2015-08-18 Planning and Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                18 AUGUST 2015


suggested that had Council officers been able to speak directly to the Jury during the initial
few meetings, time could have been saved as issues were explained.

Investigating best practice for organic waste management from across Australia as
requested by the Jury was viewed as a positive, although this did require significant time in
reporting. Reporting time to brief the Jury was viewed as significant from all departments
concerned. Feedback from staff was that that the Jury process resulted in considerable
media coverage and discussion of organic waste issues which would likely not otherwise
have occurred which was a positive.

More could be done to engage staff in the process so that they could have more ownership
of outcomes. A Council officer did request a supplementary presentation to the Jury to
clarify items and was granted permission at a subsequent jury meeting. Council was also
able to provide a supplementary submission to its original background document via nDF to
the Jury, which it did. Staff and Councillors were kept informed of the process throughout
through regular media releases and internal communications.             Improved levels of
collaboration between departments were also viewed as positive and Council officers
developed skills that they otherwise may not have as a direct result of the Community Jury
process.

Council staff believe that it could improve in how it communicated the Jury process to the
community. Because consideration was given to the potential for publicising individual
Jurors, the Jury appeared as a collective body in the media. Early in the process a few
individual jurors were identified by nDF as willing to be interviewed by the media. While
photos of the whole Jury and smaller groups did appear in the press and individual jurors
were interviewed and appeared in videos, more could have been done to tell the Jury’s story
through the words of individual jurors which may have encouraged greater public interest.

Council officers agree that more could have been done to educate the community about the
organic waste issue. Although all research data was made available to the public and the
jurors simultaneously on Your Say Noosa, much of it was complex and could have been
better interpreted for the community. While Council’s Your Say Noosa website provided an
online portal for public submissions, a repository for all documents, regular news updates
were posted and 35 submissions were received from the community. Your Say Noosa has a
variety of engagement tools and could have been employed to a fuller extent. However,
there was uncertainty about the Jury process at that stage and also lack of experience in
using Your Say Noosa as a community engagement tool.

The Jury appreciated catered meetings and there was a very low absentee rate at Jury
meetings.
The low numbers of observers at the open Jury meetings may be a reflection of the
community interest in the topic, or the time the meetings were held.

Community Jury Symposium

Some elements that became evident when the Community Engagement manager attended
and presented at a Community Jury Symposium Bond University in June included:

   Noosa’s Community Jury is ground-breaking for councils in Queensland.
   Noosa’s Community Jury is a very good example of true collaboration with residents
     using a community jury model.
   Noosa is now “on the map” in the realms of people interested in social capital /
     democracy/ community empowerment in Australia.




                                                                                 Page 111 of 139