Movement at last on Brooms Head plan

By Tim Howard

The vexed question of what to do with the Brooms Head reserve might have an answer following the latest Clarence Valley Council meeting.

Exasperated at the lack of action in coming up with a plan to manage the site to the satisfaction residents and stake holders of the park, Cr Peter Johnstone brought a question with notice to the meeting seeking to get things moving.

His questions were: Following the recent Councillor facility tour to Brooms Head Holiday Park, the questions were: 1. What progress has been made since the April 2024 resolution of Council regarding the Brooms Head Plan of Management?

And, 2.  What options are available to council in the preparation of an updated Plan of Management?

In response to the questions, council staff prepared a report with four options for councillors.

Cr Johnstone dismissed options 1, 3 and 4 but decided to move a variation of Option 2 as the best solution to the issue.

He moved that:

1. Council endorse the Draft Brooms Head Reserve Plan of Management for Crown reserve R65975, to be referred to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, Crown Lands and Public Spaces, to seek approval to publicly exhibit the Plan of Management.

2. To prepare a detailed site plan for the Brooms Head Reserve, while the Plan of Management is being reviewed by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, Crown Lands and Public Spaces.

3. invite the Yaegl Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation to provide advice to council for inclusion of the site plan and or plan of management on the components, details and other matters that are important to the corporation.

4. Present the response to the Draft Program of Management to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, Crown Lands and Public Spaces once received the advice and the Yaegl traditional owners, the public to a council workshop that will review the site plan and draft program of management.

5. Once approval has been obtained from the Department of Housing planning, housing infrastructure, crown lands and public spaces, exhibit the draft Brooms Head Reserve Plan of Management, Site Plan concurrently for 42 days over which time council will accept public submissions.

6. Report any submissions received in the draft Brooms Head, Plan of Management Site Plan back to council after submission period disclosed consideration of its adoption or re exhibition, as per the requirement of Section 40 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Cr Alison Whaites seconded the motion.

Speaking to his motion, Cr Johnstone said that for two long inaction had characterised council’s

Handling of the Brooms Head issue.

“At the start of the last term of council in 2022 were briefed about the caravan site and challenges getting consensus from the five-plus distinct groups of opinions to how the site should be managed,” he said. “Now here, 13 months later, we are no further forward.”

Cr Peter Johnstone could have taken a decisive first step to getting some action on development of plan of management for the Brooms Head reserve.

Cr Johnstone said the council had found seeking a consensus from the five competing groups impossible.

“To be fair, the last council did make an effort,” Cr Johnstone said.

“A consultant was engaged to prepare a new plan of management, we listened to the views of many people at a well attended meeting in Brooms Head last January.

However, that brought into sharp focus the differing views of the five main groups I can identify.”

He characterised the groups as the caravaners, the day users such as surfers and fishers, the long term residents of the park, those who live in Brooms Head as neighbours of the park and the Yaegl traditional owners.

“Each of those groups have strongly held beliefs and understandable desires for the future of Brooms Head Reserve,” he said.

“Some of those groups agree on some aspects while strongly disagree on others.

“A failure to compromise has resulted in deadlock and a failure of consensus on the direction to move forward.”

He noted the inaction was not limited to recent times, pointing out the last PoM had been agreed on nearly 30 years ago.

Not all councillors agreed.

Cr Debrah Novak foreshadowed Option 1 as her preferred option, pointing out it had the support of the Yaegl traditional owners.

Cr Greg Clancy was another to back Option 1, pointing out that many of the arguments for option 2 also worked for option 1.

Cr Karen Toms spoke at length in support of Cr Johnstone’s motion, arguing the community should not be spooked by the proposal.

“This is not going to turn it into a Big 4, with water slides, etc, but it is something we need to move forward on and stop kidding ourselves that we’re going to get consensus,” she said.

“Sometimes you just have to make the tough decision.”

In his right of reply Cr Johnstone said at the council needed to stop wasting time trying to get a consensus from groups who would never agree.

“The problem we have, though, is if we do what one of those five groups, does this group, that group, the other group, will say, we haven’t listened to them,” Cr Johnstone said.

“If we do what this group says, then this group, this group and this group will say, we haven’t listened to what they said.

“There’s a difference between listening and agreeing.”

But he said this was just the beginning.

“To quote Lao Tzu, a journey of 1000 miles begins with the a single step,” he said.

“Sending this first draft to Crown Lands is just that first step, a little step with many more steps to come, I ask councillors that you help start that journey.

“I need just four more of you to be able to step out.

“It would be much nicer if all nine councillors, start that journey together.”

Cr Johnstone did not achieve unanimity, but enough councillors were prepared to set out with him.

