The City of Perth and Ms Scaffidi aside, Local Government Elections are rarely expected to be particularly interesting but there are always assumptions of wheeling and dealing to be supposed when it comes to Mayoral votes and appointments to Committees etc.
This is hardly news of course, however the City of Stirling raises the stakes somewhat with, as usual, as little exposure and publicity as possible.
3,755 Electors and ratepayers of the Doubleview ward voted to re-elect Councillor Re in October, this despite a highly negative campaign by another candidate riding on the threadbare coattails of a previous Council resolution that censured, and imposed conditions on Councillor Re.
In that display of `behind-closed-doors` democracy, Councillors were `advised` or is that `re-educated`? in advance and at the meeting itself by the City’s lawyers (yes you paid for this) that they may be personally liable should any bullying behaviour by Councillor Re result in attacks of the vapours or the rather obvious (to nobody) catastrophic consequences of `receiving too many emails`.
The Worksafe notices that were the subject of that meeting are of course served on the the City via the CEO , not Councillors, Councillors have protection from such liability built into the Local Government Act presuming that they are acting in good faith. As it happens only the now deposed Terry Tyzack acted in good faith at that meeting by simply not turning up for it, with we assume, foreknowledge of such shenanigans.
The conditions set at that meeting limit Councillor Re’s role as a Councillor, conditions that mean that Councillor Re can not fully undertake the roles and responsibilities that are expected of Councillors under the intent of the local Government Act.
This censure can only have been prejudicial in the then upcoming local elections, prejudice lapped up by other candidates, one telling electors that Councillor Re would not be allowed to run due to this motion, another dragging up media reports of the original motion whilst deleting facebook posts pointing to the State Administrative Tribunal exoneration.
Interestingly the latest WorkSafe improvement Notices served on the City (yes it’s a regular occurrence) include concerns of ‘targeted attempts to defame elected officials’.
To the point, this year there was probably less skulduggery than usual in handing out prizes, sorry committee appointments, given that Mayor Irwin , who was not even in the pack, still managed to race from the back in an appointment that upset many a gentleman’s agreement.
However, at the last Council meeting, after another bit of `behind-closed-doors` democracy , Councillor Re was given only the bare minimum of appointments required under the Act, and, barred from any external appointments for fear that she may savage persons unknown in exactly the type of bullying attack she was comprehensively exonerated of by the State Administrative Tribunal earlier this year.
if you are troubled that a Councillor you voted, or even not voted for, is censured and unable to properly conduct their duties by order of the CEO and Governance of the City of Stirling, remembering that she is there to advocate for your interests,and;
if you are on of the 3,755 voters in Doubleview who thought that you were taking part in the democratic process by casting your vote for your prefered representative and advocate, sorry you were wrong, democracy does not work that way in the City of Stirling.
You are so right Simon.