Hello all,
Thank you, sincerely, to those who have rung, texted and 'Facebooked' me this morning regarding the article in The Advocate Newspaper. The online version can be found at www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/councillor-may-face-dismissal-over-wharf-discussion/2139002.aspx which is a touch different to the one published.
Firstly, I actually feel very much sorry for the family member who has been dragged into this (a 17yo Half-Sister-in-Law who does some casual hours on weekends at the Fish & Chips Shop next to the Wharf). I won't name this person and hopefully you can understand this.
I feel that I do need to explain, from my perspective, what has happened - and, yes, this is my perspective. I want to let you all know my thought processes in regard to this decision. As the title of this post states, I may have been naive but I don't believe that I'm a criminal.
Being a Councillor is a volunteer position, albeit with an allowance granted to cover costs associated with being a Councillor (e.g. phone calls, Internet access, postage, petrol to visit people etc.). Unfortunately, a new Councillor is expected to launch themselves into this role with a pile of documents (including the Local Government Act) and then be expected to come to the table with no training whatsoever. Maybe I should have sought training? That's naive situation number one.
One thing I have battled to come to grips with is that Council sits as two separate entities during Council meetings. A Council and as a Planning Authority. As a Council you make decisions taking into account all relevant aspects of life and its issues to make an informed judgement. As a Planning Authority you assess Development Applications and your decisions are based on the Planning Scheme etc. (not external factors outside of the Scheme - unless there is a law etc. that must be taken into account).
The Wharf Redevelopment has been a long and arduous task and one that was going before I came on board in November 2009. I have sat out on previous discussions as a member of 'the Council' regarding that Wharf Redevelopment as the Fish & Chip shop has been discussed as part of the development. I didn't want it to look like I had a perceived pecuniary interest (financial interest) as the Local Government Act, in Part 5 Section 51(i), advises that "the son, daughter, brother, sister, mother or father of the councillor or member or of their spouse or partner..." forms a close associate. Prior to 2005 the close relatives of a spouse was not included as a close associate in the Act.
Please note... if you Google the Local Government Act 1993 then be careful. I did that before the meeting and it gave me the 2005 version of Section 51. I didn't read that I had to click on number 4 of the 'Changes Over Time'. My Google search brought me to number 2.
As the Wharf Redevelopment concept had previously been dealt with as a Council (Nb. I sat out of these decisions) and the Fish & Chip Shop removed from this proposed Wharf Redevelopment, I believed, through my own reasoning, that I did not have a pecuniary interest in this (naive situation number two). When the Development Application item came forward at Monday's April Meeting of Council, it was as a Planning Authority item. This meant that it was to be judged on the Planning Scheme alone (taking into account other relevant laws etc.). The Fish & Chip shop was not part of the Development Application (Nb. the Fish & Chip shop is one a separate lease). I felt confident that I could assess this application purely on planning grounds and sit comfortable that I did not have a pecuniary interest.
Here's naive situation number three. Item five on Council's agenda each meeting asks for Declarations of Pecuniary Interest. I stood up and said something like "...as this is a planning authority item I believe that I do not have a conflict of interest". I didn't explain myself properly to the audience and it may have come across that I thought that the Planning Authority is exempt from the Local Government Act. In hindsight I should have offered a fuller explanation.
I don't remember any reference to the Fish & Chip Shop in the discussions. I was intently listening to see if was referenced as I would have stood up and left the room. I judged the Development Application on its merits.
In hindsight... I should have declared. This would have put out any doubt. It could be argued that I do have a pecuniary interest but I also feel that I could argue that I don't.
I respect Sean Ford for doing his job and sniffing out a scoop... I hold no malice toward The Advocate Newspaper as I have had a strong working relationship with them for more than 10 years. I also hope that no-one else does either. I'm just crapping my pants now that his reporting has opened the door for someone who may have an issue with me to lodge a complaint against me that could lead to an interpretation by a Magistrate that I have broken the Local Government Act. This would lead to a criminal charge that may put me out of a job, not only as a Councillor but in my workplace (a job I've worked extremely hard to gain and establish).
My other major concern is that this article may deter other younger people from nominating to be Councillors into the future. It would certainly deter me. Being a Councillor is a wonderful experience and you can do great things for your community - I hope that other potential and current Councillors can learn from my naivety.
I sincerely apologise to the Waratah-Wynyard community if I have done wrong. There was no malice in my intent and it was not an intentional breach. I've been naive enough to not seek professional and/or legal advice before participating in this Planning Authority item. My interpretation of this situation is obviously different to some others. Yes it's a fine line but I felt that I was on the right side of it. Maybe I wasn't - I guess I have to suck it and see.
I just have my fingers crossed that this is a far as it goes. As I said to the reporter, if I've done wrong then I'll accept the consequences . I'm not a 'No Comment' guy and am I willing to reveal why I have taken a certain course of action. I just hope that the consequences are not career ending ones and ones that may deter other future Councillors.
Best wishes,
Clayton
Thank you, sincerely, to those who have rung, texted and 'Facebooked' me this morning regarding the article in The Advocate Newspaper. The online version can be found at www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/councillor-may-face-dismissal-over-wharf-discussion/2139002.aspx which is a touch different to the one published.
Firstly, I actually feel very much sorry for the family member who has been dragged into this (a 17yo Half-Sister-in-Law who does some casual hours on weekends at the Fish & Chips Shop next to the Wharf). I won't name this person and hopefully you can understand this.
