YambaCAN flogged with a feather

By Tim Howard

A lame duck Clarence Valley Council has plucked a feather with which to flog a tormentor during the final meeting of its term.

Meeting in caretaker mode on August 27, councillors voted 5-3 to note a three-months overdue report into the council’s $1.048 million costs of interacting with the Yamba Community Action Network.

In February the council supported a notice of motion from Cr Karen Toms to look into:

• a) the allocation of resources required to respond to GIPAs submitted by Yamba CAN Inc since January 2022.
• b) the allocation of resources required to respond to RFI (Request for Information) submitted by Yamba CAN Inc since January 2022.
• c) the cost implications of delays to delivering the Yamba Community Precinct project since January 2022.

The report originally requested for the May council meeting, found GIPAs, RFIs and related delays to projects, chiefly the Yamba Community Precinct Project, had cost council $1.048 million.

Last Tuesday Mayor Peter Johnstone recognised part C of the motion – the most costly – went beyond the pale and moved to remove it from his ultimately successful foreshadowed motion to note the findings of the first two parts of the report.

But the meeting began with a much more sweeping motion from Cr Bill Day to reject the entire thing.

He asked if the report was a genuine investigation or a part of an ongoing vendetta against Yamba CAN and its secretary, Lynne Cairns, who has decided to run for council at this month’s Local Government election.

Cr Debrah Novak brought a point of order at this, saying Cr Day had “no evidence” to support this assertion.

Cr Johnston warned Cr Day of Section 15.11 in the Code of Meeting Practice, Acts of Disorder.

Cr Day continued, pointing out that GIPAs were a “legislated right for all people in NSW”.

“It really doesn’t matter what the cost is or how much some councillors don’t like it.

Mayor Peter Johnstone got his motion to note the report across the line against fierce opposition from some councillors.

It’s L.A.W. law,” he said.

Cr Day also noted the number of GIPAs and RFIs requested were not high and that if council had handled them better, there might have been fewer of them.

Cr Day said there were other parts of the report that revealed suspect motivations behind it.

He was critical of a section of the report that detailed GIPAs and other actions brought by Craig McNeill,

Mr McNeill had been an executive member of YambaCAN, but had resigned and took action against the council privately.

Cr Day questioned why these should appear in a report relating to YambaCAN.

He also questioned the motivation of the author of the report, council general manager Laura Black.

Cr Day did not name Ms Black, but it was clear he was referring to her.

He noted she had been involved in defamation concerns with YambaCAN

“Is it too much to ask that person to declare a conflict of interest?” he said.

At this point Cr Johnstone warned Cr Day.

“I will refer again to the acts of disorder, which you will know you’ve sailed beyond the wind there,” he said.

Cr Day concluded his address with an appeal to his fellow councillors.

“This business item is all about spitefulness, revenge, distortions of the truth and discrediting a candidate for election to this council,” he said.

“Surely there are enough councillors here who are smart enough to understand this and who have enough courage to vote it into the rubbish bin where it belongs.”

Cr Johnson moved his foreshadowed motion at this point.

The next speaker, deputy Mayor Jeff Smith, described the NOM and subsequent report as a “low point” for council.

He said YambaCAN had not done anything wrong and had followed process in its GIPA requests.

He said they had submitted seven of the 48 GIPAs council had dealt with in the term from January 2022 to February 2024.

Cr Smith praised YambaCAN for its spirit of community involvement.

“Why does YambaCAN do it? Because YambaCAN cares,” he said.

“YambaCAN gives a shit about what’s going on in this valley, and I wish more people would be following suit and caring what goes on in council and what goes on in this valley.”

Cr Johnstone shut down further debate, calling for the motion to be put, despite a protestation from Cr Greg Clancy, who had seconded Cr Day’s motion.

Councillors voted 5-3 (Cr Ian Tiley was absent) to put the motion with Crs Day, Smith and Clancy against.

The vote on Cr Day’s motion to reject the report went the same way and debate commenced on the Mayor’s foreshadowed motion.

During questions Cr Smith asked Cr Toms what benefit the community would get from the information in report.

Cr Toms took hold of the flogging feather and claimed the community would “understand the resources that it has cost from YambaCAN’s continual questioning of council business”.

Cr Day asked what if Cr Toms would ban people from exercising GIPAs.

She described the question as a “little bit off” agreeing she did not have the power to ban people from using legislation.

She said the only action in the report was to note the information in it.

Speaking to his motion, the Mayor backed Cr Toms view that the information was necessary for the council to fulfil its obligations to ensure financial stability.

“Cr Toms’ motion is all about allocation of resources,” he said.

“Every year we put in a budget where we budget for the amount of money we going to spend in future years and legal costs.

“You know, there’s money put away for that, but if it’s going to exceed that money, then we need to consider that for future years.”

But he conceded part C of the report was not warranted.

“I do note that the top of this report does mention response to questions with notice YambaCAN and I don’t believe that the cost implications of later Yamba Community Precinct Project really fits in this,” he said.

Councillor Bill Day fought to have the report into what YambaCAN has cost council with GIPA requests ditched.

Cr Clancy was scathing of the NOM and report, saying it had “really dragged council to a low ebb”.

He said he had looked into the number of GIPAs council had dealt with since 2016-17 and the 48 handled between January 2022 and February 2024 was not exceptional.

“If you divide the 48 into two, that’s roughly equivalent to what the normal annual number of GIPAs was,” he said.

“It’s just wrong to be targeting a community group who has every right to put in GIPAs.”

He also pointed out YambaCAN, which formed in late September 2022, was not in existence for the first seven months of the period under investigation.

Cr Clancy said the only contributor to Yamba Community Precinct Project cost overruns was the council itself.

He also said the general manager’s report contradicted itself.

“If you look at the cost implications of delays to Yamba Community Precinct, it says additional design consultant costs associated with developing alternative options and estimates,” Cr Clancy said.

“If you go to the business paper on the top of page seven, under Option B, refurbishment concept only, no detailed design undertaken.

“We can’t have it both ways.”

Cr Steve Pickering took his turn with the feather to attack Cr Clancy’s argument.

He criticised Cr Clancy for using parts of the report he wanted removed to attack the report.

“It’s an oxymoron to say you don’t support the report and then at the same time, actually use the facts and figures out of it,” he said.

“It does not make any sense to me.”

Cr Pickering said he had fielded many requests from the community for details of what GIPAs cost the council.

“When a GIPA request is put through, it might cost $30 for the request, but it’s also costing hundreds, if not 1000s, of dollars for council staff to respond to it,” he said.

“And once that request has been actioned, that information is now publicly available for the rest of the community. Council are about openness and transparency.”

The Mayor took hold of the feather for his right of reply and defended Cr Toms’ original NOM, despite admitting part C was not appropriate.

He agreed with some of Cr Clancy’s arguments and noted how staff had dealt with some GIPAs in less than a day.

But he said the information in the report would help council’s finances and aid transparency.

While defending the need to reveal the cost of GIPAs, Cr Johnson did not explain the necessity of tying those costs to YambaCAN.

He called for a vote, which went 5-3 in his favour and council duly noted that council had incurred not nearly as many costs as had appeared in its original report. Ouch.

For more Yamba news, click here.