The duties of councillors are no longer just as per the whim of each individual councillor like they were before 1993. A time when a councillor could tell an employee of the council to do whatever was within or outside that employee's job description. A time when the senior employee of many councils was called the Shire, or Town, Clerk.
No, the duties of a councillor, since 1993 and now, are laid down in the Local Government Act 2009 at §12 on page 26 of the act. The following is that section—
§12 Responsibilities of councillors
(1) All councillors of a local government have the same responsibilities, but the mayor has some extra responsibilities.Excuse the extra gaps between some lines in the extract above. It is easier for me to leave them than attempt to close them up.
(2) A councillor must represent the current and future interests of the residents of the local government area.
(3) All councillors have the following responsibilities—
(a) ensuring the local government—(4) The mayor has the following extra responsibilities—
(i) discharges its responsibilities under this Act; and(b) providing high quality leadership to the local government and the community;
(ii) achieves its corporate and community plans; and
(iii) complies with all laws that apply to local governments;
(c) participating in council meetings, policy development, and decision making, for the benefit of the local government area;
(d) being accountable to the community for the local government’s performance.
(a) leading and managing meetings of the local government at which the mayor is the chairperson, including managing the conduct of the participants at the meetings;(5) A councillor who is not the mayor may perform the mayor’s extra responsibilities only if the mayor delegates the responsibility to the councillor.
(b) proposing the adoption of the local government’s budget;
(c) liaising with the chief executive officer on behalf of the other councillors;
(d) leading, managing, and providing strategic direction to, the chief executive officer in order to achieve the high quality administration of the local government;
(e) directing the chief executive officer, in accordance with the local government’s policies;
(f) conducting a performance appraisal of the chief executive officer, at least annually, in the way that is decided by the local government (including as a member of a committee, for example);
(g) ensuring that the local government promptly provides the Minister with the information about the local government area, or the local government, that is requested by the Minister;
(h) being a member of each standing committee of the local government;
(i) representing the local government at ceremonial or civic functions.
(6) When performing a responsibility, a councillor must serve the overall public interest of the whole local government area.
At subsection (4)(a)—leading and managing meetings of the local government at which the mayor is the chairperson, including managing the conduct of the participants at the meetings;—the mayor is the chairperson only of the Ordinary Meeting in our council.
At subsection (4)(b)—proposing the adoption of the local government’s budget;—this was included in the 2009 update of the act partly because some councillors wanted to blame budget errors or irrationality on the person who proposed the budget for the current year. This makes it obvious to councillors that proposing the budget is a procedural matter that the mayor has no choice about.
At subsection (4)(h)—being a member of each standing committee of the local government;—the statement was included because in some administrations the mayor had been omitted from the membership-list of all committees and was excluded from the committee meetings. This was considered undesirable by many and I believe that our council made representations to the State government to that effect.
At subsection (4)(i)—representing the local government at ceremonial or civic functions.—you can find the major reason that a mayor cannot attend every committee meeting. In a city the size of Logan the calls on a mayor for ceremonial and civic functions is a major call, and not just during office hours either.
Finally, and an unstated duty, is the way that a mayor represents the local government at external standing committees that manage the business of such groups as the SEQ Council of Mayors (CoM) where the regional conduct of government is decided. I know that, in the past, I have written about the way such business is conducted in closed session, but they are necessary vehicles for the conduct of coordinated action as may be needed. There are other such coordinating committees, some, like the flood committees, are created as needed and often take up much time for those mayors who are lucky enough to not be fully engaged with the emergency.
Finally, I want to say that I have seen our mayor at many committee meetings where she has spent less than the minimum time, in the rules, to be considered to be at the meeting. But it was an important part of that meeting she attended. I have seen her staff come to a committee meeting, that she is attending, and call her back to whatever it is that she is needed to attend to. I can tell you that I have been on the end of her big stick a couple of times and that I'm not writing this because she is a favourite of mine, but I do believe that she represents the city to the best of her ability and her non-attendance at committee meetings is not an issue of dereliction of duty.
