So why should some decisions be made behind Closed doors?

Election campaigns are littered with new candidates pillorying Councils for making decisions in the “Closed” agenda.  Re-nominating Aldermen/Councillors are often defending the same.  Some Councils even close off a number of committee meetings to the public and then are surprised to find themselves up for all sorts of corruption allegations simply because people just don’t know what is going on or what is decided. 

The implication that all decisions made behind closed doors are corrupt and dodgy, or come about as a result of payments in kind, that they are favours for “the boys” or “the big end of town” has to be challenged and examined. 

If candidates are up on their hind legs implying that they are made of greater moral fibre and would NEVER make a decision in confidence behind closed doors, have they really got any idea of the law of local government?

And what do I say?

Bollocks, I say, bollocks, to any candidate who demands complete transparency in all local government decision-making. 

Either these people don’t actually know what they are getting themselves in for under the Local Government Act or we’re seeing a very cynical crop of new candidates who are playing hard and fast for all the electoral benefit it can get them, despite either actually knowing better or acting in ignorance (theirs and the public’s) of the full facts and happy to keep it that way. 

This sort of higher moral ground superiority on the campaign trail is nothing but the politics of division in a handwringing, eyes raised to heaven guise.

And I think it’s a safe bet these are the same people who value having an anonymous voting system for Federal, State and local government elections.

Come to think of it, those who tend to be most ignorant of the provisions of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, Section 15 (see appendix below) are often the loudest in demanding transparency in decision making.  And guess what, they usually have no experience of local government as an elected person.  I can assure them it gets a bit more complex once you’re actually elected.

And it’s difficult to get such high minded candidates to define transparency, because once challenged, they start down their own slippery slide of qualification as to what’s in and what’s out.

Harsh comments?  A tad on the less than diplomatic side?  Perhaps, in some eyes, but now I’m speaking as a person whose seen both sides and been out at enough public meetings for candidates to listen and observe the behaviour before and after.

There has been enough of it on display at a number of candidate meetings around Hobart.

Do as I say, not as I do

And at Council on Monday (13 October) the public gallery observed a fine example of cynical electioneering by a Deputy Lord Mayor aspirant (no, not me) to get Closed meeting reports and votes into the Open.  No doubt it was an attempt to best the motion being put up by a Lord Mayoral aspirant later in the Closed agenda.  And so strongly did the Deputy aspirant feel about the issue of the urgency of getting an urgent report to ensure greater transparency, that person actually voted against the motion they had put up asking for the same!

If the motion had been passed as an urgency motion, it would have been sent off for a report to the November Strategic Governance committee, and returned back for a Council decision in the same month for the new Council to implement.  Now it could be months.

The irony of the evening had to be the same issue being put up as a Notice of Motion in the Closed Agenda.  Now given the way the Lord Mayoral aspirant worded the Notice of Motion, it had to be considered behind closed doors in the Closed part of the Council meeting.  So I can’t talk about what happened, by law.

What I can say is that if people wanted to make a point about openness and transparency, they really need to think out some better strategies.

Is the concern for transparency simply driven by election agendas?  Well, very little has happened in the four years preceding, and the Myer issue has been going for longer than that, as well as a whole lot of other matters I haven’t noticed the sitting Aldermen getting hot under the electoral collar about.

The test of reasonableness

Have a read again of the Section 15 regulation below and ask yourself the question as to what is reasonable in asking for transparency, given the economic and social situation in which we live.  If any person thinks that every bit of information should be available in the world, think carefully.

If you stand for complete transparency, then you are saying no decisions or information of any kind at all can be treated on a confidential basis.  None.  And so what applies to government behaviour therefore should apply to private behaviour as well.  All information should be able to be revealed.

No, I hear you now say?  Now, where do you draw the line, I must ask?

Is the intent of the use of the information the issue?  Is it a matter of consent?

Are you finally waking up to the fact that we live in a complex society which is motivated by self-interest both positive and negative and is probably not likely to change any time soon?  (Go back to reading Iain Banks’ Culture novels, if it’s of any comfort.)

Information transparency is a matter of usage and abusage.

Witness the disgraceful lack of ethics of a long gone Premier of Tasmania revealing under parliamentary privilege for the press to record in the newspapers the next day the poor state of the banking statements of one Mr Tatlow who was in a legal stoush with the State over Crown leases to mine peat moss.  The information was used to undermine Mr Tatlow’s reputation and legal case.  Is this the sort of transparency you have no problem with?

At the local government level there is no parliamentary privilege and transparency is determined by legislation.  

How about a person trying to flee an abusive partner, ends up owning a home in Hobart but does not want their home address or phone number revealed while dealing with Council over a rates matter?  Should this be revealed as a matter of openness and transparency?  How about revealing when Aldermen/Councillors are taking leave of absence to attend interstate conferences, thereby alerting the astute burglar to a home left unattended?  How unreasonable is this?