For more local news, click here.

Call to include vets acknowledgement in council meetings

By Tim Howard

A Clarence Valley councillor has made a passionate call to have an vets acknowledgement of the sacrifices of current and former armed forces personnel included into council meeting protocols.

To decide if the moves goes ahead, the Clarence Valley has been asked for its views on adding such an acknowledgement to council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Cr Alison Whaites’ determination to add the acknowledgement to the COMP, which was part of a suite of policy changes to be sent out for public exhibition, added some flavour to what appeared to be a cut and dried matter.

The councillor told the meeting she had considered bringing it to the last council, but decided against it because it was “maybe the wrong set of councillors.”

She also tried unsuccessfully to include it in the last business paper as a notice of motion, but was left with the option of proposing an amendment to the policy document.

Cr Whaites sought to add the following to part of the code covering opening of meetings, “I acknowledge the sacrifice made  by Australian previous and current service men and women and their families, in particular, those  who have given their lives in defence of the freedom we enjoy today”,

Cr Debrah Novak asked Cr Whaites to explain her reasons for seeking the change.

“I feel that we should be acknowledging our service, men and women and families and everything they’ve done for our community,” she said.

“We haven’t done it yet, and I’m quite surprised that not all councils have done it, and I would really hope that all three tiers of government do look at this as well.”

Other councillors could see be some problems.

Cr Peter Johnstone says he supports Cr Whaites, but has concerns making the acknowledgement into an regular occurrence could devalue it.

Cr Peter Johnstone quizzed Cr Whaites whether she had asked RSLs about the idea.

She said she hadn’t but other groups and families of service veterans supported her efforts.

She pointed out that some other councils had already done this and more were considering it.

Cr Whaites also downplayed the need to ask for RSL permission.

“It’s not just the RSLs that are involved in this,” she said. “So my family are part of this as well.

“There’s community members that I’ve spoken to that don’t go to the RSL and on Remembrance Day and Anzac Day.”

But councillors did have concerns, even if they supported the thrust of Cr Whaites’ proposal.

Cr Cristie Yager, who was drafted into seconding the motion, “loved” the concept but worried where it might end.

“I do also worry that our acknowledgement is going to keep growing and growing and growing just because we have so many incredible, you know, people to who are worthy of, you know, acknowledgement,” she said.

Cr Whaites said she was aware of this possibility, but thought the importance of acknowledging their sacrifice was more important.

Councillors then tackled the procedural issues of Cr Whaites’ amendment, which risked throwing out all other parts of the motion, should her amendment be defeated.

Councillors eventually decided to quarantine her idea into a fourth point of the motion, which allowed other matters smooth passage.

Cr Alison Whaites wants the opening of council meetings to include an acknowledgement to people who have served or are serving in the armed forces.

But some councillors still took issue with the concept.

Cr Johnstone was concerned making remembrance an everyday issue could devalue its importance.

“My concern, possibly, is that once we put this into our routine, it becomes routine, and perhaps will become less respectful of the purpose behind this, because it’ll be, we’re just going to say something that we always say,” he said.

Cr Whaites right of reply was typically passionate.

She dismissed Cr Johnstone’s claim the acknowledgement could become passé.

“I don’t understand how a one minute little acknowledgement is such a bad thing to respect the people that give you such a great life,” she said.

Cr Novak said her she had a close family member in the defence forces and welcome the idea of acknowledging their sacrifices during meeting openings.

She said she looked forward to reading the community responses when the proposal went out to exhibition.

But deputy mayor, Cr Greg Clancy, was not so enthusiastic.

He said he wore his father’s medal at Anzac and Remembrance Day memorials and said these were the occasions which brought home veterans’ sacrifices for most people.

“I think on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, we should make a special acknowledgement, then I don’t see why we should add this to our code of meeting practice,” he said.

Other councillors said that while they could see merit in the idea, something about it troubled them.

But they voted in favour of including it in a swag of policy matters what went out onto public exhibition for 28 days.

For more local news, click here.

New councillor on GM performance panel

By Tim Howard

Who would have thought picking a panel to assess a general manager’s performance could be so difficult.

Last week Clarence Valley Council turned a formality into performance art as it looked to appoint a panel to for its annual inspection of general manager Laura Black’s performance.

The council policy is the mayor and deputy mayor are automatic picks. Council selects one of its number and the general manager picks another.

The panel of four, with an independent chair, go through set criteria and assess how well the GM has met the targets set.

It looks straight forward in theory, but in practice it has proved anything but.

A year ago the mayor at the time, Cr Peter Johnstone, deputy Jeff Smith, the council’s pick Karen Toms and GM pick Cr Debrah Novak met.

