EMAIL TO THE COUNCIL CEO –
Sent: Sunday, 12 April 2015 6:55 PM
To: ‘Lisa Desmond’
Could you please explain why the Ordinary Meeting No.04 Minutes – 250315 and next Ordinary Meeting No.05 Agenda – 150415 to be approved by Council on Wed 15th April 2015, DO NOT reflect the approved Ordinary Meeting No.04 Agenda – 250315; that is on the Council website and was printed out in folders at the Council meeting on the day for public viewing?
Could you also explain how a development application with no provisions for separate Water Supply (for council staff to read the meter), Telecommunications, Electricity etc meets the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and mandatory requirements in the Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) forms which are required for a ‘properly made’ development application on State wide forms used by all local governments in Queensland?
Council Ordinary Meeting No.05 Agenda – 250315:
Council Ordinary Meeting No.05 Minutes – 250315:
• These are the Conditions / hours approved at the meeting in the Council agenda on page 182 & 150?
Now the minutes has completely different conditions / hours ???
As there was absolutely no discussion about a change of hours, how does the minutes then not reflect the agenda conditions?
• 147 of the agenda
#16 is missing from the minutes
• page 147 of the agenda
#20 is missing from the meeting
• p. 147 of the agenda
# 23 missing from the minutes
• p. 147 of the agenda
No Telecommunications in the minutes
No Electricity in the Minutes
EMAIL to Rolf Light, James Hansen, Trevor McDonald, Lisa Desmond, Gerard O’Connell, George Seymour
Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2015 11:41 AM
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this ….
If you had to look into it, means you didn’t know the development conditions had changed either.
James said he would ask it too, which depicts he didn’t know the conditions had changed either from the agenda
Therefore I don’t feel any of the Councillors had any idea which conditions they were actually voting on at the last Ordinary Meeting No.4 on Wednesday the 25th of March.
I don’t feel the last Council Ordinary Meeting motion or minutes can be passed or have followed correct legal local government procedure or the new conditions meet the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
I spoke for five minutes and mentioned the hours of operation new closing time of 11pm six days a week as per the agenda at the last meeting, and not one councillor or staff member present knew to mention it was now changed to another new closing time of midnight seven days a week as per the apparent new amended development conditions that were not made available before the meeting and altered in the minutes after the meeting?
Not one single person (CEO, Mayor, Councillors & Directors) in that meeting knew or mentioned the agenda on the website was incorrect, with false development conditions being portrayed to objectors and the public at large, nor were Councillors advised of this before voting.
You would think it would be a mandatory local government requirement to have exact, correct and current agenda details on their website?
OWNER / GRAPHIC & WEBSITE DESIGNER
My notes from Council Ordinary Meeting No.05 – 150415
– Is there an actual rule against that?
– yes in the standing order.
– What section of the standing order were you relying on to say there is no recording allowed?
– Couldn’t find a standing order.
CEO Lisa Desmond
– confirmed there was no such standing order but in the public participation documentation it is noted the chairman’s permission should be sought. Even the media are suppose to ask permission each meeting apparently.
Mayor Gerard O’Connell
– stated permission should be sought to record
– therefore I asked the Mayor if I could make the request and the councillors vote yes or no on this as to whether I could film this section like the media are able to do
Mayor Gerard O’Connell put forward a motion for the Councillors to vote on that I be allowed to record the meeting which was moved by George Seymour and seconded by James Hanson.
– I lost my motion 8 / 3 (Seymour, Hanson, Truscott in favour) to film the section of the Council meeting where Council was addressing why the ‘Minutes’ of the last ordinary meeting No.4 in relation to why Enzo’s building development conditions had been altered / doctored from the ‘Agenda’ that the Councillors had voted upon and was printed in front of them at the meeting.
CEO Lisa Desmond
– Tabling of a report for rectification of the public records. Lisa presented a copy of a report stating that it should have been included in the hard copy, electronic & public agendas of the last Ordinary meeting No.4 in relation to ENZO’s DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – MCU-141028 Conditions. Council then decided to table the correct development conditions excluded from the Agenda on the 25th of March at this meeting on the 15th of April. Lisa mentioned a Jamie Coburn emailed the councillors on the 23rd in relation to the changed development conditions.
– Mentioned it is a public embarrassment, but supported Council
– I was not sure what he was on about mentioning to further alter headers and footers
– mentioned that the copy of a report tabled by the CEO today was not attached to an email by a Jamie Coburn and today was the first time he had ever seen it. He stated he felt it was specifically produced for today’s purposes and by tabling this with the amended minutes Council would be trying to imply they received this new conditions report on the 23rd before the meeting, which they didn’t.