And what about workplace situations where the facts are very much disputed in alleged wrongdoings and the reputations of a number of people are being questioned?  Should all the details be revealed over the very long stretch of litigation, thereby perhaps creating the situation that further harm may be caused to individual reputations through the stress of having to publicly defend themselves from gossip and innuendo, until the final decision is made and people are vindicated or properly judged?  Where is the issue in dealing with such matters behind closed doors until a final resolution is reached?

When it comes to money, the regulations also allow for contracts for the supply and purchase of goods or services, or proposals for the council to acquire land or an interest in the land or for the disposal of land, or even trade secrets of private bodies, to be kept confidential.  A level playing field reason to treat the information as secret.  It provides the ability to consider a decision without being pressured in such a way that ultimately it is not in the best interests of ratepayers.  It provides the Aldermen/Councillors the discussion space to consider best use of land and all the options, in the best interests of the ratepayers.  Those of you in small business would appreciate being able to tender for goods and services knowing that your profit margins are not being undercut by unscrupulous others with access to your financial papers.  And if you have worked hard to create intellectual property rights, do you want them undermined by transparency requirements?  Should you not reap the rewards of your hard work, if you have a manufacturing process that you need to reveal (say for health and safety or environmental reasons) in order to gain a local government contract?

And then there is the matter of the security of property of the council – now seriously, should we be revealing the pin codes to the public or how often the security guys come round as a matter of openness and transparency?  And in this day and age of computer hacking, let alone home grown terrorism, just how sensible is it to make everything transparent about the safety of our water and sewerage operations, about where the back-up generator is located for the city, where we keep the garden fertiliser?

The law also covers information provided to the council on the condition it is kept confidential.  Commercial business transactions or legal advice most commonly comes under this, although it is a catch-all for other kinds of information.  And take careful note.  You can ask for information to be kept confidential, but a level of scrutiny goes into determining whether the information qualifies or not.  And you can bet your bottom dollar that legal advice will be sought when there is a dispute about this, because we all know legal cases often end up with a result, but the lawyers are the real winners when it comes to costs.

The Value of Privacy

Privacy is both a force for positive change and positive good.  Yes, such power can also be abused.  And we’ve seen the other side of the coin in our little all-dancing Western capitalist economy when it comes to money and information flows – those with access to restricted information can make a killing by cheating.  Where information is shared illegally, it’s called insider trading or an abuse of privacy.  Governments don’t like it when information that affects “national security” is leaked – Wikileaks has done a power of good in speaking to the truth of many a murky matter.  Yet what is sauce for the goose is not for when someone leaks our personal information that relates to our financial privacy – that’s an outrageous invasion, and more so when our family bank accounts become part of an identity theft scam.

If we run a business in our profit-driven economy, we don’t want our competitors to know what we’re doing.  So if we tender to local government in competition with others, we won’t want them to know what our bid is, so we can’t be undercut.  This is critical for small businesses in a world increasingly dominated by larger and larger businesses, and for a place like Tasmania, where in effect there is little choice compared to the larger markets of the mainland and elsewhere.

If we need legal advice, do we personally go into every legal situation with all our cards on the table?  No.  So why the same demands for Council’s acting on behalf of the ratepayers?  The nature of humans is to take advantage, so complete honesty in legal dealings is not the case in the common law justice system within which we work.  Would you be discussing various aspects of your divorce or car accident case with your lawyer in the waiting room for all to hear?  And to let the other side know what your thinking was?

And yes, we’re more than irritated when any government decides to wheel a truckload of documents through the Cabinet Room to give them “confidential” status – we’ve seen enough of this abuse from all sides of government and possible only highly placed public servants and certain politicians on the make would condone such behaviour. 

When it comes to information, sometimes there are genuine reasons to have meetings away from the public gaze.  Not all access is meant to be equal.  But I suspect, with my innocent belief in human nature that, by and large, most people do tend to do the right thing in respecting privacy, and making ethical, reasonable decisions behind closed doors.  As we all know, if you cheat, eventually you’ll get caught out when even the most glittering reign comes to an end.  Disgruntled ex-employees will speak out.  The 30 year rule is applied, etc.  ICAC’s get empowered.  If you do wrong, it will eventually come out.

Where is probity and good governance?

And be aware that at the local government level, there is no power to arbitrarily hide documents.  Local government is subject to FOI requests, and where reports have only small parts of them that are possibly best kept confidential (do they qualify under Section 15?), the Council is now regularly redacting reports.  When Aldermen question why the whole issue is being dealt with in the Closed meeting when only a small part is sensitive, the offending part is removed and the rest of the report is open to public scrutiny.

(The recent reports on encouraging development at the Springs is an example, although personally speaking, the bit that was redacted really is the bit that I’d like people to know about in order to get the whole report and council decision in context.  It was the sensitive bit that caused me to vote against what seemed a reasonable policy decision.  Oh well, you’ll all just have to wait for the development applications being sought by Council when they roll in to find out what I cannot by law reveal.  I meantime am left publicly opposing development at the Springs, which is not the full case, if you only look at how I voted.  Not so black and white, eh?!)

And here’s the thing.  Various candidates will make negative comments about closed decisions over property and developments.  Yet we can’t close a meeting to decide a development application – such items are open to the public by law.  And then they’ll rail against closed discussions over funding.

