Outcome of Extraordinary Meeting of Council – Norman Griffiths Oval

โšฝ๏ธ ๐—ข๐˜‚๐˜๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—˜๐˜…๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—น – ๐—ก๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—š๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต๐˜€ ๐—ข๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—น – ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฒ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฏ In short, Norman Griffiths Oval to proceed but with minimal further consultation.

In the corporate world, decisions are usually made in a careful and considered manner. If there are four options on the table, then all four options are considered simultaneously with their relative strengths and weaknesses compared against each other. The governing body discusses then decides which of the four options to choose.

In Local Government, the Code of Meeting practices requires decisions to be made in a very different manner. Motions are considered and voted on one at a time, and depending on luck of the draw, sequencing of motions / amendments, and the chairperson it results in not all options being considered or debated by the council. This does, at times, lead to suboptimal decision making and results.

At last nightโ€™s council meeting we had four proposals (or options). The third proposal was the one that became โ€˜the motionโ€™ and was voted on, and Iโ€™m disappointed that the first and the fourth proposal never had the opportunity to be voted on.

๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น ๐— ๐—ผ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿญ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—” ๐—ง๐—ฎ๐˜†๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled โœ… Further consultation with community groups and NPWS to explicitly occur, and inform potential design change ๐Ÿ˜ข No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures

๐—™๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฎ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ž๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐Ÿ›‘ Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to be put on hold โœ… Further consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to explicitly occur ๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ Voted on but defeated 2 vs 7

๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฏ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜ ๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled โ‰๏ธ Consultation with NPWS not mentioned, but I will be driving it behind the scenes ๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ Voted on 5 vs 4 and became โ€˜the motionโ€™ ๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ As โ€˜the motionโ€™ it succeeded 6 vs 3

๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฐ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ก๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ ๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled โœ… Further consultation with NPWS to explicitly occur โฐ Further update on NPWS endorsement scheduled for April council meeting ๐Ÿ˜ข No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures

Iโ€™m not comfortable with local government process that permits only one option to be considered at a time. It leads to suboptimal outcomes. But it is what it is and I donโ€™t see these rules changing anytime soon.

I do wish that there would have been the chance to vote on Proposal 1 and Proposal 4. Both of these options strived to deliver the project without further delay but while also lifting community engagement beyond minimal statutory obligations and towards best practice (or community standards). In fact, a lot of the drama and grief that arose in the last two weeks could easily have been avoided had relevant stakeholders been more thoroughly engaged last year. I wouldnโ€™t be surprised if there are further conversations about perceived gaps in community engagement in the coming months.

But given that Proposal 3 is what we ended up with, it means that the Norman Griffiths Oval will proceed as currently scheduled and we expect completion in mid November.

โšฝ๏ธ ๐—ข๐˜‚๐˜๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—˜๐˜…๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—น - ๐—ก๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—š๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต๐˜€ ๐—ข๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—น - ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฒ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฏ
In short, Norman Griffiths Oval to proceed but with minimal further consultation.

In the corporate world, decisions are usually made in a careful and considered manner. If there are four options on the table, then all four options are considered simultaneously with their relative strengths and weaknesses compared against each other. The governing body discusses then decides which of the four options to choose.

In Local Government, the Code of Meeting practices requires decisions to be made in a very different manner. Motions are considered and voted on one at a time, and depending on luck of the draw, sequencing of motions / amendments, and the chairperson it results in not all options being considered or debated by the council. This does, at times, lead to suboptimal decision making and results.

At last nightโ€™s council meeting we had four proposals (or options). The third proposal was the one that became โ€˜the motionโ€™ and was voted on, and Iโ€™m disappointed that the first and the fourth proposal never had the opportunity to be voted on.

๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น ๐— ๐—ผ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿญ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—” ๐—ง๐—ฎ๐˜†๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฟ
๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled
โœ… Further consultation with community groups and NPWS to explicitly occur, and inform potential design change
๐Ÿ˜ข No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures

๐—™๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฎ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ž๐—ฎ๐˜†
๐Ÿ›‘ Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to be put on hold
โœ… Further consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to explicitly occur
๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ Voted on but defeated 2 vs 7

๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฏ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜
๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled
โ‰๏ธ Consultation with NPWS not mentioned, but I will be driving it behind the scenes
๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ Voted on 5 vs 4 and became โ€˜the motionโ€™
๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ As โ€˜the motionโ€™ it succeeded 6 vs 3

๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฐ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ก๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ
๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled
โœ… Further consultation with NPWS to explicitly occur
โฐ Further update on NPWS endorsement scheduled for April council meeting
๐Ÿ˜ข No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures

Iโ€™m not comfortable with local government process that permits only one option to be considered at a time. It leads to suboptimal outcomes. But it is what it is and I donโ€™t see these rules changing anytime soon.

I do wish that there would have been the chance to vote on Proposal 1 and Proposal 4. Both of these options strived to deliver the project without further delay but while also lifting community engagement beyond minimal statutory obligations and towards best practice (or community standards). In fact, a lot of the drama and grief that arose in the last two weeks could easily have been avoided had relevant stakeholders been more thoroughly engaged last year. I wouldnโ€™t be surprised if there are further conversations about perceived gaps in community engagement in the coming months.

But given that Proposal 3 is what we ended up with, it means that the Norman Griffiths Oval will proceed as currently scheduled and we expect completion in mid November.
โšฝ๏ธ ๐—ข๐˜‚๐˜๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—˜๐˜…๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—น – ๐—ก๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—š๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต๐˜€ ๐—ข๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—น – ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฒ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฏ In short, Norman Griffiths Oval to proceed but with minimal further consultation. In the corporate world, decisions are usually made in a careful and considered manner. If there are four options on the table, then all four options are considered simultaneously with their relative strengths and weaknesses compared against each other. The governing body discusses then decides which of the four options to choose. In Local Government, the Code of Meeting practices requires decisions to be made in a very different manner. Motions are considered and voted on one at a time, and depending on luck of the draw, sequencing of motions / amendments, and the chairperson it results in not all options being considered or debated by the council. This does, at times, lead to suboptimal decision making and results. At last nightโ€™s council meeting we had four proposals (or options). The third proposal was the one that became โ€˜the motionโ€™ and was voted on, and Iโ€™m disappointed that the first and the fourth proposal never had the opportunity to be voted on. ๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น ๐— ๐—ผ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿญ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—” ๐—ง๐—ฎ๐˜†๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled โœ… Further consultation with community groups and NPWS to explicitly occur, and inform potential design change ๐Ÿ˜ข No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures ๐—™๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฎ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ž๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐Ÿ›‘ Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to be put on hold โœ… Further consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to explicitly occur ๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ Voted on but defeated 2 vs 7 ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฏ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜ ๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled โ‰๏ธ Consultation with NPWS not mentioned, but I will be driving it behind the scenes ๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ Voted on 5 vs 4 and became โ€˜the motionโ€™ ๐Ÿ—ณ๏ธ As โ€˜the motionโ€™ it succeeded 6 vs 3 ๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ (๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น ๐Ÿฐ): ๐—–๐—ฟ ๐—ก๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ ๐Ÿšง Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled โœ… Further consultation with NPWS to explicitly occur โฐ Further update on NPWS endorsement scheduled for April council meeting ๐Ÿ˜ข No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures Iโ€™m not comfortable with local government process that permits only one option to be considered at a time. It leads to suboptimal outcomes. But it is what it is and I donโ€™t see these rules changing anytime soon. I do wish that there would have been the chance to vote on Proposal 1 and Proposal 4. Both of these options strived to deliver the project without further delay but while also lifting community engagement beyond minimal statutory obligations and towards best practice (or community standards). In fact, a lot of the drama and grief that arose in the last two weeks could easily have been avoided had relevant stakeholders been more thoroughly engaged last year. I wouldnโ€™t be surprised if there are further conversations about perceived gaps in community engagement in the coming months. But given that Proposal 3 is what we ended up with, it means that the Norman Griffiths Oval will proceed as currently scheduled and we expect completion in mid November.