened beyond the current practice of sanctioning.

It may be that a set of behavioural standard needs to be developed. I am not sure this can reasonably be achieved however. I question too, whether this is better achieved by each council rather than have another body establish it. The current Unley Council is working through, as we speak, a similar standard.

 

Greater Controls for the Mayor

 

The Government is right to consider this and seek yours and my input. It is a vexing question. Install powers like the Speaker has in the Government’s House of Assembly and Legislative Council.

The City of Unley has not, in my time, had behavioural issues warranting such action. It is hard to imagine therefore a need for such to be addressed in a new Local Government Act.

In my time as Deputy Mayor a couple of years back, I did hear from a few Mayors of the problems they faced in their chambers. Problems that, coupled with what we hear in the Media, lead me to believe implementing some Mayoral oversight may be appropriate.

It has the potential of course to be manipulated if the Mayor was one to take advantage of this power. Any change in legislation in his area needs to have inbuilt protections to guard therefore against misuse.

Poor Page Park. In Need of Love and Attention

Much loved Page Park is today a poor park. A park in need of love and attention.

Poor Page Park TurfA well used park, as are all in the City of Unley, it has seen some dramatic change in activity in recent years. Corresponding to this change in activity the condition of the turf has deteriorated.

 

 

So concerned am I about the condition, I moved a motion on notice this week at Council. The motion read.

A report be prepared for the November 2019 Council meeting regarding
the condition of the turf at Page Park, including:
– An assessment of causes of disintegration;
– Possible solutions to rectifying disintegration.

We have seen families picnic under the trees, kids kicking (in the past) footballs. Others shooting rings on the recently updated basketball ring. Members of the community have likewise taken advantage of the outdoor gym provided at this location. Tennis is played at the adjacent bitumen paved public tennis courts.

More recently (since the fencing off and the later provision of self closing gates) it has become a favourite venue for exercising dogs.

 

Sparse Turf at Page ParkUntil the last two winters the turf and the general condition under foot has been no different to other parks in the City of Unley. The last two years, by my observation, the turf has deteriorated dramatically.

 

There are significant sections/areas with no turf. Poor Page Park DivetThere are also a number of divots in the ground. If there is any presence of rain the affected areas are quite slippery. This combination presents in my opinion as a work health safety concern.

 

 

Council has been concerned for a few seasons now about the condition of nearby Goodwood Oval. A current comparison however between the two facilities would suggest Goodwood Oval to be in very good condition, notwithstanding the pounding it would get from the sprigs of footballers.

Although the reason for the deterioration is not apparent, the numerous divots can probably be considered as the result of dogs digging. Given it is worse than Goodwood Oval and unsafe when wet I believe it timely to request an investigation and report.

Council backed my motion unanimously. This gives poor Page Park and chance to look forward to improved health, whatever use it accommodates in the future.

 

Stronger Council Member Capacity and Better Conduct

Stronger Council Member capacity and better Conduct is the first reform area in the Government’s Local Government Reform Agenda. This is indeed the area of highest priority.

 

Accordingly, stronger Council Member capacity and better conduct is the first area I also am giving thought to. As I noted in my blog post of 21 August I intend to convey my thoughts in each of the areas.

I agree with doing this. The Local Government industry agrees with doing this. Apart maybe from a handful of recalcitrant elected members, that is. Members who don’t see themselves as part of the elected body team struggle with this. Those who seemingly must be seen as fighting the establishment.

The media agrees with this and, with their prodding, so do you. Poor behaviour or conduct makes for the Medias view of good press. The press push any notion of poor behaviour on the part of elected members. With this being invariably the sole source of information you have on local government you obviously will likely share the same view.

What you might read in the press however is not the problem that needs to be addressed. It is separating integrity and behavioural issues, and the mechanisms that currently exist to deal with both.

The current rules are a vast improvement on the previous rules. They create confusion however. Members can be compelled by these rules to report perceived code of conduct breaches in fear of being in breach themselves.

The proposal being put forward aims to separate matters of integrity and behavioural matters. This is a must. Matters of integrity must always have robust procedures for handling, including penalties. On the other hand, behavioural matters can and should be dealt with differently.

