Belmont Resident and Ratepayer Action Group Inc.

19/08/2026

Council to vote next Tuesday on LESS TRANSPARENCY and LESS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Cr Chris Kulczycki' has moved a councillor motion to :
Key Issue:
The trial proposes that Agenda Briefing Forums would not be held during the trial period, and Public Statement Time would be introduced at Ordinary Council Meetings.

We are not at all happy about this and nor should any Belmont resident be happy about it as one day there may be something on the agenda you want to address with council. Many residents have done this in the past. They may have done a submission or better still a Deputation which gives councillors the opportunity to ask you questions on what you have said.

If this motion gets up this will STOP. They are instead going to add a Public Statement Time at an Ordingary Council Meeting. The catch unlike other councils where it can be on any topic it has to be on an agenda item. No questions will be allowed from the councillors. If there is more than ten people at the meeting with only a 30 minute time frame and no extensions some will miss out.

To top it off with the cancellation of Agenda Briefing there will be no transparency. The meetings are now public. Instead they will have an Information Forum. Closed to the public and it will give councillors more freedom to express opinions. What do the people we vote in want to hide from the public?????? Why not be transparent with their questions and let those that attend assess them and understand where they might be coming from???

Councillors get far more benefits than they once did and the Tribunal sees they get a decent pay for what they do. They have less work nowadays since planning which was once a major part of their workload is mostly with the State and the residents are getting listened to less and less.

If this motion gets through there will be less transparency with the loss of the ABF and less opportunity for residents to be heard by our council.

It is time residents sent a clear message to the councillors. It may be you that gets affected at some stage. We need to get rid of councillors who are not supporting the community and that should be a community consideration when we advise the outcome and which councillors vote for this. Both the position of Mayor and several councillors are up next year.

We have attached the deputation presented so we are transparent with residents which is something we have strongly stood by. It provides more details including what we think are ridiculous reasons for it and our response to them.

We urge residents to contact the councillors as this is the only way we might be in with a chance to stop this. Yet another level of government who is trying to give us less rights to opinion and speech and hide what goes on from the people who elect them

Here is their contact numbers:
Mayor Rossi 0408 693 584
Cr Sessions 0403 907 856
Cr Kulczycki 0404 767 583
Cr Sekulla 0431 963 660
Cr Harris 0478 256 196
Cr Marks 0417 998 229
Cr Ryan 0418 941 328
Cr Davis 0413 579 390
Cr Abedin 0423 789 551.

29/05/2026

This is why Belmont residents are not happy about the cameras for the livestreaming. The photo with the motion up is what you witness the entire time that councillors are debating. The other picture shows a resident asking questions. As you can see the residents are far more visible than any councillor (with perhaps the exception of the Mayor) at any time during the meeting.

Regulation 14 I 2(b) if, or to the extent that, the recording is a video
recording (with audio) — the quality of the recording must be sufficient to allow persons effectively to watch and listen to the deliberations and communications that are part of the meeting’s proceedings; and

Wonder if others think they are able to watch the proceedings as most of our residents say they cant identify the councillors and which one is speaking.

27/05/2026

COUNCIL VOTES to keep residents on camera during Public Question Time and they voted against livestreaming Agenda Briefing Forums.

Cr Jarod Harris moved a motion to have residents being removed from being "on camera". Voices during Public Question Time would remain. He also moved a motion to have the Agenda Briefing Forums livestreamed.

When listening to this video you will see they broke Cr Harris's motion into two parts and two separate votes. The first on the Agenda Briefing and the second on the removal of the camera on residents during Public Question Time.

Some of what came out was an eye opener. In respect of the agenda briefing forums we now know Cr Chris Kulczycki - City of Belmont - West Ward would like to have the public removed from attending these forums and them be only for councillors. Transparency right there!!!!

Cr George Sekulla and his three questions were astounding. You would have thought he should have known after eight years on council if an agenda briefing forum has a decision making function at all and what the legislation states about livestreaming an ABF. These questions have previously been asked and answered at ABF and council meetings before. Asking the number of residents who listen to the livestream versus the population of Belmont was interesting. You can see those figures of number of views on You Tube and meetings generally get on average 150 views. Apart from these questions he had no further comment.