They measured her performance against targets set and agreed she had exceeded them in a number of cases.

But when the results came back to council in a mayoral minute to an extraordinary council meeting in February this year, they included a recommendation of a 2% pay rise for the GM on top of her $342,696.93 annual salary.

Clarence Valley Council general manager Laura Black has yet to reveal which councillor she would like to see on the panel evaluating her performance.

Unsurprisingly, in a cost of living crisis, this ruling sparked some protest and led eventually to some spectacular debate, including an allegation of a group of councillors, “out to get” the general manager during an ultimately unsuccessful rescission motion to overturn the pay rise.

And in 2023 when the panel met, deputy mayor Greg Clancy made headlines when he walked out of a panel meeting, unhappy with the process involved.

So it came as no surprise last Thursday when the item kicked off with a motion from Cr Debrah Novak seeking to ditch the deputy mayor, Cr Clancy, from this year’s panel to give councillors the opportunity to elect two councillors to go on the panel.

There was a question over the legality of the motion, but Ms Black said it was lawful, although it needed to identify itself as a departure from council policy.

Cr Novak adjusted her motion accordingly and also pointed out that the council’s gender equity guidelines also dictated at least one of those selected should be a woman.

While the councillors were deadly serious in their debate, people looking on from the gallery could see the funny side, prompting Cr Whaites to call on the mayor for help.

“Can you please ask the public to not mention, not laugh and not giggle at us, please,” she asked of Cr Smith.

Cr Novak said the council policy was just a guideline and to allow council to pick two members in addition to the general manager’s pick was “fit for purpose”.

Cr Clancy did not agree.

Tongue in cheek, he thanked Cr Novak for “sparing him the stress” of sitting on the panel, but thought that her motion was a “direct attack on me”.

Cr Novak called a point of order and Mayor Smith ruled in her favour.

Cr Greg Clancy survived an attempt to change council policy to have him dropped as an automatic pick on the general manager’s performance review panel. He has been a critic of the way the panel operates.

Cr Clancy tried again, claiming he had been targeted.

Again Cr Novak called a point of order, claiming an implication that Cr Clancy was “reading her mind”.

Again the mayor upheld the point of order.

Cr Clancy said Cr Novak needed to explain her reasons for bringing the motion, because it was easy to interpret it as targeting him.

Another point of order.

Unable to pursue this line, Cr Clancy agreed to withdraw his claim of being targeted, but said it created a “very bad precedent” and council should stick to its policies.

Cr Johnstone agreed, pointing out the policies had been developed to cover all eventualities and take the heat out of situations.

Cr Toms was also against making changes, but could “understand where it came from” considering Cr Clancy’s criticism of the performance review panel in the past.

She was concerned Cr Clancy had described being on the panel as “a poison chalice” and that he had “stormed out” of a panel meeting when he was deputy mayor.

This sparked another point of order, this time from Cr Clancy.

Cr Alison Whaites backed Cr Novak’s motion.

She was disappointed with the way the panel had been handled before and didn’t want a repeat of what happened last term in this term.

She said it was important to throw open the opportunity to be on the performance review panel to more councillors.

One of the newly-elected councillors, Cr Cristie Yager, will be the councillors’ pick on the Clarence Valley Council general manager’s performance review panel.

Cr Johnstone asked if Cr Clancy was happy to be on the panel.

He replied he was but it was difficult, but it was his duty as deputy mayor to sit on the panel, even if it was a “poison chalice”.

In her right of reply Cr Novak raised an issue that breached the privacy of a councillor and quickly apologised for her mistake after a point of order was called.

She said her motivation was to give more councillors the opportunity to get onto the performance review panel.

The council did not agree and voted it down.

Councillors voted on a foreshadowed motion from Cr Johnstone, to revert to the usual selection process, which was adopted.

Then came the nominations for the panel.

Cr Johnstone picked Cr Cristie Yager.

Cr Shane Causley nominated Cr Karen Toms and Cr Novak nominated Cr Whaites.

During debate on Cr Yager’s nomination Cr Whaites said while Cr Yager would be  an “asset” to the panel, she did not possess the experience of either Cr Toms or herself.

“I’ve done multiple performance reviews, and I think I probably am the most, the best one here actually, out of all us councillors, and second would be Cr Toms,” she said.

Cr Yager spoke “for myself” and said she would maintain an open mind.

“I think I’m very good at being open minded to all information given to me, and I’m always open to persuasion given the facts,” she said.

Mayor Smith put her nomination to the vote and she was elected five votes to four.

The general manager has yet to name the councillor she would like on the panel.

For more local news, click here.