Rescission motion coming, unlawful or not

By Tim Howard

A rescission motion viewed as unlawful is still heading toward the business paper for the September Clarence Valley Council meeting, says the councillor behind it.

Deputy Mayor Greg Clancy lodged the motion, to overturn a decision of the February 28 meeting involving the controversial Treelands Drive Community Centre.

Advertisements

He lodged it just before the extraordinary council meeting on August 18 called to note the progress of tender negotiations with companies vying for the Treelands Drive project and another controversial council project, building the Grafton Aquatic Centre.

But in a press release and on local radio station Loving Life FM, the council’s general manager Laura Black claimed the rescission motion was unlawful.

The release said that prior to the council’s extraordinary meeting on August 18 the general manager received  a rescission motion citing the names of five councillors, and the signatures of four.

During the meeting, a motion was moved by Cr Greg Clancy and ruled out of order by Mayor Ian Tiley as it was not a matter that could be considered at the extraordinary meeting.   

The release then said subsequently, the rescission motion has been ruled unlawful. Unless it is withdrawn, its exclusion will be reported to the September ordinary meeting.

Council Tender Assessment Panels for both the Yamba Community Precinct and the Regional Aquatic Facility are continuing negotiations with tender outcomes scheduled to be reported to the September ordinary meeting.

On radio Ms Black said she could implement it because, actions had already been taken.

“You can’t rescind resolutions where the action has already been taken or is commenced, substantially commenced,” she said.

Clarence Valley Council general manager Laura Black has declared a rescission motion to council unlawful.

But Cr Clancy said his advice was the motion with four signatures, more than met the threshold of a legal motion.

“I believe the rescission motion is lawful and I look forward to it being dealt with at the September meeting,” he said.

“There’s a number of councillors who have decided we need to look at Option B as the preferred option for the Treelands Drive Community Centre and this can be decided at the September meeting.”

He dismissed Ms Black’s claims the rescission motion was unlawful because things have been done to further the project, which a rescission motion could not undo.

“I have legal advice that this is a decision for councillors to make,” Cr Clancy said.

“I believe the rescission motion should be presented to the September meeting, where the councillors can decide to support it or not.”

Cr Clancy said from his understanding the report for the rescission motion could come to the September meeting and include a note from the general manager outlining her concerns with the motion.

He said his rescission motion and possibly another to rescind the council’s decision to proceed simultaneously with a decision to simultaneously fund both stages of the Regional Aquatic Centre, were a fiscally cautious move.

He said pursuing both projects as originally planned would expose the council to borrowing perhaps tens of millions of dollars.

“I would have few problems with the council borrowing a couple of million,” he said. “We haven’t borrowed since about 2015 from memory and I think we’ve got ourselves into a position where some borrowing is responsible.

Deputy mayor Greg Clancy saw his motion to rescind a council resolution on the Treelands Drive Community Centre meets all the legal requirements.

But he said there had been mention the pool project could cost $30 million or more and this was beyond the debt limit he thought council could live with.

Cr Clancy’s rescission motion, which included the signatures of Crs Clancy, Peter Johnstone, Bill Day and Jeff Smith plus the name of Cr Tiley, sought to rescind a rescission motion passed at the February 28 council meeting.

It overturned the council resolution from its December 2022 meeting to pursue Option B for the community centre project.

The February 28 rescission motion was not typical as it did not come from the council, but from council staff.

Cr Clancy objected to it on that basis, but a Cr Tiley ruled it admissible because conditions had changed to the extent which led him to believe the council could lose an $11.1 million grant for the project if it followed that path.

That advice led to two councillors, Cr Tiley and Cr Bill Day to publicly declare they had changed their preference for Option B to Option A.

But in the intervening months it has emerged from documents obtained from the council and the Department of Regional NSW under GIPA, that the grant funding was not at risk and the funding body considered both Options A and B equally viable.

For more local Clarence Valley news, click here.