As for Mayor Rossi and his comments residents have been refused on many occasions the opportunity to do deputations and submissions at an ABF by the Mayor. He refuses them on the basis that the person asking to do one is not "directly affected" which is not defined in the Standing Orders. He has the ultimate control of who can and cant speak on items on the agenda. Residents would probably be shocked to see how this goes down at an ABF and to see the manner in which it is often done.

Voting- Cr Jarod Harris, Cr Deb Sessions - Deputy Mayor, City of Belmontand Councillor Khandoker Abedin Belmont South Ward were in favour of livestreaming the Agenda Briefing Forum and the rest of the councillors voted against it.

Second Motion was the removal of residents from being "on camera" during Public Question Time."

Cr Harris was quite correct in all of his statements. It is not a requirement that video of residents asking questions must be recorded only the voices. A handout by the President of BRRAG was given during Public Question Time that provided the requirements for livestreaming from the Department.

"In the case of video broadcasts and recordings, members of the public do not need to be visible but do need to be heard if they are participating in the meeting (for example public question time)

:
Cr Deb Sessions - Deputy Mayor, City of Belmont comments about the numbers of people asking questions as a result of the camera has not been well researched. The facts are prior to the camera being installed in Feb 2024, for the 11 meetings in 2023 there were 114 residents who asked questions. For the last 11 meetings from May 2025- April 2026 there were 73 people who asked questions. Neither group had quest ions on planning matters. Phone, email and other methods of correspondence do not result in the questions being recorded and minuted. Evident last night when a resident in desperation after speaking to council on a matter for a significant period, decided he had to come to the meeting so questions were on public record.

Cr Chris Kulczycki - City of Belmont - West Ward had similar sentiments to Cr Sessions and we have provided the numbers from the minutes on attendance asking questions which has gone down from 114 to 73. It was astounding that as a councillor who would be fair to say is a numbers man provided the statistics of residents in Belmont versus the 9 people who have contacted him about the livestream. Why is he comparing the entire population of Belmont when only about 150 on average according to You Tube figures watch the livestream either on the night or later. The rest of those 46 890 Cr either do not know we livestream or are not interested. You should compare it to the numbers who watch, participate or are interested with those 9 people.

The vote was supported by Cr Harris and Councillor Khandoker Abedin Belmont South Ward and the rest voted to have the public front and centre.

After those two individual votes they went back to the original Officer Recommendation which did not include Agenda Briefing or the removal of residents on camera.

This vote was two against being Cr Harris and Councillor Khandoker Abedin Belmont South Ward and the rest voted for it.

We would like to that Cr Harris who put in a significant amount of work and research on thee two motions he put forward. Thanks also to Councillor Khandoker Abedin Belmont South Ward for voting to support the residents. It is great to see our two newest councillors listening to the residents and standing up for them. Wonder if at the next election we would be best to get more new councillors rather than those that have been around a while?

20/05/2026

Livestreaming Update

Earlier this year council took their first look at updating their livestreaming policy. The Administration who drafted the policy put before council wording which in effect allowed the administration to remove parts of the livestream and have no council oversight.

Thanks to the fantastic effort from the residents who contacted their councillors a backflip has been done on the draft policy at last nights agenda briefing forum and now has the wording “b) Provide an unedited broadcast of the council meeting proceedings, including the discussion and decision-making process.” If the council vote in favour of the changes it is because there was a lot of community input to councillors and they listened.

Now there is another issue on this policy that needs the community to have their say. so a change will be considered for next Tuesdays meeting.

Since the implementation of livestreaming in February 2024 which we support, the policy written by the Administration and NOT challenged by the councillors puts the residents (who are not public figures) who ask questions of council more prominent in the livestream than any councillor with the exception of the Mayor.

To top it off the Mayor reads out ta statement prior to each ordinary council meeting which in part states:
“If you do not consent to your voice and image being recorded and livestreamed to the public you will need to leave the meeting. By staying at this meeting you consent to your voice and image being livestreamed and recorded.”

Given the Mayor controls the meeting, some of us find this offensive as he is in a position of power during the meeting and what he says goes whether or not we either like it or agree with him.

