Dear Beagle Editor, COUNCIL’S RESPONSE RAISES MORE QUESTIONS!
My letter published in the Bay Post last Friday, regarding council’s alteration of the minutes of its June 13 confidential meeting, elicited the following response from council:
Council has updated the public minutes regarding the General Manager’s annual review and contract renewal to reflect the motions made during the confidential session. It has been longstanding practice in many local councils to have two sets of minutes – public and confidential – and to reflect the generic decisions made in confidential session in the public minutes.
However, following advice from the Office of Local Government, Council resolved on 25 July 2017 (Mayoral Minute 17/233) to make confidential minutes public for this term of council, redacting names and addresses prior to publication.
The minutes referring to the General Manager’s annual review and contract renewal are just one of seven sets of confidential minutes now available on Council’s website following that decision.
There is no breach of procedure.
This response raises more questions and answered none.
Council states, it “has updated the public minutes”?
You can’t update minutes once they are confirmed, as they are legal documents.
It is my understanding, that rectifying previously confirmed/adopted minutes, requires a resolution of council:
* identifying the particular minutes to be amended
* how they are to be amended
* and, perhaps, reasons for the amendment.
This would ensure the legal and historical integrity of these documents as required by legislation.
From council’s response, it appears that they have modified/amended 6 other sets of minutes, without a council resolution identifying these documents or how they were amended.
If they are, “now available on Council’s website,” how do we find them ?
I believe, that by amending these “7 sets of confidential minutes,” without a council resolution identifying ‘what, how and why,’ council has, in effect, concealed their failure to comply with disclosure and procedural legislation.
How could council possibly justify the integrity of these documents if they were required as evidence in a court of law?
I find the administrative decisions and actions of our council most concerning. Patricia Gardiner Deua River Valley
Is it another case of Smoke and Mirrors?