In our current western democratic economic system, the law under which local government operates states that if a person (or business entity) asks for financial and legal information to be kept confidential, local government must comply.  And you can bet your bottom dollar that local government, at least in Hobart, understands what is meant by the words probity and governance, in deciding what is to be transparent and what is best discussed behind closed doors, within the legal constraints under which we operate.

And even if we do decide for a host of reasons to grant monies to business and the decision is made in the Closed Agenda, it still has to be reported in the Annual Report and that is a matter of law and of policy.  Which Hobart City Council does do.  All of Council’s financial decisions are scrutinised by its Council’s Audit Committee and the State Government’s Auditor-General and reported accordingly in the Annual Report.

In effect, when it comes to transparency, the maxim, first, do no harm, applies.  Complete transparency can only occur when a number of tests are met in the best interests of those involved, and these tests are set in State and Federal legislation. 

 

 

Appendix: What can we not discuss openly?

Here’s the rules:

Firstly, have a look at the Federal government’s legislation surrounding privacy and security.

Secondly, enjoy the lighter read of the State government’s Local Government Act 1993 and associated regulations.

Here’s the relevant excerpt from the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005:

15. Closed meetings

(1) A council by absolute majority, or a council committee by simple majority, may close a meeting or part of a meeting to the public only for a reason specified in subregulation (2).

(2) A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public when any one or more of the following matters are being or are to be discussed:

(a) personnel matters, including complaints against an employee of the council;

(b) industrial matters relating to a person;

(c) contracts for the supply and purchase of goods or services;

(d) the security of property of the council;

(e) proposals for the council to acquire land or an interest in the land or for the disposal of land;

(f) information provided to the council on the condition it is kept confidential;

(g) trade secrets of private bodies;

(h) matters relating to actual or possible litigation taken by or involving the council or an employee of the council;

(i) applications by councillors for leave of absence;

(j) the personal affairs of any person.

(3) Unless subregulation (4) applies, a council or council committee must not close a meeting or part of a meeting when it is–

(a) acting as a planning authority under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993; or

(b) considering whether or not to grant a permit under that Act; or

(c) considering proposals for the council to deal with public land under section 178 of the Act.

(4) A council or council committee may close a meeting when it is acting or considering as referred to in subregulation (3) if it is to consider any matter relating to actual or possible legal action taken by, or involving, the council.

(5) If a council or council committee closes a meeting or part of a meeting, the grounds for the closure are to be recorded in the minutes.

(6) The chairperson–

(a) is to exclude members of the public from a closed meeting; and

(b) may exclude the general manager from a closed meeting if the matter to be discussed relates to the contract of employment or the performance of the general manager; and

(c) may invite any person to remain at the meeting to provide advice or information.

(7) The chairperson may–

(a) authorise the removal of any person from a closed meeting if that person refuses to leave; and

(b) request the assistance of a police officer to remove that person.

(8) A council or council committee by simple majority may re-open a closed meeting to the public.

(9) Any discussions, decisions, reports or documents relating to a closed meeting are to be kept confidential unless the council or council committee, after considering privacy and confidentiality issues, authorises their release to the public.

 

 

Authorised by Eva Ruzicka, 10 Congress Street, South Hobart

The Gift Register: When is a donation not a gift?

From time to time an elected person gets an unsolicited gift from grateful elector or from a business, religious or community group.  And asking around, the most common gifts include a bunch of flowers, bottles of wine or boxes of chocolates, cakes, sometimes items of religious significance and such like, usually given at Christmas or after opening an event or as part of it or presiding over the AGM.

After declaring the gift on the Gift Register, the most common practice is to pass the gift on to either Council staff or friends or family or another community group or donate it as a raffle prize at a later date.  Conscience is then clear as not actually receiving the benefit of the gift, but at least not offending the giver.

Hospitality can be a very tricky thing at times.

I remember getting an enormous bunch of roses from a grateful development applicant.  Or at least I think that’s what they were.  The florist delivered them to my home in Fern Tree, left them on the deck and as I had come home late, hadn’t seen them. 

The possums did. 

Ringing the applicant the next morning, I stated that Aldermen were not allowed to receive gifts and it had to be returned.  She was most offended until I explained that the gift had been reduced to a nicely tied bunch of battered and stripped rose stems, so honour was satisfied and at least the possums derived a benefit.  Even so, she was most put out that she was not allowed to express her thanks in a way that was most natural to her.

As I said, hospitality can be a very tricky thing.

Other times a common gift is the event ticket.  As most Councils support sporting and cultural events, the organisers provide tickets back, particularly for opening nights.  In Hobart City Council such tickets are automatically declared on the Gift Register.  In some cases, tickets for the funding organisation are part of the commercial/grant arrangement.

Observe the front three rows on a first night at the Theatre Royal in the Dress Circle.  Given the familiar faces it’s a pretty good indication of how many complimentary tickets are flowing about between various layers of Federal, State and Local government, as well as funding arts bureaucrats and sponsors.

So how do we deal with gifts?

At the local government level, a statutory Code of Conduct guides Aldermen/Councillors how to deal with the ethics of gift receiving. 