 

The Government is proposing 20 recommendations.

 

Generally speaking I support all of these. Some with a degree of caution.

Please look to my next two blog posts as I look more closely at the difference between matters of integrity and behavioural matters. Look also for my thoughts on increasing the powers of the Mayor and (in a separate blog post) my thoughts on conflict of interest.

Local Government Reform Recommendations are a mixed bag.

Local Government Reform Recommendations are a mixed bag but fail to address the Government’s core objective. That is my in initial observation as I endeavour to review each of their 72 recommendations.

 

As I revealed in my last blog post the Government has made 72 recommendations to inform a new Local Government Act. 72 recommendations over 4 core reform areas. Some good, some not so good. I will respond to these in later blog posts.

Up front I have to say the recommendations fail the pub test though of achieving their core objective. They will not help to reduce the cost of local government providing the services they provide you. Indeed there is every potential they will increase the cost of providing those services.

They fail to look at what Local Government could look like in the future. They focus instead on fixing perceived legislative failings. A RACE TO THE BOTTOM AS IT WHERE. The reforms appear to have us spending MORE on governance than on roads and rubbish.

The recommendations, by and large all centre around governance, good governance. As a public utility spending public money (your money) it is important that good governance is a given. It is only natural that when reviewing procedures that the focus quickly turns to solving what is not working.

Not surprisingly, this leads to increasing governance measures. So naturally, any such exercise will potentially lead not to reduced costs but to increased costs. If that happens then the obvious question that must be asked is, am I getting good value for the extra $ I will see leave my pockets. Will it be worth it?

Not only are the reform recommendations are a mixed bag, they place potentially greater legislative restrictions on how we provide for our community. So, before you respond to the Governments invitation to contribute to the conversation, may I suggest you truly consider each recommendation and what it really means. If in doubt, look to my future posts on the reform recommendations.

Goodwood Oval Clubroom a Goer after 2nd CAP approval.

The Council Assessment Panel this week supported a compromise recently reached between the Clubs, Neighbouring Residents and Council.

 

New Goodwood Oval Clubroom

New Goodwood Oval Clubroom

The ERD Court however must ratify the decision. I understand that, rather than go to the Court, this will be done administratively by the Court. Expect therefore, confirmation within the next week.

.

The detail of the changes and the negotiations between the parties remain confidential, until such time as the ERD court rubber stamp the approval. Whilst, by my take, the changes are minor from a planning perspective the compromises should please everyone.

The residents will benefit. The original design would have provided them a model with less interference than the model that exists today. The changes, brokered by them, will provide even greater protections to their amenity.

Changes focused mostly around disturbance to the local amenity. In each case the changes have been included as conditions to approval. They should ensure that disturbances from club activity are kept to an absolute minimum.

To see the list of conditions, check out item 13 on page 11 of the minutes from the CAP meeting held on Tuesday this week.

The Clubs can now plan their futures, both the short term and the long term. In the short term, they will be able to confirm to the sporting bodies with whom they belong the availability of the Goodwood Oval facility. The next cricket season, soon to start, and next year’s football season can now be programmed with certainty.

Council likewise can now plan for construction, also with certainty. Goodwood Oval Clubroom a Go-er for all to see as 2020 kicks in.

In order to expedite the project and meet the time conditions of the State Government Grant, Council has commenced with preparing working drawings and preparing the engineering design work. Once complete we can call tenders from Builders. We can proceed to construction once the final costs are known and any extra funding sourced that may be required once the costs are known.

Our aim will be to accept a tender before Christmas. This will allow construction in the new year.

Local Government Reform recommendations out for Public Consultation.

Local Government Reform recommendations are finally out for Public Consultation. The Government now wants to hear from you.

 

Local government reform and cutting the cost of local government was one of the election platforms of the State Government. They lost out to the Opposition and the Minor Parties with their blunt rate capping strategy. Notwithstanding this, they have been working hard on coming up with a suite of legislative changes that are aimed at a more efficient local government sector.