CEO Lisa Desmond
– Clarified the additional report tabled was not sent in an email to the Councillors by a Jamie Coburn on the 23rd before the meeting but should have been included in the official agenda
– said that when voting at the last meeting he knew about the new amended midnight closing time and was not comfortable with it and would have preferred the 11pm time, stating he is not happy as he would like people in bed earlier. Contradicting and confirming that he was not aware of the change to the development conditions that he voted on at the previous meeting or he would have mentioned this concern at the time to be recorded in the minutes.
After the tabling of this magically appeared report, there was another motion in relation to the ‘Minutes’ of the ordinary meeting on the 25th of March as to whether it was a true and correct record of the conduct of that meeting and the motions passed. Obviously there is no way it could be as the CEO confirmed that the copy of a report that should have been included in the hard copy, electronic & public agendas was not at the meeting and was not voted upon.
– Spoke again against the motion stating this is the first time he has ever seen this report / document tabled by the CEO, stating it did not go into the public agenda on the website, did not go out in printed form, did not go in the agenda available to the public on the day and was not in the application used to read the agenda.
Nobody referred to this apparent email on the 23rd during the Council meeting before voting.
He believed he was voting on the agenda in front of him on the day as there was never an agenda produced with the additional report.
Nobody moved to included the changes in this additional report to the minutes, an example being not closing till midnight and reaffirmed this was not the agenda presented to the Councillors.
– stated he would be voting against the motion, saying he felt uncomfortable voting this as a true and accurate record as it was not the hard copy agenda in front of him at the Council meeting that he voted on, even though he had seen an email.
Motion was passed 8 / 2
George Seymour and James Hansen against.
Rolf Light abstained as he was not present at the previous Council Meeting.
Even though the CEO said in front of all Councillors and those in the public gallery that the copy of the building conditions report that should have been included in the hard copy, electronic & public agendas was not at the Ordinary meeting on the 25th of March therefore it was not voted upon plus even tabling and having a motion passed for rectification of the public records to say this report was to now be added as an adjustment to the minutes.
Eight Councillors (Cr Gerard O’Connell – Mayor, Cr Phil Truscott, Cr Chris Loft, Cr Daniel Sanderson, Cr Trevor McDonald, Cr Darren Everard, Cr Robert Garland, Cr Stuart Taylor) decided to vote for the motion that the ‘Minutes’ were a true and correct record of the conduct of that meeting, even though they didn’t vote on the correct report in the hard copy agenda in front of them on the day and the CEO did not provide it till yesterday?
Yep WOW and these people are the ones making decisions that affect us all on the Fraser Coast, and the future of the Hervey Bay erosion prone foreshore.
By the end of the Ordinary meeting Darren Everard requested the CEO Lisa Desmond to look into video streaming all Council Meetings.
A big thanks to George Seymour and James Hansen it is a really powerful experience and instils hope to watch men speak up with such honesty and integrity.
I would have loved for the Fraser Coast Community and the Ombudsman to have seen this video, I did try!
Do Not Move the Memorial Hall & Railway Station!
“Met a great man this morning; Kenneth Hall who spoke to Council with passion and common sense regarding the Memorial Hall and Station. Let’s hope the Council not only listened but heard his words of wisdom.
Memorial Hall was moved in 1941 to its current location because of flood waters. He spoke with John Kelsey President RSL Sub Branch by phone to put our case to him.
John Kelsey President RSL Sub Branch agreed with Council the Freedom Hall should go to give more open spacers “Not a word when he was told that many of Hervey Bay Soldiers and Navy use the Hall for weddings, farewells and parties when they return. But he did say it was not Heritage Listed and that was that.”
Memorial Hall was for the return service men and woman and the people of Hervey Bay it was our town Hall as well.
Author Ken Hall: http://what-next-you-bastard.com/
I have just had a call advising the Hervey Bay RSL is right behind Council with the removal of our valued landmarks. It appears the RSL has known about this for some time and wanting it removed or ‘dismantled’ to make way for further statues and monuments. The cost of moving the hall will cost too much money so it might seem the buildings will be demolished. Further to this the RSL is buying up properties all around Hervey Bay and some months back even took over the kitchen at the Golf Club. I have also been told the RSL are wanting to take over the building in Torquay Road and stop the community groups from utilising this space. This may also be demolished. My concern is the transparency and openness from the RSL and Council on these buildings. Why is it all such secret squirrel business? Why can’t we be told the complete truth? If they are not going to demolish these buildings then where will they be relocated? The timber floors are made from trees from Fraser Island, so will it be damaged when being moved? It certainly won’t be able to be replaced.”
– Jannean Dean
I’ve had a look and it appears it is heritage listed, the RSL has told you a fib.
Kind regards Jeanette