You can find the current Code of Conduct at http://www.hobartcity.com.au/Council/Aldermen  on the Aldermen’s page with a .pdf link to the Aldermanic Code of Conduct.  I’ve excerpted the sections dealing with gifts below.  At Hobart after much discussion it was decided that gifts below a certain value did not have to be declared ($100).  Why?  In interpreting the Code, I and others were down to declaring individual cups of coffee whilst other Aldermen didn’t see the need to declare unless the gift was significant in value.  As the statutory bare bones code was not clear as to what level to declare or not, the line was drawn at $100.  Ah, the slippery slope in not declaring everything, said some.  So it was decided repeated amounts to $600 over 12 months have to be declared as a lump sum.  Not too many lunches in that, I hear some of you say.

You can find the full current Code of Conduct at http://www.hobartcity.com.au/Council/Aldermen  on the Aldermen’s page with a .pdf link to the Aldermanic Code of Conduct.  I’ve excerpted the sections dealing with gifts below.

The Code is not perfect, and if a person wants to rort the system, I’m sure they’ll find a way to do it.  And it still relies on the honesty of the Aldermen/Councillors to declare.  It’s the spirit of the thing that matters. 

Currently, after every election, the Code is reviewed to make sure it is up to date as events move on.  It is also being reviewed by the State government with a number of legislative changes being proposed for post the October elections.

And one thing we will have to get finally clarified out is what is meant by donation and what is meant by gift.  Is a donation political or otherwise the same as a gift received while a person is an elected member and a candidate? 

Let’s look at how is gift and donation is defined - click onto any online dictionary or if you like, wander off to the State Library and consult its excellent 27 volume Oxford edition:

Donation - noun

1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.

2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.

Gift - noun

1. something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favour toward someone, honour an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.

2. the act of giving.

3. something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned.

When is a donation not a gift, and a gift not a donation?  I believe it is reasonable to say gift and donation are interchangeable in their meaning, and within the context of the Code of Conduct.  And I’d argue that a political donation is the same as a political gift – after all, if you were not an elected member would you be receiving the gift?  Or the donation?

It is not before time that State legislation is proposed to fix this situation.  However, it has to get through Parliament yet.

There are some who say a political donation is not a gift, due largely to the timing and the purpose for which it is used.  Well, I find that difficult.  Surely if someone gives you cash for an election campaign, they are also ensuring you’re around to make decisions that may or may not benefit them?  Okay, if you’re not elected, well and good, it is clear you’re a candidate accepting political donations.  But if you are a sitting Alderman/Councillor, how can you distinguish when you are re-nominating for Council at the same time?

So what does the Code of Conduct say?

So here’s the thing.  The Code at 7.2 states what is expected of Aldermen:

“As an Alderman of the HCC, you are expected to ensure that as part of your Aldermanic duties, you:

(a) never accept an offer of money, regardless of the amount”

And an offer of money, whether a gift or donation, is an offer of money.  Whether it is a political donation or not.  Because as the Code states, “as part of your Aldermanic duties” and please don’t tell me that “Aldermanic duties” are not political in nature.  It is an elected position.

Why raise this now?  Well it appears that after the local newspaper had done its usual pre-election FOI on the Gift Register, I went back to have a look at it the other day to check the facts on another issue, and noted a curious thing that appears to have been passed over somewhat lightly.  http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/hcc-gifts-tally-hits-72000-as-aldermen-wined-dined-and-shouted-to-the-best-shows-in-town/story-fnj4f7k1-1227069551433  Three years of the Gift Register are available for download and perusal. 

And if I might diverge a few paragraphs, yes, the Aldermen are and were quite sanguine about the contents being revealed, although as one was quoted, the Alderman hadn’t realised the value of the gift (which is weird, as it is the Aldermen that usually puts the entry in with its value at the time).

Council at its meeting on13 October voted to get the Gift Register on the Council’s website, which no one opposed, and it is about time.  At least that will save any FOI fees for any inquirer and the information will be available year round, rather than just before an election for some lazy journalist to pick over as a page filler.

[And I’m not trying to claim any high moral ground here.  I’ve accepted a bottle of wine from the War Widows Guild at Christmas.  I’ve accepted occasional tickets to cultural events (although the recent ones to the Dark MOFO weren’t taken up – I’d come down with a nasty cold after going through Melbourne Airport coming back from a local government conference and missed every performance).  And I’m down for a Christmas Hamper although I think that year I attended on my own as my glorious other half was elsewhere, I needed a stick to walk and couldn’t carry heavy objects so left it for Council’s Committee Support staff to enjoy.]

What was the curious thing, I hear you impatiently ask?  Now under Tasmania’s Electoral Act, I can’t mention a particular candidate’s name in these blogs without their permission, as they effectively constitute (at least to my mind) electoral material and I’m not taking the risk of breaching the Act.  Follow the links and make some deductions.  You’ll work it out who I’m referring to in the next paragraph.

So given 7.2 of the Code, how to explain the acceptance of a total of $5,200 cash donations to one Alderman?  Even allowing that it looks like party donations given my knowledge of the donors names, it still breaches the Code that states “never accept an offer of money”.

