Governance takes a dive

transparency image

There are a few concerns about I have over the corporate governance and transparency standards at the City of Bayswater. One of the core components of good governance is the proper disclosure of interests.

Disclosure of Interest process

The City of Bayswater seem to have created a new process where Councillors publicly declare any conflicts of interests they may have at an agenda briefing forum rather than the actual council meeting. Due to shortfalls in the Local Government Act, this may be legally acceptable although I would argue that “persons present” include the residents and ratepayers observing the meeting, so believe legally it needs to be disclosed publicly to all “persons present”. Irrespective of the legal position though, from a governance perspective I fail to see how anyone could consider it okay to not publicly disclose conflicts of interest at the council meeting.

disclosure of interest legislation

At the start of the 6 December 2022 council meeting, Mayor Filomena Piffaretti refers to disclosures being made at the agenda briefing and being detailed on the “run sheet” which all Councillors had. It appears the City of Bayswater council believe the residents and ratepayers who turned up to watch the council meeting, or who tuned in to watch the youtube recording, don’t need to be informed about the conflicts of interest.

Underground Power disclosures

The other concern is the balls up over two disclosures to do with the Maylands underground power. Councillors Elli Peteren-Pik and Catherine Ehrhardt both disclosed an interest, although only Cr Petersen-Pik at the start of the meeting – presumably Councillor Ehrhardt disclosed it at a different meeting.  

The disclosures were because they own property within a large area where underground power is being considered. This meets the definition of “proximity interest” which requires Councillors to leave the room, but because the item impacts so many households, council can declare there is an “interest in common”.

It is quite appropriate for this to be declared an “interest in common”. But the balls up is that Cr Ehrhardt actually stayed in the room and voted on the item that her interest be declared an interest in common. You can’t have someone with a conflict voting to say it isn’t a conflict. It shouldn’t have been allowed, and neither should the motion have just stipulated that it was only Cr Ehrhadt as having the interest in common. Regardless of what Cr Petersen-Pik had to say on the matter, he had an interest in common, and the council should have voted for that.

The correct procedure, which the Chair should have known, is that both Councillors declare their proximity interest and leave the room. The Council then decide to declare the item an interest in common and invite the Councillors back. It is then obviously up to the Councillors whether they come back or not, but if they do, they can vote on the item as is they have no interest.     

Recording quality

Lastly, tune in and watch the debacle unfold from the 1.42 hour mark. But you’ll probably struggle to hear what is being said. The audio needs to be improved and some Councillors and executive need to be more conscious of the microphones.  

Step it up Bayswater