Since the early days of the current Council, a remarkably high proportion of motions in open Council meetings have passed unanimously without questions or comment. A vote by any alderman against any motion whatsoever has become a noteworthy event. To hear an alderman speak against a motion is just as rare.
Only two issues spring to mind as triggering anything like a true debate. The first related to changing the meeting start time from 3pm to 6pm; I recall aldermen discussing this for over half an hour? The second resulted from significant public pressure for an unconditional opt-out option for FOGO.
After the dysfunction of past years, it may feel comfortable to have Council meetings with no heat, no anger, no disagreement. It may be reassuring to see efficiently run meetings. The aldermen themselves may be pleased to be on their way home early. Universal agreement (or at least consensus) on most issues might be seen by many as desirable given recent history.
On the other hand, before the pandemic people leaving Council meetings would regularly express the sentiment “Wasn’t that a waste of time?” A curious comment given they’d just witnessed an efficiently run and uneventful meeting. What else could they have wanted? And could the lack of any disagreement be a concern? What might it tell us about our council?
If the lack of discussion at Council did indeed reflect identical or similar personally-held views on every issue then Council lacks a diversity of views; that would not produce optimal or creative decision-making. That would be tragic and should discourage voters from voting for candidates as a team in future.
Realistically though, it would be truly remarkable if aldermen did not occasionally have different views. Why don’t we see those differences?
Agreement on all issues could perversely be as dysfunctional as continuous conflict if it is the result of groupthink – where individual desire for harmony or conformity overwhelms the individual desire to express their personal views. It may reflect pressures on aldermen to conform, to present an impression of unity or at least avoid any hint of disunity.
On the other hand, it may indicate that Council is simply rubberstamping results of discussion or workshops elsewhere. Aldermen have already arrived at a consensus, are all talked out, and have nothing left for the Council meeting.
Furthermore, a desire to get home early and keep the meeting short may discourage them from breaking the flow. That would be exacerbated by the scheduling of council meetings on the same day as some workshops. Aldermen may find it difficult to maintain enthusiasm at the end of a tiring day.
The Planning Authority has its own particular pressures.
First, there seems to be huge pressure to accept without question the evidence and recommendations of planning officers and other council staff. But we must keep in mind that much of the material provided by staff consists of professional opinions based on assessments of situations based on assumptions and computer models of unknown provenance and limited evidence of relevance. Aldermen should not feel uncomfortable questioning evidence and staff should not feel threatened by that questioning. Professionals in any field can arrive at different conclusions starting with the same evidence.
And the mere mention of RMPAT sends a chill through the room. Pressures to avoid the expense and resources required to deal with an appeal could easily cause self-censoring. Concerns about possible newspaper headlines describing council as “anti-development” could have the same effect.
None of these possible causes need result in misbehaviour, and this article makes no such accusations. But it’s time that aldermen showed that they have minds of their own. That is not disunity. That is not the antithesis of teamwork. The next time I hear “carried unanimously” announced with enthusiasm, I’ll scream.
Glenorchy City Observer 
Well said. These workshops run by management, decisions made before it gets to the meetings so the public don’t hear any alternative opinions is not open local government at work. I said and expressed my views at the time that a Mayoral candidate running a team was not a good look and didn’t sit well with me at all. It shouldn’t sit well with the Glenorchy community either. A few of the aldermen are linked through common interests and boards. This is not a good look. We need aldermen with independent thoughts and ideas and these need to be seen at council meetings through open discourse.
This is an excellent and well thought out article and expresses the very same concerns that I have had for quite some time. It doesn’t help of coarse that the present council meetings are being held via Facebook and that is through no fault of their own but robust discussion seems to have flown out the window. That doesn’t mean to say they should all disagree but it would be helpful if we could sine debate. I have been concerned since the time the mayor actually stated she takes notice of what the staff tell her, or words to that effect, and that rang alarm bells for me I’m afraid. I concede I may have taken the words out of context but they have stayed with me.
They werent voted for as a team. They were elected as individuals.
Very interesting commentary
The introduction of “Team Kristie” was an interesting development on Glenorchy local politics
The results of the election were even more interesting, as under the Tasmanian voting system as used in Council elections it showed that no Alderperson was elected in their own right, with the exception of the Mayor who received (from memory) over 5 quotas
Thus the members of the “Team” all owe their election success to the then popularity of the Mayor, no need to say anymore about what most citizens and ratepayers were hoping for by way of independent Alderpersons communicating with their electoral base
Another way of giving more independence and accountability to Council would be to use “Citizens Juries” and/or “Open Workshops” as part of the decision making process and thus allowing more examination of the recommendations by the bureaucracy running the Council