Darebin Creek Management Committee & Banyule Council
In our last Eaglemont's Voice newsletter we reported on the Banyule Council meeting of 30 October addressing the Council Officers Report recommendation to defund Darebin Parklands Committee of Management.
Councillor (& Deputy Mayor) Alida McKern has supplied an explanation to ratepayers as to why she opposed the amendments put forward by other Councillors:
Dear Banyule Resident
It was an eventful Council meeting on Monday, with a full gallery of concerned residents (a rough head count of about 100 people) who gathered to protest the Council staff recommendation to cease Banyule funding to the Darebin Parklands.
To avoid speculation and to clarify my position, I feel it necessary to write to you in response to residents contacting me this week querying why I didn’t support the alternative motion moved by a fellow Councillor.
For those who haven’t seen it, here is the link to the Agenda (item 5.3) with the officer’s recommendation: https://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/News-items/Councillor-meeting-live-stream-30-October-2023
It is customary for the Ward Councillor to be given the courtesy of moving a motion pertinent to a matter located in their ward. In this instance, I am both Ward Councillor and Councillor representative for Banyule Darebin Creek Management Committee (DCMC).
Consequently, it was disappointing that the Chair chose to prioritise an alternative motion by a Councillor from another ward.
Make no mistake, I appreciate issues raised by the external audit relating to DCMC governance, risk management, and financial value for money and longer-term financial sustainability.
The audit requirement arose from a recommendation from the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO), and I agree that issues arising need to be addressed.
The alternative motion that was adopted by the majority of Councillors:
Why I didn’t support this motion
While the adopted motion has given a reprieve to Banyule’s funding to the Darebin Parklands under a review process, I did not support the above motion (now carried) due to the following concerns:
- Lack of detail as to what the review process looks like, and no detail as to how the review involves the DCMC, community, funding partners and other stakeholders
- Lack of detail as to the community engagement plan. Again, what does this look like, who and how will community be engaged?
- Cessation of Councillor representation on the DCMC—Councillor representation to be replaced by Officer representation
Given that it is the responsibility of Councillor representation on committees to represent community interests, the responsible officer was queried on Monday night as to how the community would be represented in the absence of a Councillor.
The Officer’s response seemed to indicate that volunteer representatives on the DCMC could undertake the role to represent the community.
Following this line of thinking, what are the implications for other committees where Councillors are expected to be involved and undertake a key duty to represent the residents in their ward and make decisions in the best interests of the community.
Considering my role, I requested the following motion be moved, which was penned in consideration of a range of Councillor viewpoints and statutory requirements:
Cr. McKern Alternative Motion:
Points 1 & 2: Retain as is per OR
Point 3:
Advise Darebin Creek Management Committee (DCMC) of Council’s intention to cease review its contributions to the Darebin Parklands coordination division (land management) from 30 June 2024.
Point 4:
Request before the review commences, that Officers develop a review process and community consultation plan that is brought back to Council for consideration at the next ordinary meeting of Council, and that the review process address:
- Concerns raised by community relating to proposed cessation to funding the Darebin Parklands land management division
- Options to address governance, risk management and financial sustainability issues raised in the RSM audit
- Future Councillor representation for The Darebin Parklands and The Darebin Creek Catchment
- Discussions with partner Councils, including: Darebin, Yarra, and Whittlesea Councils.
Point 5:
Maintain the current Board representation of two representatives from Banyule; being one Councillor and one Officer, during the review period.
Point 6: Retain as is per OR
Point 7:
Receive a report in December 2024 to present the outcomes of the structure and delivery of catchment management service and contribution options for the Darebin Parklands coordination division (land management).
Point 8
Cease Councillor nomination and representation to the Darebin Creek Management Committee Board effective 31 October 2023.
Point 9
Note Councils two representative positions on the Darebin Creek Management Committee Board would be occupied by nominated Officers with specific skills suited to the Boards needs.
I applaud the show of community interest—thank you to everyone who communicated their concerns and turned up in a unified show of strength for the Darebin Parklands and Park Rangers—I think your voice of solidarity surprised even the most seasoned Councillors and Officers!
Moving forward, I believe we need to continue to advocate for a review process that is accountable and transparent, and meaningfully engages our community; the outcomes of which should include alignment with our community’s expectations for the future management of the Darebin Parklands.
Kind Regards
Cr Alida McKern
Deputy Mayor & Councillor for Chelsworth Ward
Banyule City Council
M 0435 316 318
www.banyule.vic.gov.au | Facebook | Twitter
Banyule City Council is proud to acknowledge the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung people as Traditional Custodians of the land and we pay respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders, past, present and emerging, who have resided in the area and have been an integral part of the region’s history. |
Community Involvement Needed
This matter appears to be specifically about the operations of the Darebin Parklands Management Committee.
It is more deep-seated, more widely relevant.
Fine administration, risk management, governance, procurement practices, audits, insurance etc issues were put forward to justify the dramatic cessation of funding.
The various Banyule Council protaganists, their lawyers, their Risk Management Committees, their insurance boffins may well have legitimate reasons to be saying "Hang about, what's going on here - this is a bit dodgy looking, this is not up to the accounting or operational standards we expect."
If there is a better skill set, if there is better data, if there are better insights, if there is a better governance and performance standard within Banyule Council than is claimed to occur at DPMC, then an opportunity presents for Banyule Council to show some leadership and provide some guidance, a helping hand, a leg up.
This is where this DPMC matter ripples out through the rest of Banyule.
Is there a "fit for purpose" culture within the Banyule administration when it comes to delivering services to our community, and involving our community as volunteers in the affairs of Council?
Is all this talk of community engagement via workshops, surveys, Shaping Banyule inputs, of inclusion, of respect etc just empty rhetoric?
Every Council dollar can only be spent once.
If it is spent internally on staff benefits, or on lawyers, or on consultants, or on graphic designers for strategy documents, or on governance, or on risk management, or on audits - as valid as these concepts may be - that dollar cannot be spent on the service delivery and facilities the community want.
Hundreds of community volunteers have spent tens of thousands of volunteer hours down the decades supporting the operations and lands and water under the stewardship of the DPMC. They have voted support with their hands at numerous working bees.
Public accolades left, right and centre.
The public loves the place. The public uses the place.
But apparently the Banyule Council administration knows better, so with the backing of their lawyers and auditors, the DCMC is to be stomped on.
The public angst shown since the administration's recommended de-funding lobbed in the public arena should cause some soul-searching about the local government ethos, the exercise of choices, the exercise of power, the consideration of what tomorrow will bring if you mistreat people today.
The protagonists in this matter may well have already reflected on these matters, and wish different processes, different words, different techniques were used to achieve what they may consider a necessary and urgent change.
People. Employees. Volunteers. The public.
Some more empathy, some more insight, some more understanding, some more listening and talking is needed.
Some repeats of this saga are not needed.
Concerns About The Motion That Was Passed
Discussions among community members reveal concerns about the adopted motion.
The report called for will not be received (in Dec 2025) until after the funding has potentially ceased (mid 2025), which could leave the exact scenario that a gallery speaker at the Council meeting - Dr John Graeme Hamilton - outlined in his comments.
The DCMC could be defunded and its staffing reduced as a consequence, only to find from the report that the model actually provided the best value for money.
By which time it could be too late if staff have moved on to other jobs. Rockbeare Park might become neglected if the Bush Crew proves unable to manage the addition role and lands on top of its other workload.
Member discussion