And when is a donation not an offer of money?  Even if the donation was subsequently passed onto a party organisation, that’s where it should have been directed in the first place and not offered to, or accepted by, the Alderman.  What sort of party can’t get its act together to hold donations in trust for a candidate’s election campaign? 

Given that on the campaign trail there has been a persistent thread of comments against certain of the candidates for Lord Mayor by others seeking the same position as to sources of that candidate’s funding, it leaves this particular candidate looking as if either judgment is wanting or a double standard is being applied, or worse, has been unwittingly manipulated into making a public stand on an issue without thinking the whole thing through. 

And more so since the website Funding and Disclosure was opened.  Have a look at whose actually declaring cash donations in Hobart.  http://www.fundinganddisclosure.org.au/index.php?act=candidates&divisionId=43&electionId=1

Railing against the lack of political donation legislation in Tasmania for local government, an already elected member of the same political grouping has inadvertently self-revealed as possibly in breach of Section 7.2 of the Code of Conduct, depending on how you define donation or gift as fitting into the meaning of “offer of money”.

So while folks are all off counting angels on pinheads, and trying to find the way though the murk of grey areas of sorting this issue out, what to do?

It presents an interesting ethical problem for any elected members who are part of a political party structure.

For those who are independent, how are they to handle campaign funding?

For a start, let’s look at the status of local government.  Aldermen, unlike State and Federal elected people, even if in campaigning mode, are still sworn in as elected people until the poll is closed.  There are no caretaker provisions.  So in my opinion it is reasonable to say that no Alderman should be personally receiving cash donations or gifts at any time while they are still actively making decisions.

Does this mean introducing a caretaker mode for local government?  If yes, gifts of cash or donations of cash/in kind can then be distinguished as political campaign funds, and declared appropriately.

The Code of Conduct should guide us in our behaviour during an election, let alone the clear and stringent requirements of the Tasmanian Electoral Act and the Local Government Act.

So here’s the other thing that got me thinking about the ethics of local government and prompted me to go back to the newspaper article in the first place:

At 7.2 (c), the question arises how Aldermen can get away with accepting hospitality at a time when a vote for financial largess via a grant is presented to Council.  All very well to say the provision of tickets to say, AFL games, is part of a contractual arrangement, but how does the public perceive it, when an organisation is asking for a pretty hefty sum from the ratepayer pot? 

Just before the vote at Council to fund future AFL games, ratepayers approached me asking whether there was a conflict of interest when the Aldermen were seen visibly enjoying the Corporate Box hospitality the week prior.  The Code says Aldermen should:

(c) strive to avoid situations in which the appearance may be created that any person or body, through the provision of hospitality or benefits of any kind, is securing (or attempting to influence or secure) a favour from you or the HCC.

On asking the General Manager whether being given multiple tickets and/or dinners for the AFL North Melbourne v St Kilda game at the same time as considering funding was a breach of the Code, the technical reply was that the tickets to the games and free dinner were part of an earlier contractual funding arrangement. 

Technically correct, but seriously, hardly capable of creating a strong public perception that Aldermen were not influenced in their decision making to fund AFL games.  Especially if the future arrangements ensured more free games tickets and dinners. 

The whole public perception thing has been made worse by the fact that discussion on funding was held in the Closed meeting of the Council committee.  (And this is something I’ll blog on later.)

And no, I didn’t accept any tickets or dinner invitations, and no, I didn’t support funding a multi-million dollar business organisation that could afford $3.2M for one of its programs and pay its CEO over a million in bonuses and salary one year but not able to afford to fund a mainland team to visit Tasmania three times a season. 

(And for that decision, had my name read out at an AFL dinner as a person to not vote for in the current elections.  I’ll take that as a badge of honour, thank you.)

So what reforms are needed?

After the election at Council when the Code of Conduct is reviewed, there are two changes needing to be made.

Firstly, clarifying cash party donations.  It has to be made clear to Aldermen that they must never accept cash donations personally, and if their parties can’t sort out arrangements for this, that’s something they need to do!  Certainly it has to be clarified why a donation is not the same as a gift.  With luck the State legislation proposed may clear this one up or at least provide some clear guidelines on how such monies are handled.

Secondly, I think it’s high time we got rid of the contractual arrangement/grant conditioned free tickets.  Aldermen are paid a significant allowance in Hobart, and the Lord Mayor and Deputy even more so, and if being seen at events as an Alderman or Lord Mayor or Deputy Lord Mayor is part of the role, then the cost of events is tax deductible under the “any other contribution” part of deductions.  If we want true transparency, and a public perception of not being influenced in our decision making, isn’t it time to pay our way, nes pas?

 

Aldermanic Code of Conduct

Standard #7 Giving and Receiving of Gifts or Benefits: Consistent with Standards #3 and #4, you are expected not to personally and unjustly benefit from, nor be unduly influenced (or be perceived to be unduly influenced) in making decisions as part of your role with the Council as a result of financial inducements, gifts or entertainment or other benefits.

