A PROPOSAL to allow Kingston Council’s CEO to strike down notices of motion before they are debated in the council chamber remains under consideration.
At Kingston Council’s March meeting, councillors received an analysis of the Governance Rules relating to notices of motion. Council officers were asked to consider the merits of allowing the CEO to veto controversial proposals (“Council considers CEO veto powers” The News 25/2/2026).
At council’s March meeting, councillors voted to commence another review of the Governance Rules and receive “a further report regarding the Governance Rules review and proposed amendments, with a view to formally amend the Governance Rules in accordance with the Local Government Act 2020.”
The report will consider a swathe of change to notice of motion procedures. Council officers wrote that “current rejection grounds are limited to technical invalidity, defamation, vagueness or objectionable nature or language”, and that they will “consider expanding the grounds that the CEO must reject.”
The changes under consideration would allow the CEO to strike down NOMs which “seek to direct or unduly interfere with operational matters contrary to section 11 of the Act; adversely impact council service levels; pose extreme legal, reputational, governance, or workplace health and safety risks; name or target individual staff members or councillors in a manner that may be prejudicial or inappropriate; and make allegations about, or seek disciplinary or performance-related action against, individual staff members.”
The report will also “consider inclusion of a referral mechanism for the mayor’s determination for admission where NOMs are cleared by the CEO but present as particularly controversial, or provide the mayor with veto powers for any NOM already approved by the CEO”, council officers wrote.
Last week’s meeting agenda also noted that the state government-appointed municipal monitors had weighed in on potential changes to the Governance Rules. The monitors focused on two separate rules: that council can commit unbudgeted expenditure up to $25,000 via a NOM without a report, and that a motion for rescission lapses if it is not moved at the meeting at which it is listed. The monitors advised that council “change the rules to the effect that any motion to commit unbudgeted expenditure other than urgent works in an emergency must first call for an officer’s report and can only refer the matter for consideration in the next annual budget”. They also advised adding a “3 month rule” if a NOM is not moved before it can be proposed again.
The motion at last week’s meeting was approved with the support of councillors Chris Hill, Tony Athanasopoulos, Kirralee Ashworth-Collett, Chris Howe, and Hadi Saab.
First published in the Frankston Times – 31 March 2026