22 comments:
Hi anonymous of about 10 pm, I particularly avoided making any direct references about the writer. I will not publish a directly abusive comment from you either.
Yep, if that doesn't make it clear enough then I don't know what would. From the above it's clear that the Mayor has other duties that keep her from meetings other than those she is required to attend.
I think that those particularly poor attending councillors who have been noticable by their absence at meetings and whose figures stated in the print media show irrifutably that they are not worth a pinch of what falls from a dogs arse as representatives to us, like to peddle the attendance of the Mayor to somehow make hemselves appear less of a burdon on the ratepayers, of course it's an epic fail, but they seem to think no one will notice they are required to be at those meetngs and the Mayor isn't.
Like the current Mayor or not, it's going to be the same moving forward, because thats the way the local government act dictates it to be.
However, our councillors can and should do better, take the bottom couple for instance, we could vote in a monkey and get better representation than that, even when they are there they are not a part of a team working for you and I they are busy with devisive international propaganda issues or electioneering, or simply playing on electronic devices, all published in the media for all to see.
When you vote at the next election in March, it's not a popularity contest, or at least it shouldn't be, vote for someone who has the local area in mind and someone who's not going to be spending their time in court after court or campaigning for other levels of government or for other candidates for that matter, vote for someone who will do the job you are forced to pay them for.
Being away on holiday I have yet to read the paper. However if the letter written was from a member of the public then I hope Lin's response is read by this person as it is very informative. If however the letter to the editor was written by someone who should know better, and I assume that is the case, it would be nothing more than a cheap attempt at self promotion.
Would be nice if our illustrious mayor made public statements about the crime and social issues which appear to be flourishing in the Central part of the region and spreading like a disease to the rural areas.
Instead she is nowhere to be seen or heard unless it is pushing the "heart of SE Qld" on Ipswich's radio station.
Having lived in both Brisbane and Ipswich prior to recieving Beattie's curse, I can assure you that mayors in authorities were proactive regarding public safety and protection of lifestyle rather than the denial method preferred by Major Pam and the dozen wasters.
Wow Guys, Go the comments. The Mayor will be re-elcted unopposed and 4, 7, and 11 will have new reporesentatives . First reason is any new candidate should be able to attend meeting on a more regular basis than these current three. Whether it was preoccupied , sick , Campaigning or any other Bloody cheap reason their attendance records are pathetic. Hopefully the new Candidates they are supporting will have better respect for their positions than their Coaches have had in their time .These are after all FULLTIME POSITIONS.
Welcome back Vince your comments are always well presented and absolutely on the money.Its is time for some real representation in our rural areas and the three we have at the moment have let us down quite considerably. I hope yhe voters will finally see through the charades and give the current reps the flick for all our sakes.
17:24 u seem so certain that change is on its way in 4, 7 & 11, come March. Care to name you choice for replacements?
Div. 11 Cr. Black should only receive 60% of her wage, as she has been missing in action for most of the year and her poor attendance record.Unless your a rich Liberal, she don't help you and don't return phone calls or emails ?? Too busy playing politics and trying to get her nose in the govt. trough .We in Div.11 want a election NOW!
Sound familiar ?
Lord Barry, you are a generous man.60% retainer !!!!
Is there a real estate agent or used car salesman on this sort of deal anywhere ?
Anon 03/01 Absolutely - 4-Rose by a nose , 7- Mitrow just survives a deadheat and 11- Fronis in a photo .
Why do you think i got the F out of Logan, because the politics
of the place are one big merry
go round. Even though Lin's article is just a rehash of everything said around amalgamation time it
is all very true.
The only way Logan is going to clean up its act is to have a totally new group of representatives. As for has beens from BSC that would only continue the bad representation from the past.
