By Raquel Mustillo
RATEPAYERS who have “unreasonable” demands, arguments and behaviours could be restricted from contacting Mount Gambier City Council or be banned from attending public meetings under a proposed Unreasonable Conduct Policy.
Customers who demonstrate “continued, incessant and unrelenting conduct” could be banned from contacting City Council in hopes to combat what staff describe as an unreasonable and disproportionate application of resources towards a single customer or matter.
Staff have recommended the adoption of the policy, which will apply to individuals who council says “bombard our offices with unnecessary and excessive phone calls and emails, make inappropriate demands on our time and our resources and refuse to accept our decisions and recommendations in relation to their matters of concern.”
Five categories of “unreasonable” conduct – persistence, demands, lack of cooperation, arguments and behaviours – are outlined in a staff report to be discussed at Tuesday night’s meeting.
Depending on the nature of the service provided, bans would be reviewed every three months or six months and not more than one year after the service change or restriction was initially imposed or continued.
If supported by a majority of elected members at next week’s meeting, customer concerns could be restricted to a sole staff member, with limits on the subject matter of communications that council will consider and respond to and restricting a customer’s contact with council to a particular time, day or length of time.
Modifying the forms of contact – including limiting face-to-face interviews, telephone and written communications, prohibiting access to council premises and terminating council services entirely – will be applied to individuals who tie up council resources with “an unwillingness of inability to accept reasonable and logical explanations including final decisions that have been comprehensively considered and dealt with”.
Ratepayers who insist on talking to a senior manager, general manager of chief executive officer personally “when it is not appropriate or warranted” face service restrictions and bans under the proposed policy.
Reframing a request in an effort to get it taken up again, correspondence considered “rude, confronting and threatening” and arguments “based on conspiracy theories” could result in service limits or bans.
Individuals who request information council considers trivial when compared to the amount of time, resources and attention that the customer demands could also result in restrictions on the type of communication the complainants has with the council.
The staff report notes a public relations and political risk of being “heavy handed” or “gagging certain customers through their restricted or managed engagement with council” associated with endorsement of the policy.
“The emphasis in this regard should be first on the unreasonable conduct displayed that leads to such management or restriction of access to the services of council,” the report says.
“The resource implications associated with this policy are the more efficient and effective use of council administrative resources, through managing the disproportionate diversion of such resources in dealing with unreasonable conduct.
“The value proposition associated with this policy is the reduced diversion of administrative resources allocated toward dealing with unreasonable conduct.”
In instances where council cannot completely restrict contact with a customer, the policy provides staff with the ability to restrict contact via a support person or representative, who must be approved by a general manager.
Customers will be entitled to one appeal of a decision to change/restrict access to council services, which will be undertaken by a senior staff member who was not involved in the original decision to change or restrict access.
If a customer continued to be dissatisfied after the appeal process, they may seek an external review from an oversight agency such as the Ombudsman.