The local government industry has been in conversation with them since they took office. This continues the dialogue we had with the previous government. As I have blogged before, change is needed.

They now want to hear from you, and me.

With a view to introducing a draft bill in March next year the Minister has endorsed 72 recommendations. He is keen to know what we all think about these proposed changes. We all have until November 1st to provide our feedback.

If you have an interest in how local government might best serve you, here is perhaps your best chance. Go to the DPTI website and read through the recommendations.

If you have an opinion on any of them please make it known through their have your say. You can do this on the have your say page.

The 72 Local Government reform recommendations are spread over 4 areas.

The areas are as follows:

In summary, the proposals for reform are—

Reform Area 1 | Stronger Council Member Capacity and Better Conduct

Reform Area 2 | Lower Costs and Enhanced Financial Accountability

Reform Area 3 | Efficient and Transparent Local Government Representation

Reform Area 4 | Simpler Regulation

While this plays out they are also awaiting the report from the Productivity Commission. When their report is received it will sit alongside the survey results to inform their 1st draft bill.

I will be contributing, not just through the submission from Unley Council, but on my own volition. Watch out for future blogs for my thoughts.

The Ultimate Council Conflict of Interest. The role of Councillor itself.

Cr Don Palmer. Providing Local Leadership and Working For YiuWe hear much these days of conflict of interest. I have written about it. The media often have a feature on it. But what is the ultimate conflict of interest.

 

Following on from my blog post yesterday questioning who am I let us examine the role of an elected member. Not so much therefore, who am I but, what is my role in Council.

 

The fact is the conflict of responsibilities of your elected members is the ultimate conflict of interest.

 

The Local Government Act defines two clear, but conflicting roles.

The first of these is to be a member of the governing body of Council. The second is to represent the interests of residents and rate payers.

A conflict of roles if ever there was one.

 

 

Being a member of the governing body is alike to being a member of a company board of directors.

 

Being a member of a board of directors requires me to attend regular “director’s” meetings and participate in the deliberations of the council. As part of this role, I have the responsibility to keep the council’s objectives and policies under review. To ensure that they are appropriate and effective.

Importantly, I am also responsible to manage the council’s income and expenditure. This means keeping the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery under review.

This responsibility is only in concert with my fellow councillors. I cannot act alone. Neither can a small subgroup act alone.

Contrary to this responsibility however is my second defined role.

 

As a person elected to the council I must represent the interests of residents and ratepayers. I am required to provide community leadership and guidance. I must facilitate communication between the community and the council.

This means I must represent you and advocate for you to the Council.

This is a role many in the community do not understand. A role they don’t take advantage of.

As conflicting as these roles may sound they are also mutually complementary.

 

In order to represent you and advocate for you I must do so for all. For that to happen I must be conscious of the greater good. The good of our whole community.

So, even if what you seek advocacy for conflicts with your neighbours, I must seek to give you the best possible chance to be heard.

And that I will continue to strive to do.

Who Am I? Ever Played that Game. Sometimes I feel I am playing it now.

Have you ever played the game who am I. It has always been a fun game.

 

Cr Don Palmer. Providing Local Leadership and Working For YiuRemember putting a notice on your head and asking people yes/no questions and trying to whittle down to find out who you are. A game I remember playing as a kid. It was a game too, I recall, being the focus of a TV game a few decades back.

A similar game too, I recall being played on talk back radio. Always fun. Always entertaining.

.

I found myself playing that game this week with one on my rate payers. A rate payer who did not understand my role. I therefore found myself trying to explain my role rather than focus on her concerns. This conversation naturally prompted me to consider writing this blog post.

Another Councillor explained to me this morning that she too has had a similar recent experience. This of course has convinced me of the need to put pen to paper.

In both cases the person with whom we were engaging believed we were employees of Council. This is NOT the case.

 

Who am I then? I am an elected member. An elected member of your Council.

 

Importantly, I am not an employee of Council. I am not a manager. Nor do I contract with Council.

I am an elected member, a Councillor. Elected by you last November as your representative on Council. Elected to be one of thirteen Councillors (including your Mayor) forming the City of Unley Council.