After asking at least three times to be provided with the section of the Act or Regulations which requires residents asking questions to be “on camera” (voices must be heard) with a response each time “because it is livestteamed” (which incidently does not answer the question) we cant find anything that states this is the case.

What we can provide is a copy of an interview on 6 PR between Gareth Parker and Minister John Carey who was the person responsible for getting the livestreaming changes to the Act implemented in the first place. Although this discussion took place some time back when the legislation was in the process of being drafted, He stated, “If there are concerns about the privacy of individual residents for example some councils do not show residents speaking to the chamber so that gives some privacy.”

Minister Carey's comments start at 4.00 although the entire audio clearly shows the trouble we have had with livestreaming in the past and worth a listen.

https://www.mixcloud.com/BelmontResidentandRatepayer/livestream-6pr/

Since the implementation of the livestreaming the numbers of residents asking questions and dropped significantly. Some residents have asked us to ask questions for them as they dont want to be “on camera.” Some wont even sit in the public gallery. Some residents would have genuine reasons such as being in domestic violence situations, English as a second language, a job that requires them to have a low profile or maybe they are too nervous of public speaking.

There could be a couple of options available to help residents return to participation at meetings:
1. The first is turn the video (not audio) off completely.
2. Give residents a choice as to whether they want to camera on or off
3. Film from behind so residents dont have their face on the camera being more prominent than any of the councillors around the chamber.

We are asking residents to contact the councillors and get some support for the potential options we have suggested. We need people coming to meetings asking questions as this is the best way to keep things transparent as it is recorded. It also helps to hold the council accountable.

We do wonder if having such a prominent camera turned on residents who want to be involved, has achieved the intended outcome. Less people getting involved. The Minister certainly seemed happy for residents to have some privacy. Lets see if our councillors agree they would like to see more public particpation. With the support of residents we might get them on board.

Here is their contact numbers:
Mayor Rossi 0408 693 584
Cr Sessions 0403 907 856
Cr Kulczycki 0404 767 583
Cr Sekulla 0431 963 660
Cr Harris 0478 256 196
Cr Marks 0417 998 229
Cr Ryan 0418 941 328
Cr Davis 0413 579 390
Cr Abedin 0423 789 551

Listen to Livestream 6pr by BelmontResidentandRatepayer

25/03/2026

LIVESTREAMING Update

Thanks to all those people that contacted their councillors over the livestreaming. As per our previous post the council will have to vote as to whether or not it should be left to the CEO to edit the livestream as he sees fit. Here is the previous post for those that missed it. https://www.facebook.com/residentandratepayer/posts/pfbid02d5mTGJEBvZrddfQ2sbLXk2ZvCLwuCJ4XRdRckLJhpZUhv1Vyoj2obUqAWGu2yHDDl

At the meeting last night all of the policies that were being reviewed are going back to information forum for further discussion. They will be next on the agenda in May and as such will will keep you posted on this.

The BRRAG President asked the following question of the Mayor last night in regards to this and he directed the question to the CEO as he didnt have the information at hand.

Question- As the Mayor can currently in conjunction with the CEO may mute or exclude any part of a meeting considered in appropriate I would like the Mayor to tell me which section of the Act or regulations allows for the livestream to be muted or excluded if considered inappropriate?5

We believe the response did not answer the question as he referred to the Local Government Act 1995 and items that are confidential. The wording of the current policy is far broader than that as the policy does not say confidential items. The policy clearly states "it can be muted or excluded if considered appropriate?

Perhaps we will try again next month. It is frustrating when in our opinion your questions are not answered. It is for this reason when they are not we attend the following meeting repeat the question and the response we were given and we try again.

Trying to get the administration to provide the specific sections of the Act they rely on for different things is like pulling teeth. As far as we are concerned telling us" they are following the Act "is a nothing. If they are following the Act, the governance department should clearly be able to tell us (even if On Notice) what the relevant section is if they are following it.

If you watch the council meeting LIVESTREAM in future you may be seeing a version with edits done by the Administration.

As it stands right now, if any part of the livestream has to be removed there is oversight by our councillors. The CEO must report it to them and the decision is with them as to whether it is put back on or remains off.

It seems there is a chance once again if the councillors support this proposed change (which incidently has been written by the Administration) and dont take a stand that the Administration will be running this and deciding for us what we can and cant see.

