Council & Business
2 September, 2025
Governance “anomalies” to be rectified
Central Goldfields Shire Council have identified “anomalies” in the rules that guide councillor’s decision making.
During the August council meeting residents may have noticed all councillors were able to speak on the draft plans through to the VicRoads petition — but this wasn’t always the case.
Previously only a handful of councillors could speak to a motion, even if others wanted to, which councillor Gerard Murphy challenged in an argument with mayor Grace La Vella in the June meeting.
Last month’s council meeting was the first time this disagreement seems to have been publically resolved in the months since.
Central Goldfields Shire CEO Peter Harriott said the argument was due to an “anomaly” later identified in an ongoing review of all council’s major strategic documents.
“In the review we have found that there are some anomalies within the governance rules that just need to be corrected and readopted,” he said.
“I’ve got no problems saying that because ... the sooner you find them the better you are because you can make some corrections and get it back to best practice standard as soon as possible. That helps everybody.”
The anomaly that’s previously restricted councillors ability to speak was the procedure for moving any motion or amendment.
Section 27.5 of the governance rules says: if no councillor indicates opposition and the mover has no desire to speak to it, the [council meeting’s] chair may declare the motion or amendment carried without discussion.
“That was the mayor’s interpretation in June and in some ways that was correct because there was no opposition to the motion. Now this is not an unusual clause in governance rules and it’s there to promote efficiency in the meeting,” he said.
However, the anomaly is a contradictory next clause, with 27.6 saying a councillor can address the meeting if they “desire to speak” to a motion.
“I can understand the confusion or the different interpretation that was applied in the June meeting and both the mayor and the councillor were correct because they both had abilities under the governance rules,” he said.
Cr La Vella, as the meeting’s chair, ultimately had final say.
“I have no problems with the governance surrounding that section of the meeting and the way that was run but it needs to be improved and clarified for future meetings,” he said.
“They should be more black and white in their direction ... that doesn’t always happen.”
Mr Harriott expects new governance rules, which he said will be up-to-standard and best practice, to be considered by council in the next six months.
“There’s degrees of urgency for changing things. What I’ve identified in the governance rules at this stage are not requiring immediate change but that gives us time to give it more of a comprehensive review and not just deal with issues one at a time.”