What the General Manager Does Not Want You To See!
It appears from the article in today’s Examiner (reproduced below) that the General Manager Of Port Stephens Council wants to have another go at convincing Councillors to support a motion that they rejected at the last Ordinary Meeting. A further ‘Confidential Extraordinary Meeting’ will now be held on Tuesday July 10.
TRRA Committee Members attended the last Council Meeting and witnessed the vote being taken on the motion in question. We first listened to the debate on confidentiality. Fortunately the majority of Councillors, (not all) thought that it was in the public interest that the matter be dealt with transparently in open Council and the motion to close the meeting to the public was lost..
We then saw the Council vote on the motion to rescind the acquisition of the land on the Stockton Bight Track and the motion was lost. This is stated clearly in the minutes on the Council website: HERE, (page 6) and can also be seen on the live webcast of the meeting: HERE, where the Mayor clearly declares the motion lost. Both motions are covered in the first 10 minutes of the webcast.
Councillors did not ‘fail to record a vote.’
TRRA believes that this matter should be of great concern to ratepayers of Port Stephens, it looks like there will be massive legal bills and potentially millions of dollars in compensation. We think this matter should be open to the scrutiny of all stakeholders, particularly the ones that will ultimately pick up the tab, not dealt with in a closed meeting and the result dressed up for public consumption later, absolving all participants of any responsibility.
What are they trying to hide?
Link to Council Meeting Papers: Extra-Ordinary Council Meeting – 10th July 2012
Port Stephens Examiner 04 Jul 2012
Special council meeting
BY MICHAEL MCGOWAN AND DANIEL MILLS
04 Jul, 2012 12:00 AM
PORT Stephens councillors will be called to an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday to once again address a controversial land case.
Councillors failed to record a vote on rescinding the 2011 acquisition of the Stockton Bight Track at last Tuesday’s ordinary meeting after not enough voted for the motion and no alternative was put forward, leaving the council’s land and environment court case with the track’s original owners, the Towers family, in a state of limbo.
Councillor Geoff Dingle said he believed general manager Peter Gesling would use the meeting to try to convince councillors to support the motion they rejected last week.
“He’s calling the meeting because he didn’t get the answer he wanted last week so he is arguing he hasn’t got a motion to bring this to the courts,” Cr Dingle said.
“From the tone of what I have heard there is a suggestion we [the councillors] didn’t understand the issue so he has to run another briefing.”
Mr Gesling said an agenda for the meeting had not yet been released to councillors.
“The agenda items have yet to be finalised and will be available to Councillors and the public on Friday,” Mr Gesling said.
“It is likely that any information relating to the Stockton Bight Track would be confidential.”
According to a report council would be forced to pilfer money used to fund other activities if it chose to defend the $8.55 million legal case.
“Should council choose to continue [defending] the current [land and environment court] proceedings, legal costs are likely to exceed the annual legal budget and additional costs will need to be paid from funds otherwise used for other council activities.”
The case has the potential to cost the council about $1.4 million, a real estimate given on legal advice of the current $8.55 million being claimed by the Towers.
“[The] council relied on advice from its property department, as was the practice for many years and did not obtain formal legal advice [prior to the acquisition],” the report states.
Two parties, including MacKa’s Sands and the Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council (WLALC) have written to the council rejecting an option to rescind. The WLALC said the track provides “a valuable asset to elders” and it gives access to “adjoining lands of cultural significance.” Meanwhile, Port Cr Frank Ward will lodge a notice of motion before the council urging it to sit down with the Towers family and negotiate a settlement.