7 Giving and Receiving of Gifts and Benefits

Standard #7 – Giving and Receiving of Gifts or Benefits: Consistent with Standards #3 and #4, you are expected not to personally and unjustly benefit from, nor be unduly influenced (or be perceived to be unduly influenced) in making decisions as part of your role with Council as a result of financial inducements, gifts or entertainment or other benefits.

7.1 Key concepts:

Aldermen hold positions of trust within the community. They are expected to exercise their powers and carry out their duties without being influenced by personal gifts or benefits which they might otherwise enjoy and so must adhere to the highest standards of transparency and accountability in relation to the receipt of gifts and benefits.

7.2 What is expected of you?

As an Alderman of the HCC, you are expected to ensure that as part of your Aldermanic duties, you:

(a) never accept an offer of money, regardless of the amount;

(b) do not accept gifts and benefits, without ensuring that they are disclosed and recorded in the Gifts Register in keeping with Council policies and procedures.  Such gifts may include a meal and/or beverage, tickets to sporting or theatrical events, corporate hospitality at a corporate facility or at a sporting venue, discounted products for personal use, use of facilities such as gyms, use of holiday homes, free or discounted travel and free training excursions.

(i) Gifts and benefits received by Aldermen with a value under $100 do not need to be disclosed and recorded in the Gifts Register.

(ii) An accumulative amount in excess of $600 from any single source within a 12 month period is to be declared and recorded in the Gifts Register.

(c) strive to avoid situations in which the appearance may be created that any person or body, through the provision of hospitality or benefits of any kind, is securing (or attempting to influence or secure) a favour from you or the HCC.

NOTE: On those occasions that the Council provides Council-issued tickets to Aldermen, details of the tickets will be subsequently automatically recorded in the Aldermanic Gifts Register.

7.3 Supporting example:

As examples only:

•        If you are involved in the allocation of tenders for any work supplied to the HCC, you must not accept any benefits (whether monetary or otherwise) from a tenderer as this might be expected or perceived to influence your decision.

•        If you are provided with tickets to the theatre or any form of corporate entertaining, whether it is pursuant to a Council sponsorship arrangement or otherwise, which is provided to you due to your public office, then you are responsible to ensure that this is declared in the HCC Gift Register in keeping with guidelines and policies relating to gifts and entertainment.

7.4 Supporting material:

Local Government Act 1993 - Section 339A – Misuse of office

 

Authorised by Eva Ruzicka, 10 Congress Street, South Hobart

 

The No Junk Mail pamphlet alternative!

Hobart City Council Elections 2014

---

Eva Ruzicka

Commonsense  Experience  Really Independent

VOTE  1

for Alderman     for Deputy Lord Mayor

Ideals with practicality

---

Hobart is a great people place – being small gives ideas an advantage!

With fifteen years’ experience on Council across a range of Committees, Eva has a solid understanding of what it means to represent your interests in local government.  With your support, in a time of increasing economic and reform pressures, Eva will continue to:

• Consistently defend residential amenity, privacy and sunlight.  Our homes are our castles and we have the right to enjoy them.
• Make the case for good policy that advantages both residents and businesses in next year’s re-rating and re-zoning debates.   Certainty matters in planning for Hobart’s financial prosperity.
• Support policies and projects that are practical, affordable, environmentally and socially sound for visitors and residents alike in Hobart.  Hobart is a really special place to live and visit!
  Eva has taken the long view in facilitating opportunities aligned to our City.  This means advocating for innovation in education, information technology, medical research and Antarctic/Southern Ocean activities. 
  For an Alderman and Deputy grounded in commonsense, yet open to new ideas:
   

VOTE  1  RUZICKA, Eva

---

Contacts: eva@ruzicka.id.au  or 0407 391317

www.evaruzicka.blogspot.com.au

Authorised by Eva Ruzicka, 10 Congress Street, South Hobart

 

Want to find out who's funding me?

The stench of corrupt behaviour by various people associated with or elected to mainland Parliaments and local Councils has reached the emerald shores of Tasmania via the sensational media reporting of the proceedings of ICAC.  And I say sensational in a very amazed and positive way – ye gods, didn’t they think at some time they’d be caught out one day??  Nonetheless, the findings are causing local citizens to lobby for political donation disclosures.  And why not?  It should be the norm in an open and transparent democracy.

In the vacuum of legislative action to date a small group of committed citizens have developed a website called Funding and Disclosure (http://www.fundinganddisclosure.org.au/index.php?act=start ).  They are soliciting information from candidates across Australia, although it has no statutory basis and the website claims to be funded by small membership and donations below $100 (see cut and paste bits from the site below). 

The dangle of a 200 word statement is used to encourage participation, although with postal elections and candidate statements sent out with web links in Tasmania, I suspect people will be looking more at these and less at the F&D site. 

New South Wales elections are, of course, given the ICAC findings, a different kettle of three day old fish and for these, the site may well prove useful given the greater population and less opportunity for contact with candidates and elected people, compared to Tasmania’s local government.

 

So what was my response?

Have I disclosed on it?  No.  Why? 

