Council’s consultation on community engagement.

The Draft Community Engagement Policy reflects the lack of importance council attaches to community consultation. The policy is limited to a regurgitation of the template provided in S50 of the Local Government Act. The template itself takes a narrow view of the contribution genuine engagement is capable of making to greater community cohesion and better decision-making. For instance, it limits its definitions of the category of engagement described as “significant” to business plans, ratings policy and decisions that “have a significant impact on most or all ratepayers”. Presumably,  excluded from this category would be examples such as new and significant capital investment projects,  rezonings and closure of council amenities such as libraries. There is nothing in the draft council policy to suggest any intention of going beyond this minimalist approach.

This minimum compliance mentality permeates council practice regularly generating community backlash. Some recent examples of this reluctance to consult are the proposed changes to the operation of the Norwood Swimming Centre, the lease renewal for the Linde Community Garden; and the pathway from Vernon Street to Richards Park (all “not applicable”); and tree planting for O.G. Road Central and Ninth Avenue Christmas Light Traffic Management (“letters to inform”). 

Council’s reluctance to consult on capital projects was subject to specific criticism by ESCOSA: “Greater community consultation should have occurred to ensure transparency and manage expectations regarding levels of debt and rate impacts.” Leading it to recommend that council  “Undertake deeper and ongoing community consultation regarding the scale, cost escalation, and long-term financial impact of any future significant capital expenditure projects.”

This unwillingness to consult also extends to council’s obsession with the use of confidentiality provisions limiting scrutiny of its business. It is accepted that from time to time there will be issues where public disclosure would be prejudicial to the outcome. Such matters are often dealt with in special council meetings and  Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council is as active as any council in the use of such meetings. However, it is also a prodigious user of confidentiality provisions in its regular meetings. So far this year these provisions have been used for 15 items. Even Burnside Council, which has had more than its share of sensitive items, has had 7 confidential items in its regular meetings so far this year.

The question is why does Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council have so many items that it cannot share with the public?