11 MINUTES – AND IT’S A WRAP AT BUNBURY COUNCIL


BLOGTHIS! Bunbury: Confidential meetings, closed door briefings and council decisions passed in mere minutes. Ratepayers’ elected representatives get paid well in WA so why meet in ‘secret’ and so briefly.
Bunbury council met for the first time on February 3. The meeting ran for 11 minutes, short and sweet, in which time councillors passed four items. In fact, it ran for around seven minutes, the rest of the time occupied by a separate question on anti-semitism in the city.
Councillors are paid about $38,000 a year in sitting fees and are only required to attend or provide apologies for ordinary council meetings. They can also miss one or two a year.
That 11 minutes cost Bunbury ratepayers more than $30,000 for nine elected members including the mayor to attend to matters of state with a couple of city staff. Should they have just stayed home and zoomed in?
Although they had not met for nearly two months, councillors were faced with just four items of business which were passed unanimously and without discussion. There were a few questions from one ratepayer, with Mayor Jaysen De San Miguel deciding to take them on notice and provide answers later.
In a short three-minute podcast, the mayor described the 11-minute session as a “fairly straightforward meeting”. He said while acknowledging a new arts strategy and citizens of the year: “A number of these items have been worked on for a little while and we were just cleaning it up with the first meeting of the year.”
The previous meeting on December 16 went for almost an hour, with all resolutions also passed unanimously. So-called agenda briefings with the CEO are optional, as is the annual ratepayers meeting held last year on December 17. It ran for 90 minutes.
But it’s discussions and decisions made behind closed doors that raises serious concerns.
StreetWise wrote to the CEO and councillors on Tuesday: “How is it … that you and fellow councillors agreed to make a secret decision at your meeting on December 16 then fail to record this decision in the minutes of the meeting, which were confirmed in February?
“I refer to Item 15.1.1 and Council Decision 245/25. The minutes say council decided it ‘Agrees to Option 1 as identified within the Business Case report’.
“If the public does not know what Option 1 is, this is a meaningless description of your decision.”
The minutes state councillors were advised the report in question and related discussions were confidential due to Section 5.23(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, which is then quoted.
“But if you read it, this clause of the Act specifically refers to ‘a contract’. In this case, there is NO CONTRACT. You cannot invoke Section 5.23(2)(c) just because someone thinks there may be a contract involved in the future.
“So, you have failed in your duty to the citizens of Bunbury to act properly and in their interests and to remain OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE except where prevented from doing so by law.
“Please tell me what action you intend to take to remedy this situation.”
Neither the City or councillors have responded.
* By Michael Southwell and Carmelo Amalfi