I have no idea who these people are!  There’s nothing on the website other than a name, Pat Synge.  And forgive me for having such a suspicious soul, dear reader, but in this day and age of identity theft and hacker fraud, I’m not going to give my handwritten signature or a photocopy of my passport to someone I can’t physically deal with and whom I know nothing about.  Where is the relationship of trust?

If an email is considered a legal document, then I can’t see why these folks won’t accept an email from me.

Now, if the Tasmanian Electoral Commission requires it, no problems.  There is a greater relationship of trust in dealing with a statutory body that has to comply with all sorts of legislative safeguards. 

And it would be easy to lodge with the candidate nomination and statement forms and post on the TEC's website.

And what’s more, I’m quite happy to disclose any funding in cash or kind for a campaign upwards of two years prior, and during the term of election.  So if people ask me to publicly support political disclosure, take it as read I’ll do so and strongly support this. 

In fact, I’ve just chaired my final Strategic Governance committee meeting for this electoral term on 7 October 2014 that is sending a recommendation to Council that we ask the State Government to get the legislation in place.  See Item 20 on the Council meeting Agenda for 13 October, 2014: Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 – Review – part (ii).

 

So here’s the news. 

For two years prior and during the election, no one has funded me either with wads of cash or in kind support and I’ve received no donations below or above $100.  I’ve received no highly complimentary articles in free local newspapers distributed to local businesses, no fundraising auction proceeds, no placing of posters over real estate signs.

In fact, I’ve actually been recycling car stickers I paid for some elections ago and found surplus to requirements back then.  I’ve paid for the photo shoot (courtesy of Zanzo – really good photograph, don’t you think), did my own initial graphics design, and paid a local Hobart business to tidy that up and print the pamphlets (KwikKopy – and boy, were they efficient, courteous and professional).  Salmat is doing the paid delivery.  There’s an advertisement on Tasmanian Times (graphics and rental time costs paid again by moi).  My blogsite is also paid for by myself. 

How’s that for full disclosure? 

And if you can’t trust this written word, feel free to call and arrange a coffee (0407 391317 or email me on eva@ruzicka.id.au), look me in the eye and ask your questions.  After all, that is what local government in Tasmania is all about.

 

 

Funding & Disclosure (Inc) is a grass roots, not for profit organisation with no political affiliations.

Our aims are to: 

• Facilitate voluntary disclosure of political donations and gifts
• Lobby for legislation requiring timely disclosure of all political donations and gifts at all levels of government
  Provide opportunities for discussion of matters relating to political funding, funding disclosure and related topics.
  We receive no funding from any group or organisation but rely solely on membership subscriptions, donations from individuals and 'in kind' contributions (eg website development etc)
  Who is funding F&D

• F&D is entirely funded by members' subscriptions and small donations (of under $100). All work has been voluntary and we are not associated in any way with, nor do we receive any support from, any political party or group, corporation, or other organisation of any kind.
• Any donations of over $100 will be disclosed and we very much look forward to being able to post such disclosures.
   
  Authorised by Eva Ruzicka, 10 Congress Street, South Hobart

So who should have the right to represent you? And who are you, anyway?

Observant folks au fait with Hobart's General Manager's Roll have observed a sudden increase in names of a less than Anglo-Saxon origin.  I understand the TasElectoral Commission may be investigating allegations of Roll stacking.  Quiet investigation on the side reveals that recruitment amongst the temporary student population by those across the political spectrum could be a cause.  We await the TEC deliberations.
Meantime, today’s ethical conundrum comes courtesy of the State Government’s proposed reforms to the Local Government Act 1993, namely, eligibility for nomination as a Councillor/Alderman.  What a can of worms it has opened up around the table at Hobart’s Strategic Governance Committee!

Currently if you are on the Tasmanian Electoral Commission’s Electoral Roll (own a residence or rent one) or on the General Manager’s Roll (as an owner or occupier, then you are eligible to vote and to stand an elected position (Councillor/Alderman). 

Note that there is no definition of what “occupier” means. 

So if you’re in Hobart for a short time and get yourself enrolled and then leave a month or so after the election, it is quite legal.  And neither under the Act is the General Manager required to enquire as to length of stay, other than to check the person has filled the form correctly, is alive and has had it properly signed off.

Now, no one has really worried about this idea of “occupiers” (and what a loaded word that is now in the context of this debate) but it now appears that significant numbers of people who qualify as “occupiers” have appeared on the Roll and some candidates are now querying this. 

I make no comment on the status of such folks other than I’m just grateful we have a democracy where we don’t get imprisoned for having different points of view from the government. 

But I can’t condone temporary stacking of the Rolls, simply because of a technicality.  It’s not ethical to take advantage of sloppy drafting – it’s not in the spirit of the ideas of local government, fair play and democracy if people are stacking the Rolls for a short term electoral gain.

The current position is that Section 270(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993, states that a person is eligible to nominate as a candidate for the office of councillor in respect of a municipal area if the person is enrolled on an electoral roll in respect of the municipal area. 

Section 254(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 says a person, other than a person referred to in Subsection (1), is entitled to be enrolled on the electoral roll kept under Section 258(1) in respect of an electoral area if the person – (a) is an owner or occupier of land in the electoral area.