The next question is what is my responsibility and what did you elect me to do. For the answer to that question I ask you to watch out for a follow-up blog post.

A council, in turn, is established to provide for government and management of its area at the local level. Watch out for future blog posts on this too.

Councils Overlooked Heritage for Decades, according to the ‘Tiser.

The Councils Overlooked Heritage for Decades, according to the ‘Tiser. This is a headline suggesting Councils have been derelict in their heritage responsibilities.

COUNCILS OVERLOOK HERITAGE FOR DECADESIs the ‘Tiser’ correct with this article? If you have a subscription you can read it here.

The article in today’s Advertiser has included the City of Unley in it’s list. Consequently, this (by default) suggests we too have overlooked Heritage for decades.

.

Preserving our heritage is a hot topic right now, a concern shared by many. The SA Planning Commission, as they undertake the revision of our planning laws, share this concern.

So! Is our heritage at risk and have Councils been under-performing in recognising and promoting heritage properties for protection from demolition?

 

Our heritage deserves protection and is at risk.

The risk to our heritage I have already spoken about, in a blog post titled “Heritage at Risk”. Or is it?”.

I did attend the meeting noted in that blog post. The Commission Chairman at that meeting assured me that they share our concerns.

This was comforting to hear. As comforting as that may be, they can only produce what they are given. Consequently, this means the community (including you) need to let them know your views and concerns.

 

Have Councils been derelict in assessing and nominating heritage in their development plans? The City of Unley I suggest have been diligent, rather than derelict in assessing and nominating heritage plans in their development plan.

Today’s media article is sort of correct. They however did not recognise how significant such an exercise is. A lengthy process that requires significant resourcing. Resourcing that your rates fund.

They identified only the start of a process. As a result, not the completion. In addition, failing to recognise a lengthy process that requires significant resourcing. Resourcing that your rates fund.

The City of Unley did conduct a broad ‘Heritage’ and ‘Character’ survey of the whole City in 2005. As a result, using the results of the survey, this led to conducting the Unley Heritage Research Study from 2006 through to 2012. This provided a comprehensive evaluation of potential individual heritage places combined with a review of existing places.

Importantly, these studies were then used to inform the Local Heritage Places Development Plan Amendment.

This DPA was given Interim Effect in January 2013. The final DPA was authorised in January 2014.

 

Draft Clarence Park LATM awaits your final input

The Draft Clarence Park LATM, which is in response to your observations last year, awaits your final input. Please therefore, let us know your thoughts.

 

You should have received a letter from Council seeking your response to Draft Clarence Park LATM recommendations. To ensure we have the right solutions to the problems you identified, we need you to respond to this letter.

Draft Clarence Park LATM

Copy of Draft Clarence Park LATM letter

Please take the time to understand the solutions being offered, and have your say. Your contribution is important to us.

To assist you, there will also be a public meeting on Tuesday 30 July between 5-8 pm  at Clarence Park Community Centre where you can learn more and discuss the proposals with staff.

You can also read the full report at https://yoursay.unley.sa.gov.au/LATM3.

You can reply using the yoursay portal or by emailing council at [email protected] If you prefer you can use the good ol’ fashioned snail mail, or personally hand deliver it to the Unley Civic Centre.

Key areas of the Draft Clarence Park LATM identified in our ward are:

  • Pedestrian safety at the tram stop on East Ave and adjacent Rise & Grind
  • Rat running through Clarence Park
  • Cycling safety on Churchill Ave
  • Changing the traffic priority on the Ripon/ Homer/Lorraine Ave intersection
  • Improving disabled parking on Curzon Ave
  • Further parking restrictions in Chelmsford, Allenby, Fairfax and Argyle Avenues
  • Restricted parking at the entrance to Langdon Ave
  • Improving cycling and pedestrian safety in East Ave

If you have any thoughts on any of these please let us know. Once we receive your thoughts, we will review the LATM.

Council will take on board your thoughts. We will then consider ratifying the LATM, maybe in September, including any changes prompted by you.

Once ratified, high priority items will commence as early as later this year. Medium and low priority items will be considered in next year’s budget.