At the last Lismore City Council (LCC) meeting the length of public access, whether councillors are required to attend, and if it will be livestreamed were the focus of debate.
Councillors Gianpiero Battista and Andrew Bing put the motion to put ‘the Code of Meeting Practice,… with the inclusion that Public Access is livestreamed, be placed on public exhibition.’
The removal of public access from within the meeting timeframe, the reduction of speakers to a maximum of ten (with a maximum of two for and against and motion), and the reduction of speaking time from four to three minutes for each speaker was highlighted by Cr Adam Guise who told the meeting that he thought it was means ‘to exclude the public and the transparency around decision making’.
Essentially it’s to shut out the community even more from council meetings and the decisions we make,’ he said.
‘First, there was the move to have council meetings in the day, which certainly does change who can access and view council meetings online. And now we’re going to do away with public access and put it outside of meetings to have it happen an hour before council meetings. There’s the proposal to reduce the number of speakers from council meetings from four down to two speakers for or against an item further limiting the ability to participate to get the diversity of views in our community. And then, lo and behold, there’s also the provision to remove clause 4.25, from our Covid Meeting practice, which we heard about today. It’s removing the public question time.
‘This paints a very bad picture for how we’re approaching the public and our civic duties and representing the public. It’s not something I support, and I do ask those other councilors to remember why you’re here in this chamber, it is to represent the community. It is to have that community’s input into our decision.’
Cr Guise sought to retain the existing Code of Meeting Practice.
Mayor Steve Krieg told the chamber that, ‘I am a big believer in public access’.
‘No one is denying members of the public coming here and speaking to councilors, but let’s also look around us. Let’s have a look and see why we are doing, the same old, same old? Because we’ve done it for the last 25 years. Does that make it right?’ he said.
‘Meetings should be used for council business and for notices of motion, it doesn’t restrict the public from coming to speak with us, but I again say that if public access is moved from nine till 10, then it is up to councillors to make the effort to get here to listen to the public.’
Including what is already there
Harper Dalton-Earls expressed their concern ‘it’s live streamed, and that we keep the time limit as four minutes, as opposed to three minutes’. Cr Krieg asked that the livestreaming be incorporated into the original motion, which it already was, but failed to include the four minute increase in time for speakers. Unsurprisingly this lack of change to the original motion was accepted by the mover and seconder Crs Battista and Bing.
Strangely, considering Cr Dalton-Earls was keen on the four minute speaking time, a previous amendment that had included both livestreaming and the retention of the four minute speaking time by Cr Big Rob had failed to get a seconder.
Councillors Battista, Bing, Dalton-Earls, Gordon, Jensen and Krieg voted in favour to put the Code of Meeting Practice on exhibition with the addition that it is livestreamed while Crs Guise, Knight-Smith, Rob and Waters voted against.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
