10/09/2025
GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
At Wednesdays workshop, Council discussed the Governance Review Project which will see the NEW Council consider the recent trial. I presented the following paper which sets out my view and reflects a lot of public opinion that I have been hearing. Sorry its a long post, but it's important to share.
Position on Meeting Cadence Review (Governance Strengthening Project)
1. Origin of the Review
• The January 2025 record states that staff undertook a review of meeting cadence as part of a continuous-improvement initiative.
• The current draft reframes this as being requested by the CE and Mayor, in consultation with Elected Members.
• That re-framing is factually incorrect. At the time, there was no council discussion initiating the review. The authority came from staff, not elected members.
• Correction requested: the record should state:
“In December 2024, as part of a continuous-improvement initiative, staff undertook and workshopped a review of the meeting cadence for Council and Committee meetings.”
2. December 2024 / January 2025 Direction
• Councillors at the workshop discussed and at the January meeting gave the CE and DCE limited authority to make minor adjustments to meeting dates in consultation with Committee Chairs.
• A trial was to occur, with a review in June. That review did not take place despite reminders.
• Importantly, the December workshop foreshadowed staff-originated changes, and the “new” meeting dates were already posted on the Council website two weeks before the meeting formally approved them.
3. Shift in Governance Balance
• The draft review frames meeting cadence as an administrative/managerial matter, embedding staff-defined rhythms.
• This approach reduces elected members’ discretion and risks creating the perception that staff are driving governance rather than facilitating it.
• The tenor is directive (emphasising “best practice” and staff efficiencies) rather than democratic (emphasising transparency and councillor accountability).
4. Loss of Reporting and Councillor Engagement
• The removal of departmental quarterly reports may have saved staff time but eliminated an important opportunity for:
Councillors to ask questions (including ratepayer-prompted questions) in public.
Media and public to see those questions asked and answered.
Information to be available
• As a result, councillors feel less connected to their representative role, and the political dimension of discussion has been diluted.
• Increased reliance on public-excluded workshops which are not meetings compounds this problem.
5. Change from Tuesday to Wednesday Meetings
• Justification given: staff pressure to respond to agenda questions between Thursday agenda release and Tuesday meeting.
• Alternative solution was available: publish agendas one day earlier. This option was not considered.
• Media impact:
Local print media on a Wednesday production cycle were directly disadvantaged.
This impact was not consulted on, despite staff being aware.
If councillors had known, the decision to trial the change may have been different.
One outlet has since closed so even more important
• Media should be treated as stakeholders and partners in council communication, not sidelined or competed with by a Council paid media arm.
6. Transparency and Public Access
• Shifting reports into “On the Radar” (limited-distribution, staff-curated summaries and confidential) has sanitised and reduced public accountability.
• Replacing open-meeting reports with newsletters and press releases means:
Information is selective.
Public access to full uncensored debate is lost.
• This erodes trust and transparency.
7. Impacts on Councillor Commitments
• Wednesday meetings have conflicted with councillor duties at Community Board meetings and other community organisations.
• Again, no consultation was undertaken on these impacts and they are not acknowledged.
8. Overall Assessment
• The current draft report is not a housekeeping update but a re-casting of the governance framework.
• Its emphasis on managerial efficiency downplays:
Democratic accessibility to information.
Accountability through public debate.
The relationship with media.
• The cumulative effect is diminished transparency, councillor disengagement, and increased public mistrust.
9. Recommendations
1. Correct the record of review origin (staff-led, continuous improvement).
2. Reinstate and protect opportunities for councillors to engage with staff and question reports in public.
3. Reconsider meeting frequency to ensure councillors remain connected and representative.
4. Reassess the Wednesday move, consulting with media and community boards.
5. Treat media as stakeholders in communications strategy.
6. Restore reporting mechanisms that allow full public scrutiny and accountability.