One person mentioned Fronis -wouldn't he have a huge conflict of interest given the groups he is so heavily into? How would he be able to be fair towards other groups? Personally I think he should just stay on as the President of Caddies.
Anon 08/01 If that is a barrier for Fronis than Sandman in Div 7with his current employment would have to sit out of every Development meeting !!
I may be mistaken but I believe the Logan Council of the past no longer exists. I really don't think the Councillors or the Mayor have much control. The Council is a business now and the bottom line is profit. They don't care about how many people in the community are struggling to pay the high rates they charge. It's all about profit. That is why most home owners are selling out to investors (who can claim rates as a tax deduction) and moving to a different Council area or different State. Logan is rental City.
Annon 05/01/2012 20:00, Funny you should mention the Div 4 contest as a Rose victory.
I have noticed S. Black attacking him in is usual enthusiastic manner, via Facebook. He too might be very worried that he will be unemployed come March.
Anon 08/01/2012 12:23
Perhaps the conflict etc could be avoided by electing a candidiate who does nothing for any community group and thus has no potential bias.
Despite the big noting via Facebook of one Div 11 candidate, it would appear that the incumbent will not be the only choice with a track record which amounts to little more than hot air and a less than convincing cheer squad.
Hi Lin, being very disgruntled by our current council members (they have left me feeling Warrik Caper may be a stable option) any chance of an updated list of who is running in all divisions for the next election...I would like the chance to make an educated decision when the time comes.
Extra-ordinary day at Beenliegh Court today Re Hajnal Black criminal charges laid from Logan City Council ... Next date February 15. No charges from the Labor party, nothing to do with the UDLA as stated by Sean, this case is all about not disclosing as required by legislation, that gift money was not disclosed. $2.25 million. Easy to forget eh.
Anonymous of 19:14, your misspelling of a word has made a nonsense of much of your comment. It is also addressed to an individual that you can't be sure was an author of any other comment. Lastly it contains an allegation, about a person, that you would find, and you have contended was, libellous if said about you.
Anon 7:10 I do agree that LCC is more like a business. They are a corporate body, which makes one wonder how a corporate body can be included in the Australian Constitution?????
And as they operate more and more like a business one has to question the validity of elected members. Why should the ratepayers keep paying huge salaries for ineffective representation?
Wish they would be declared either or and not allowed to jump from corporate body to local gov and back. They have to be one or the other.
Hi Anonymous of 13:13, you've hit the nail on the head but, by accident, missed the wood!
Local Government in Australia is not recognised in the Constitution and there is work going on, currently, to change that, which may have misled you in your assertion.
Local bodies have been driven by State governments to become quasi-businesses. They are bodies that can do most things registered companies can do, with a number of financial, particularly, restrictions. But you also need to recognise that such companies, of substance, have governing boards who work with the CEO to set policies and exceptions to them. And that is what councillors are supposed to be doing, not providing slush-fund monies to favourites to get elected next time—but the State law allows that too!
Queensland local government laws are not know as gems of brilliance and a standard that any might want to follow. That, and the non-recognition by the overarching constitution, are the major stumbling-blocks for good and decent people in Queensland. We could do better, but not by slagging off those who would try to do better, or at least those who are trying to identify the real issues.
Thanks for your post.
I believe that a referendum will held regarding the inclusion of local gov into the Australian Constitution.
Not so long ago I participated in the survey and asked the exact same question as Anon 13:13.
I believe that the time has come for revamping the whole governing system in Australia. We are over governed and really have very little say in the way we are governed. Like many other people I feel democracy in this country is teetering on oblivion.
My preference would be to take councils back to being municipalities. Can't remember having so much discontent as we have now. Seems our roads were in better condition, our rates affordable and municipality was not a dirty word.
Last time I checked Qld was the only state that paid for full time crs - yet we do not get the same service standards as other states.
P.S. I am so over Politicians claiming that their constituents 'want' the very things that make our lives more difficult. A handful of people do not represent the country, state or local area.
Post a Comment