Public forum trial a “costly flop”

Community activist Kevin Brooks has labelled the now-cancelled public forum trial by Central Coast Council a “costly flop”.

The three-month trial, which saw the public forum traditionally held immediately prior to each Council general meeting moved to the evening before the meeting, was abandoned by Administrator Rik Hart at the June 27 meeting after just two months.

Brooks was one of eight community activists who put out a joint statement opposing the change in public forum timing when it was first announced.

“Mr Hart did not mention at the meeting that the trial was an expensive flop with each of the first two meetings convened to hear just one five-minute speech respectively,” he said.

“How much did this cost given the whole executive attended plus staff (many on overtime) and the building kept open?

“This trial, designed to undermine the effectiveness of the public forum by separating it from the Council meeting, has been a costly flop.

“We don’t know precisely how much the trial cost because the Administrator announced it without the usual accompanying report setting out financial implications.

“In fact, the change was introduced without any formal resolution or due process at all, and in breach of Council’s own policy.

“The Administrator now needs to be transparent about the cost of this trial and the lawful basis for such expenditure.”

Brooks said with Council still under administration, the public forum had been perhaps the “only authentic part of the Council meeting”.

“It demonstrated the importance of public scrutiny in ensuring that those who govern us are accountable and answerable to the community,” he said.

“If Council executives are unable to respond effectively to forum speakers because they are not across their own reports and briefs, then they need to raise their game.

“That is what public scrutiny is about and why it is important in promoting improved performance and accountability.

“It is disappointing that the Administrator chose instead to undermine the public forum.”

But Administrator Rik Hart said the trial had been implemented to review the current public forum format before the return of councillors next year, and to ensure that Council is operating with the best model for the councillor decision-making process to take place.

“Various measures were implemented during the trial which increased the opportunity for community members to have their say and were trialled in line with Council policies,” he said “These measures included: extended timeframe for registered public forum speakers from three minutes to five minutes; increased maximum number of speaker slots available from six to eight; increased flexibility to discuss Council-related matters not listed on the meeting agenda should time allow; more time for Council staff to consider their feedback and for the governing body to consider such feedback prior to making its decision at the following Council meeting; and increased flexibility with format, as speakers could address the Council in-person or online.” Hart said it was important to note that the public forum is not part of the Council meeting.

“This is a deliberate decision by the Office of Local Government (OLG) under their model Code of Conduct to separate the two functions (public forum and Council meeting) as they have different purposes,” he said.

“The public forum is about hearing community’s views, while Council meetings are about making governance decisions.

“The public forum is designed to enable the governing body to hear the views of members of the community – not for Council staff to respond to their portfolios.

“Public forums at Central Coast Council have, in the past, been operating outside the bounds of their purpose, and even mimicked Question Time in Parliament.

“This format is not the intended purpose for a public forum in local government, nor does it display good governance.

“The trial change would allow the governing body to hear the comments of speakers, then have 24 hours to seek further information as required prior to the Council meeting, to ensure they can make best decision for the whole community.”

Hart said claims that the trial was expensive are unfounded.

“If cost was the defining factor for decision-making, public forums and Council meetings would be held during business hours,” he said. “Instead, they are held out of business hours to increase community access and participation.

“I have strongly encouraged community participation and feedback from the outset and throughout the trial period.

“Council received early feedback on this trial change and I considered the opinions and comments made to me directly.

“Despite the intended benefits to the community and Council governance upon the return of councillors next year, the feedback I received informed my decision to cancel the remaining period of the trial.

“I have maintained that this was an opportunity to increase community participation and to ensure that we are well prepared for the return of councillors in just 14 months’ time.

“I also note that the incoming councillors will have the opportunity to review the public forum to determine a format that works best for them.

“However, the views of the community are important to me, which informed my decision to cancel the remainder of the trial at the June 2023 meeting.”

Terry Collins