The below open letter email was sent to all Merri-bek Councillors on December 30, 2024. It is in regard to citizen petitions and how Councillors and Council initially deal with and respond to petitions as part of Council Governance and listening to the community. It arises from a petition presented at the December 2024 meeting that almost failed to be accepted.
John Englart prefaced his communication to Councillors saying “Since the December Council meeting I have been mulling over the discussion and voting on the Hosken East Petition and Petitions generally. The voting result troubled me. It even entered my dreams. So I have put pen to paper (metaphorically speaking) to articulate what I found troubling. I have also had limited discussions with a couple of you about this issue. I don’t really expect responses, but I would ask you to reflect on what I am putting forward as part of listening to the community and good governance at Council.”
Open Letter
I have been attending Council meetings in the public gallery or online for some 9 years now, in my role as Convenor of Climate Action Merri-bek, and as a citizen that takes an active interest in Council Governance.
The December 2024 Merri-bek Council meeting has been troubling me. Especially on how Councillors voted on one Petition, narrowly voting to accept it.
Considering Petitions generally
Citizens often initiate petitions to Council on a wide range of issues of concern. They are, to the best of my memory, always accepted, usually unanimously, by a vote of Council.
It is my understanding that the vote of Acceptance of a petition leads to various actions:
- concerns are noted in the public record but no action taken.
- Councillors address the concerns through some action.
- Council staff follow up to address the concerns in some way.
But what happens when a petition is rejected on a vote by Council?
I don’t remember any petition not being accepted, being rejected, during my 9 years of observing in the public gallery.
To vote against acceptance of a petition would be Council refusing to accept the concerns are legitimate. It is a rejection of listening to citizens.
The present guidelines for petitions to Merri-bek Council stipulate that it must “Not be derogatory, defamatory or objectional in language or nature”. But if a petition passes this test, should it be rejected?
Is rejecting a petition a legitimate response if it passes Council guidelines? If the petition is personally abusive to Councillors or Council, or to other individuals, is libelous, or expresses outright racist, sexist or misogynist views, then I think there are strong grounds for rejecting the petition. But those reasons are ostensibly covered in the petition guidelines.
But what about if the petition is on an issue that has a long difficult history with the community and with Council? It may be viewed by Councillors and Council staff as vexatious, as raising an issue continually without sufficient grounds. But care should be taken in apportioning motive here. Petitions are just expressions of concern often calling for action, and based on a perception of a problem. Council acceptance does not necessarily commit to Council action on those concerns, just that they have been heard. Councillors do not have to agree or disagree with concerns raised in a petition.
Even a petition that might be considered by some Councillors as vexatious, does not negate it is a valid citizen expression of concern and, I think, should be accepted by Council as noted. Councillors should put aside personal views whether they agree or disagree with the specifics of the petition and accept it in terms of good governance.
Councillors votes or abstentions are important when considering petitions. Eleven Councillors are elected from their single member ward, but they are responsible for collective governance of our municipality. An abstention in a Council vote counts as a negative, no matter the reason Councillors choose to abstain. I think abstaining from a vote on a petition is an abrogation of Councillor collective responsibility.
Specific petition problem
Petitions to Merri-bek Council are usually unanimously accepted as noted. The December meeting treatment of one petition relating to Hosken Reserve proved controversial.
This was a petition containing 28 signatures regarding the east field at Hosken Reserve in Coburg North. It is on a long standing issue about the development and upgrade of Hosken Reserve from late 2020, but with a much longer history going back a decade of lack of consultation and transparency by Council.
The lead petitioner in his statement said he had found samples that appeared to be asbestos and that pieces of glass and rocks also needed to be cleared up from the East field. As asbestos has previously been found in Hosken Reserve, the community concern is legitimate.
On an initial show of hands the motion of acceptance was lost. A division was called and there were 6 votes For, 2 votes against, and 3 abstentions. At the time it was not clear in the public gallery whether the motion of acceptance was passed or failed. This was poor communication from the Mayor.
See below for the item as recorded in Council Minutes.
Was the petition vexatious?
Members of the Pascoe Vale soccer club also signed the petition and want the East Field properly attended to.
Asbestos was previously found as part of the Hosken Reserve upgrade, but the site had been given the all clear by the EPA.
A sample presented to Council meeting as part of the petition presentation was later tested and found to be positive as asbestos. Council staff promptly erected fencing around portions of the East Field to undertake further searches and put down topsoil.
Clearly the citizen’s concerns in the petition were not trivial or vexatious. They should have been accepted at face value at the time of Council’s meeting.
But even if the petition was seen by some Councillors as vexatious, I would argue it should be accepted, as long as it passes the civility test in Council’s guidelines of “Not be derogatory, defamatory or objectional in language or nature”.
Back to the General
It is important to note firstly that petitions are expressions of citizen concern. Unless they breach common civility, they should be accepted by Council. Some may just be noted, some may require Councillor direction for action, and some may require Council staff follow up.
I really found the Councillors who abstained on accepting a petition as extremely disappointing. Either vote to accept or vote against. Abstaining means you are abrogating your decision making responsibility. And your abstention vote is effectively a negative. Perhaps consider giving the benefit of the doubt and vote to accept the petition. It is not about whether you agree with it or not, but about the citizens being listened to and their concerns formally noted by Council.
I am hoping Councillors will discuss the role and purpose of citizen petitions so that the community feels it will be listened to, even on issues with complicated history, and good governance is maintained in Council in addressing issues raised by citizens.
John Englart
Fawkner Resident, Citizen of Merri-bek
Outcome from December Council meeting
This post is about petitions and Council Governance.
The specific instance that the petition was raising was dealt with as an Urgent item of business at the end of the meeting. Council decided upon appropriate action. But if the vote to accept the petition had been lost (and initially on a show of hands it was declared lost) the result could have been different and residents be feeling alienated and unheard.
The minutes of the Council meeting state:
URGENT BUSINESS REPORTS
ADMIT AN ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS
Cr Sue Bolton requested an urgent item of business be admitted to the meeting.
Resolution
Cr Bolton moved, Cr Iwasaki seconded –
That Council admits an item of business that relates to the east field of Hosken
Reserve, noting that the matter has arisen since the distribution of the agenda and
cannot safely or conveniently be deferred to the next Council meeting.
Carried
SAFETY RISKS ON EAST FIELD OF HOSKEN RESERVE, COBURG NORTH
Resolution
Cr Bolton moved, Cr Pulford seconded –
That Council:
- Recognises the risks to the public of glass, rocks and material potentially
containing asbestos continuing to be found on the surface of the Community
Open Space (formerly known as the East Field) at Hosken Reserve, Coburg
North. - Seeks a briefing from officers regarding the plan to reduce risks to the
community and workers from material potentially containing asbestos, rocks
and glass being found on the surface of the Community Open Space at
Hosken Reserve and notify the community about what is found and being
done by contacting the 28 signatories to the petition and place signs in the
park. - Following the implementation of this plan to reduce the safety risks, level,
seed and irrigate the Community Open Space to create a grassy space that is
suitable for informal passive, active and recreational community use.
Carried Unanimously
References:
Proposed Minutes of the Merri-bek Council meeting 11 December 2024 https://merri-bek.vic.gov.au/globalassets/website-merri-bek/areas/my-council/council-and-committee-meetings/council-and-parm-meetings/minutes/2024-minutes/council-minutes-11-december-2024—pdf.pdf
Sustainable Fawkner 