Tag: public transparency

When Kiama Council stops listening, the community steps up

In Kiama, we pride ourselves on being engaged, fair-minded, and not afraid to speak up when something feels wrong. So when members of this community take the time to submit formal complaints to Council -backed by evidence, dates, and clear requests for action – it’s not done lightly.

It comes from a belief that our local democracy still matters. And that someone, somewhere inside the system, will listen.  to put their concerns in writing, cite documents, ask for a review  – there’s a basic expectation: that someone, somewhere, will respond.

 

A simple acknowledgement.

A record of receipt.

A sign that the system is functioning.

But that didn’t happen here.

 

I submitted a formal complaint to Kiama Council about the handling of the ICAC referral. So did others. We raised questions about process, timing, and accountability. We asked for a review.

 

The response? Silence.

Not even a note from the Public Officer to confirm the request had been received. No response from the CEO. No indication that the concerns were being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

And this is what makes people give up. Not disagreement. Not debate. But the sense that no one is listening.

 

So let me say this clearly:

We are listening to each other.

We are keeping records.

We are not going away.

The community sets the standard.

We expect better.

 

We expect that when three councillors are referred to an anti-corruption body and then cleared, someone in Council will have the decency to correct the record — not leave a misleading notice online for months, casting doubt long after the facts are known.

 

We expect that formal requests will be logged, replied to, and dealt with transparently – not ignored.

 

And we expect that those tasked with upholding the integrity of the system will do more than protect it when convenient. They will protect it when it’s hard. When it’s messy. When it means holding powerful people to account.

The question is not whether councillors or community members are brave enough to raise these issues.

 

We already have.

The question is whether Council is willing to deal with the answers.

 

#KiamaCouncil #LocalDemocracy #CouncilAccountability #ICACReferral #GovernanceMatters #CommunityVoice #TransparencyNow #PublicTrust #LeadershipStandards #CivicEngagement

You had one job… and a pen. Council’s undated contract saga

At the 20 May 2025 Kiama Municipal Council meeting, something curious happened. Councillor Imogen Draisma tabled a construction agreement signed by both Kiama Council and the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club, a document that forms the basis of the surf club’s brand-new building.

The catch? It wasn’t dated.

So, in a very public moment, Councillor Draisma did what any responsible representative would: she asked if this was good governance.

The CEO’s answer? A flat “No.”

You’d think that would be the end of it. But in true Kiama Council fashion, that was only the beginning of the theatre.

Watch the drama play out here beginning at 33.52 m

In a follow-up question, Draisma asked why council staff and surf club members had signed an undated legal document.

The CEO responded with an air of formality: she didn’t know.

She then explained that Council usually keeps a record in the CEO’s office showing when documents are submitted and signed, and that “it is usual practice to date and document all signatures.”

Lovely. Except she didn’t say whether that process was followed. No dates. No names. No real answers. In other words, a masterclass in sounding accountable without actually being accountable.

This is not an isolated slip. It’s part of a broader pattern, where the optics of order are used to distract from a lack of follow-through.

Remember: this is a contract tied to a building that already exists. It has been physically constructed. Ratepayers are using it. And yet somehow, no one in the building remembered to write the date on the contract that allowed it to be built.

This, of course, is the same meeting where another question about developer contributions (from another councillor) prompted a response so conveniently selective, it skipped over the very document that first required a $1 million payment from developers. That small omission later turned out to be worth over $970,000 to the community.

If we sound sceptical, it’s because the pattern is hard to ignore.

Time and again, Council appears more invested in managing appearances than managing records. And while councillors squabble, raise eyebrows or ask fair questions, the CEO continues to maintain that everything is under control, except for the parts she can’t quite explain.

The community deserves better than this passive-aggressive pantomime. We’re not asking for Shakespeare. But we do think someone should write down the date.

One week later Cr Draisma found herself in the hot seat 

“One week she tables a contract that exposes a governance gap. The next week, someone’s asking if she should be investigated. That’s not accountability. That’s theatre, and the script is older than local government itself.”

It sends a message, whether intended or not:  “I have powerful friends. Tread carefully.”

Coming soon: a breakdown of how public access and proper motions can still be used to push for transparency, assuming someone in the room is still paying attention.

Disclaimer: This post reflects publicly available information and personal commentary on governance and community perception. It is not intended to suggest wrongdoing or impugn the integrity of any individual. All views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #TransparencyMatters #GovernanceWatch #CommunityAccountability #PublicInterest #Section711 #PlanningReform