I continue to be concerned about poor processes around Council’s committee structure – and its disregard for the role of all Councillors.
This is a long explainer… So hang in there…
The Standing Committees of Council are made up of a subset of Councillors and do not have delegations to make decisions.
The committees are provided with an agenda and can make recommendations to Council regarding items on the agenda. However, where they do not make a recommendation, the Committee often just “notes” an item. This, in itself, is a decision that they do not have delegation to make without the endorsement of the full Council.
In July 2025, the CEO had a meeting with the Committee Chairs to come up with a process. This in itself seems quite extraordinary. All councillors are equal (even though the Mayor might have some additional roles, responsibilities and a casting vote if needed) – so for a subset of Councillors to come up with a process without proper consultation is concerning.
At that meeting, it appears that it was decided by that small group, with the CEO, that the Committee Chairs would ask all Councillors before the monthly Ordinary Council meeting which items from the Committee report they wish to have “called up” at the Council meeting – and that it would require 2 Councillors to identify an item to be discussed.
Again – this seems extraordinary. The Committee Chairs become “gatekeepers” on what can be discussed at the Council meeting. The requirement for 2 Councillors to identify an item contradicts the normal process of one Councillor being able to “star” an item for debate at an Ordinary Council meeting.
The chaos of this structure was highlighted at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 24 February 2026. An increasing number of items are being shunted to committee agendas. This might be because of the significant workload of our mega-Council and/or to avoid scrutiny.
The minutes of the Committees come to Council for adoption. For example, suppose a committee has 10 items on the agenda – and for 3 of those items the committee recommends an action – and the remaining items are for noting.
Although the Committee Chair can move that the minutes of the Committee be adopted – it is, and should be, the right of any Councillor to call out one of the items to be discussed, ask questions or seek clarification. This includes those items that might not have a specific recommendation or action.
At the meeting on 24 February, these processes appeared to be abused. Four committees had reports coming to Council. Only one Committee Chair, Clr Wright, circulated an email asking Councillors about items (and then quizzed a Councillor about the item that they wanted to discuss).
In the case of the Environment & Planning Committee, although items were called out for the meeting – with 2 councillors making the request – the Committee Chair, Clr Eaton, sought to disregard that request.
Clr Eaton moved a motion to ram through the minutes of the E&P Committee without allowing a number of items to be called out (which at least two councillors had requested). He argued that because some of the items were unanimous in the committee, that should then prohibit other Councillors from calling them out, asking questions or speaking to them. Clr Wright seconded Clr Eaton’s motion.
In my view, this is an appalling abuse of process. In closing debate, Clr Eaton commented that he had discussed this approach with the CEO – who had agreed that this motion was in order.
Clr Eaton also made the comment that because both Liberal and Labor Councillors had supported a recommendation in the committee, that this “means they have crossfactional support”.
This would assume that all Liberal and Team Central Coast Councillors vote the same way and all Labor Councillors vote the same way – in line with a pre-determined position on a matter, irrespective of the personal views of individual Councillors on the merits of the matter. This kind of caucusing is not permitted under the Code of Conduct (sect 3.19).
The Liberal and Team Central Coast Councillors supported Clr Eaton’s motion. The remaining Councillors opposed it. Clr Eaton’s motion, seconded by Clr Wright, gagged debate on a range of matters.
24 February 2026