The draft Bill is now proposing that a person must have their principal place of residence within Tasmania in order to be eligible to nominate as a candidate for the office of councillor.

So if you’re a temporary visitor to Tasmania whose place of permanent residence is elsewhere, you won’t be eligible to vote in local council elections.

Sounds reasonable, or is it?

In chairing a discussion on this at Council’s Strategic Governance Committee, two positions emerged and pretty well split the committee.

One was that if you qualified to be on the TEC’s electoral roll (citizenship requirements, etc), then you had a right to stand for local government.  If you didn’t, then you had no right.  Local government has to be treated as if it were the same as any other tier of government and there should be no variation in eligibility requirements.

The other was that if you qualified to be on the General Manager’s Roll, you should have the right to vote and stand, regardless of whether your principal place of residence was in Tasmania or not.  The point was put that some people did not have Australian citizenship but owned significant property in the city, or ran businesses under various Visa permissions.  As such, these people had a stake in what happened in Hobart (as occupiers), even though Tasmania was not their principle place of residence.  It may also be that citizenship and/or family requirements meant that people could not take on dual citizenship due to the laws of their country of origin.

The argument was put forward that the restriction on eligibility for nomination as Councillor/Alderman to Tasmanian residents was on the basis that the change denoted some permanent connection with the State.

In effect this thinking highlights a few burning issues for Tasmania.

One is population flows and what the effects of mobile populations on cultural and economic change.  Let’s face it, we’re not static populations any more.  Increasingly for Tasmania, as for the rest of the world, our communities are made up of transient populations who have a number of places they call home.  For Tasmania upward of 90% of our visitor populations are what are called “circular migrants”.  Transfers by companies (banking, finance, professional, pharmaceuticals, electronics, consulting, mining) and people undertaking research and training in a host of occupations mean people stay here in both the short, medium and long term, commuting in and out of Tasmania.  The idea of permanent residence is not one that works for them in terms of their economic and educational status.  And it is these people that bring cultural and economic prosperity to the State.  As such, what they do while they are here gives them a stake in the present and future of Tasmania.  Should they be excluded from taking part in the democratic processes that shape our local areas?  Who will represent their concerns about the quality of infrastructure or community programs their rental of property allows them to enjoy?  Or is the idea of belonging and identification with a locality the greater one for qualification – the idea that “you have skin in the game”, to use a well worn phrase?

The second is that of identity and where people today are citizens of the world, rather than a permanent location.  This is a more problematic issue – the idea that we work to attract populations along age and gender cohorts, with the expectation that they will stay, and therefore make the place a permanent residence.  Sorry, mobile capital, airline travel, border permeability, dual or even triple citizenship capacities, and the impact of information communication technologies means the idea of permanency aligned to a set of geophysical location is just no longer valid.  In the twenty first century, we can and do live in the world.  Just where we call home varies – our money home may be in the Cayman Islands or a small vault in Switzerland; our family home may be spread across a range of locations in Australia (seaside apartment on the Gold Coast?), our economic home may be likewise outside of Australia (working for a multinational), and let’s not start with where our Facebook pages, etc are positioned.  If we say permanent Tasmanian, we may well be cutting out the State’s capacity for accessing new ideas, new cultures, new jobs, new identities.  And it is these people who have put a lot of skin in the game in what they contribute to the State.  The counter argument is that you have to have somewhere an allegiance to the idea of a political citizenship based on home.  A Fortress Tasmania idea, in effect, this local government is only for local people.  This is an old idea of local government as locality, as localism.  How valid it is today leads me to the third issue.

The third, and perhaps the most problematic in terms of reform, is the treatment of local government as only being concerned with property, and not a real member of the democracy club that includes State and Federal governments.  And here we run into the issue of whether we should have the General Manager’s Roll or not, and whether some people can have two votes or only one.  The problem of defining “occupier” plus the actions of what appears to be an unusual stacking of the electoral rolls (now under investigation by the Tasmanian Electoral Office) has generated this discussion.  In many ways the idea of local government as democratic has changed over time.  Once was a person’s vote was qualified by amount of property and people could have upwards of seven votes in a municipality.  Once was the Town Clerk also ran the local elections.  Since the 1993 reforms, we now have the Tasmanian Electoral Commission compiling the normal rolls and a person on that roll is granted a vote.  In the twenty first century, if we keep the idea of local government as only being concerned with property, and not community, then a General Manager’s Roll is justified.  But it’s not that simple, and in the eyes of many, no longer democratic.

So, in summary, let’s update the Local Government Act by all means and be clear about what we mean as to eligibility to vote.  But before we do, isn’t it time to have a mature discussion about the status of local government as managing a multicultural community, not just property, and what the roles and responsibilities of eligibility to vote and to stand as a candidate really means?

And is it sensible to have these discussions in the heat of a local government election period with a dog –whistling Federal Government in the background muddying debate and decisions on recommendations to changing the Act being made by outgoing Councillors?

 

Authorised by Eva Ruzicka, 10 Congress Street, South Hobart.