I feel that I do need to explain, from my perspective, what has happened - and, yes, this is my perspective. I want to let you all know my thought processes in regard to this decision. As the title of this post states, I may have been naive but I don't believe that I'm a criminal.
Being a Councillor is a volunteer position, albeit with an allowance granted to cover costs associated with being a Councillor (e.g. phone calls, Internet access, postage, petrol to visit people etc.). Unfortunately, a new Councillor is expected to launch themselves into this role with a pile of documents (including the Local Government Act) and then be expected to come to the table with no training whatsoever. Maybe I should have sought training? That's naive situation number one.
One thing I have battled to come to grips with is that Council sits as two separate entities during Council meetings. A Council and as a Planning Authority. As a Council you make decisions taking into account all relevant aspects of life and its issues to make an informed judgement. As a Planning Authority you assess Development Applications and your decisions are based on the Planning Scheme etc. (not external factors outside of the Scheme - unless there is a law etc. that must be taken into account).
The Wharf Redevelopment has been a long and arduous task and one that was going before I came on board in November 2009. I have sat out on previous discussions as a member of 'the Council' regarding that Wharf Redevelopment as the Fish & Chip shop has been discussed as part of the development. I didn't want it to look like I had a perceived pecuniary interest (financial interest) as the Local Government Act, in Part 5 Section 51(i), advises that "the son, daughter, brother, sister, mother or father of the councillor or member or of their spouse or partner..." forms a close associate. Prior to 2005 the close relatives of a spouse was not included as a close associate in the Act.
Please note... if you Google the Local Government Act 1993 then be careful. I did that before the meeting and it gave me the 2005 version of Section 51. I didn't read that I had to click on number 4 of the 'Changes Over Time'. My Google search brought me to number 2.
As the Wharf Redevelopment concept had previously been dealt with as a Council (Nb. I sat out of these decisions) and the Fish & Chip Shop removed from this proposed Wharf Redevelopment, I believed, through my own reasoning, that I did not have a pecuniary interest in this (naive situation number two). When the Development Application item came forward at Monday's April Meeting of Council, it was as a Planning Authority item. This meant that it was to be judged on the Planning Scheme alone (taking into account other relevant laws etc.). The Fish & Chip shop was not part of the Development Application (Nb. the Fish & Chip shop is one a separate lease). I felt confident that I could assess this application purely on planning grounds and sit comfortable that I did not have a pecuniary interest.
Here's naive situation number three. Item five on Council's agenda each meeting asks for Declarations of Pecuniary Interest. I stood up and said something like "...as this is a planning authority item I believe that I do not have a conflict of interest". I didn't explain myself properly to the audience and it may have come across that I thought that the Planning Authority is exempt from the Local Government Act. In hindsight I should have offered a fuller explanation.
I don't remember any reference to the Fish & Chip Shop in the discussions. I was intently listening to see if was referenced as I would have stood up and left the room. I judged the Development Application on its merits.
In hindsight... I should have declared. This would have put out any doubt. It could be argued that I do have a pecuniary interest but I also feel that I could argue that I don't.
My other major concern is that this article may deter other younger people from nominating to be Councillors into the future. It would certainly deter me. Being a Councillor is a wonderful experience and you can do great things for your community - I hope that other potential and current Councillors can learn from my naivety.
I sincerely apologise to the Waratah-Wynyard community if I have done wrong. There was no malice in my intent and it was not an intentional breach. I've been naive enough to not seek professional and/or legal advice before participating in this Planning Authority item. My interpretation of this situation is obviously different to some others. Yes it's a fine line but I felt that I was on the right side of it. Maybe I wasn't - I guess I have to suck it and see.
I just have my fingers crossed that this is a far as it goes. As I said to the reporter, if I've done wrong then I'll accept the consequences . I'm not a 'No Comment' guy and am I willing to reveal why I have taken a certain course of action. I just hope that the consequences are not career ending ones and ones that may deter other future Councillors.
Best wishes,
Clayton
6 comments:
What a sincere,honest and hard-working young man you are Clayton Hawkins.. Let us hope that the narrow-mindedness of this bizarre world can see what we all do.. Best o'British to you ol'chum :-) .. Thinking and praying for you at this most crucial time!!!!!
Wow... Thankyou Anon. I'll always stand by my decisions and be willing to explain them... Even if I am found to be wrong. Cheers, C.
What a load of wank. Typical politics. You have done no wrong Clayton. If your family member owned the building then there may be cause for concern. Also you have told them that you have stood out of the discussion previously due to the family involvment...fair and honest i suspect.
Keep going Clayton..dont let them get you down.
Mxx
thanks Michelle :)
As a councillor and a journalist I find the Advocate article interesting to say the least. Having served a similar term to Clayton I'm finding significant problems in the dual role councillors are expected to perform in planning matters. Even though the same people are involved, the role of council and planning authority are different to the extent that they operate under separate legislation. As an example, the councillor's role as representative of the voters must in theory be set aside in planning matters, when the planning scheme and planning legisation rule supreme. Perceived conflicts of interest are a prickly matter and I wish you well.
Thanks a lot for your response Damian. As a fellow newbie to local Councillorship with a similar approach, I strongly appreciate your comments.
I think I've dusted off and hopefully not too much of the mud has stuck. I'll just have to sit back now to see.
Whether I've done anything wrong or not... At least I've found out that I've got friends out there :)
Post a Comment