OPINION: Voters may punish ‘missing-in-action’ councilors

SOME months ago I wrote there was a possibility the number of candidates seeking positions as councillors at the November election could match a Melbourne Cup field.

The suggestion was close to the mark with 19 nominating for the eight council positions.

It shows just how much interest there is in civic affairs with candidates coming from a wide cross-section of the community.

It has set the scene for a tight and interesting November election contest but this might go up a notch after last week’s revelation of councillors’ attendance records during the past year.

It highlighted the gap between councillors who have made an effort to attend regular meetings, committee meetings and special workshops and those who have been absent.

The figures are disturbing and what will be interesting is how voters view this and whether it will become an issue when they cast their vote.

While councillors receive $16,000 per year, it is important to recognise people who seek civic service are making a huge commitment because of the hours required to attend various meetings and numerous public functions.

But the fact is, being a councillor comes with demands and requirements – one of them is to attend as many meetings and workshops as possible.

If, for whatever reason, councillors are not prepared to do this or are unable to do this, they should not put their name forward for re-election or election.

Last week it was reported former mayor Cr Steve Perryman attended only 46 of a possible 65 meetings since November 2014.

His attendance at workshops was worse, attending 21 of 99 while Cr Christian Greco attended only 29 during the same period, although he did better in regular meetings attending 56 out of a possible 65.

What might concern some ratepayers was how they defended this attendance record when Cr Perryman was reported saying workshops were “overused and more often than not, the issues raised at workshops could be addressed in a public forum”.

He said he preferred to raise his issues in the chamber.

Similarly, in defending his workshop attendance Cr Greco said workshops could be dominated by a few members and believed discussing items at main meetings was more transparent.

Much of what they claim may be true, but there is another side to this.

Workshops are an important part of the council process to discuss and obtain information for projects in preparation for motions or items to go before full council.

Some workshops involve consultants, Chamber of Commerce, tourism and events personnel whose input is welcomed by councillors who attend to listen to what the outside world has to say.

If councillors do not attend these workshops this advice or information is lost and absentee councillors lose the advantage of hearing views from invited workshop members.

This not only hinders the information-gathering process but also embarrasses council.

It has occurred numerous times when council has invited a group or a consultant to put forward views as a part of fact-finding workshops for a council project.

Sometimes civic and business leaders are invited and CEO Mark McShane and other council staff attend but there have been cases when only three elected members turn up.

It is an embarrassment for council and the city.

While councillors Perryman and Greco might have strong views about attendance at workshops, there are times when they are important and deserve the courtesy of their attendance.

With such a large field from which to choose the next eight councillors, voters might look at the attendance figures as a way of helping decide how they will vote.

Both councillors Perryman and Greco figured highly in the voting figures at the last election and are popular, however, if someone will take on civic leadership they must understand they cannot pick and choose what they want and do not want to attend.

At least councillors Perryman and Greco have put forward reasons for non-attendance and whether that convinces voters is yet to be seen, but there are other councillors whose attendance also does not come close to what ratepayers might expect as reasonable.