What do we pay our councillors for??? They are suppose to oversee what the Administration is doing but more and more is being done by the Administration.

Our councillors CAN take a stand on this. They can say NO to the change and be the ones that make the decision if something needs removing. It should NOT be the Administration.

We are calling on residents who want our councillors to be in charge of this to contact them and tell them it should be their job and that is why we have them. They are voting to have more and more things delegated to the Administration and their fees and benefits go up.

If you agree with us, we urge you to contact the councillors as in the past people power has achieved and put a stop to bad decisions.

Here is their contact numbers:
Mayor Rossi 0408 693 584
Cr Sessions 0403 907 856
Cr Kulczycki 0404 767 583
Cr Sekulla 0431 963 660
Cr Harris 0478 256 196
Cr Marks 0417 998 229
Cr Ryan 0418 941 328
Cr Davis 0413 579 390
Cr Abedin 0423 789 551

18/03/2026

If you watch the council meeting LIVESTREAM in future you may be seeing a version with edits done by the Administration.

As it stands right now, if any part of the livestream has to be removed there is oversight by our councillors. The CEO must report it to them and the decision is with them as to whether it is put back on or remains off.

It seems there is a chance once again if the councillors support this proposed change (which incidently has been written by the Administration) and dont take a stand that the Administration will be running this and deciding for us what we can and cant see.

What do we pay our councillors for??? They are suppose to oversee what the Administration is doing but more and more is being done by the Administration.

Our councillors CAN take a stand on this. They can say NO to the change and be the ones that make the decision if something needs removing. It should NOT be the Administration.

We are calling on residents who want our councillors to be in charge of this to contact them and tell them it should be their job and that is why we have them. They are voting to have more and more things delegated to the Administration and their fees and benefits go up.

If you agree with us, we urge you to contact the councillors as in the past people power has achieved and put a stop to bad decisions.

Here is their contact numbers:
Mayor Rossi 0408 693 584
Cr Sessions 0403 907 856
Cr Kulczycki 0404 767 583
Cr Sekulla 0431 963 660
Cr Harris 0478 256 196
Cr Marks 0417 998 229
Cr Ryan 0418 941 328
Cr Davis 0413 579 390
Cr Abedin 0423 789 551

16/12/2025

Last night was the Annual Electors Meeting. We had asked the Mayor if he would consider cancelling it in view of what occurred in Bondi. The meeting went ahead.

Six councilors being Crs Ryan, Marks, Abedin, Davis, Sekulla and Kulczycki did not attend. Cr Sessions was there on teams but we could not see her so we dont know if she was in attendance for the entire meeting.

Only ten or eleven residents were in attendance feedback from out members was they did not think it was appropriate to go given the circumstances. The President and three others attended so they could ask questions on the annual report.

We think the Annual Electors Meeting is a complete waste of time. It is th yearly opportunity for residents to move motions and vote on them. At the next Ordinary Council Meeting, our councillors have the opportunity to consider motions moved by residents.

Over the last ten or so AEM or Special Elector Meetings we think only one motion has ever been adopted, They normally just sent the Annual Electors Meeting item at the OCM straight through without discussion and as if they have no interest in the thoughts of residents.

This in our opinion is disrespectful and at least they could go through the motions and explain why they do not support them. Something at least to show us they are interested in us.

On this basis BRRAG moved no motions (as a lot of effort and research goes into them) and we did not stay at the meeting due to the lack of interest shown previously by councillors in the motions residents have raised over the years. We got up and walked out.

With the lack of councillor attendance I guess it shows the level of interest in the once a year meeting of electors,

Send a message to learn more

01/12/2025

Last Tuesdays council meeting in our opinion was a debarcle.

As advised previously the council chopped out of the livestream one of the questions asked by the BRRAG President regarding the seniors bus contract.

Given the senior citizens were never told the contract was confidential, there was no confidentialiyy clause and there was a meeting on the bus in the full knowledge of one of the Directors, we dont accept they should have chopped the video on the basis of confidentiality. Having read the contract you can understand why they would not be happy with the public knowing how this contract was so unfair to our seniors.

When it came to accepting the minutes, Cr Jaord Harris asked some very good questions about the editing of the video. They were considered and measured so he was able to make an informed decision as to whether or not he felt he should pass them.

He then moved a motion which would have required the council to decide as to whether or not to put the edit back or leave it off. His motion was in accordance with the livestreaming policy. They shut the meeting down for legal advice on his motion, then when the meeting reopened there is no further mention of the motion. They went to the vote and Cr Harris was the ONLY councillor who was not prepared to accept these minutes.

It is extremely disappointing that there was no other councillor who was prepared to support Cr Harris. He showed great leadership, asked the necessary questions that he felt needed answering so he could carefully consider whether he could accept them. Where is the leadership from our council?

We commend Cr Harris for doing the right thing. We have never seen a councillor take such a stand before. As this is a first to our knowledge, we would hope there would be no ramifications for him because we believe he did the job he should do as a councillor. Its unfortunate they no one else backed him. He stood for good governance and transparency something all residents should appreciate.

We have written to Jarod and here is our letter.

27/11/2025

We have written to the council asking them to re consider a fair bus contract for the seniors. We provided them a copy of the contract and highlighted the things that were unfair.

We have had a response from the CEO who is not the council and we have respectfully requested that in future when we write to council we would like to be responded to by the Mayor who is the spokesperson for the councillors. The CEO was not included in the email and we think it is time our councillors who are paid to represent us do just that.

This issue of the bus contract is not going to go away.

20/11/2025

The following article was in Perth Now recently:
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/politics/local-government/now-the-community-is-being-censored-city-of-belmont-edits-meeting-and-minutes-leaving-resident-furious-c-20607715

We would like to provide some facts as a result of some of the comments that the City has made.

1; The seniors called a meeting about the bus which was advertised on their notice board for a month prior to the meeting, One of the Directors was personally invited to the meeting and he did not advise that the contract was confidential and the meeting should not proceeded.

2. The City were well aware that the President of BRRAG made no claim at the meeting she was authorised to speak on behalf of the seniors, It was made very clear to all at the meeting (which everyone else is not allowed to see) that the BRRAG president was a member of the club and at the meeting. Further to that the seniors do not censor their members for asking questions during public question time at a council meeting. For an investment of $75 000 they have every right to ask.

3. There is no confidentiality clause in the contract If this is so important to the City, who is responsible for the omission of the clause? Therefore both parties had not agreed to confidentiality in the first place so there is no need for both parties to agree it is no longer confidential.

4. The seniors are happy to have a bus BUT they are not happy with the agreement they believe they were forced to sign or potentially have no bus. There are two different issues here and at the club meeting members were shouting angry comments over this bus, They were not at al happy with the terms of the agreement.

With respect to the statement as follows attributed to Stuart Downing "BRRAG was told in an email from Stuart Downing, the city’s director of corporate and governance, that editing out the question was “legally permissible and entirely a responsible decision and appropriate in the circumstances with both parties had not waived confidentiality”. - See point 3 above. If there is no confidentiality clause both parties had not agreed on having one so there is no need for both parties to agree for it to be waived.

In respect of CEO John Christie, he claims that unde Section 5.23 of the Local Government Act, the City is permitted to withhold information that falls in this section. Please see this section
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/lga1995182/s5.23.html At the time the meeting was not closed it was during Public Question Time,

He also claims: "“In relation to the live stream, the section of the city’s live-stream policy that allows elected members to revoke changes does not apply in this instance and the Local Government Act 1995 takes precedence." - As per the Act the meeting was not closed at the time and he is seeking to rely on confidentiality no one else knew about.

Mr Christie claims the City;s livestreaming policy is consistent with the requirements under the Act. Seems he wont be following the policy because he doesnt think the policy applieshttps://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/docs/ecm/cp62-livestreaming-policy.pdf We refer you to the last paragraph which outlines the process.

Mr Christie said the city was committed to the principles of openness and transparency. - The community can decide how transparent they think you are.

We will be following this up with the relevant agencies including the Department who commented. Wonder if they know all the facts as to whether or not this was confidential.

We will also be following up the bus contract for our seniors. It is a disgrace in our opinion.

Residents can draw their own conclusions on all of this. It does pose the question though- How much other stuff has been removed we dont know about?

Send a message to learn more