Councillors expressed frustration yesterday about the time taken when a member fails to get to the point quickly or when multiple questions are pursued by one councillor, leaving little time for others.
It is particularly an issue if a member of the public has five minutes to make a presentation and there is then a period of five minutes for councillors to ask questions.
During a workshop about standing orders yesterday, a trial was suggested of a protocol in which a councillor might ask one concise question and then go to the end of the queue.
It was unclear how this might be enforced.
It appeared there could be communication of an expectation among elected representatives and they would then do their best to maintain self-discipline.
Cr Jim O’Malley was not sure how the person chairing a meeting might get on if a protocol did not have a formal document behind it, but he was open to a trial.
"Let’s give it a go, as if the rule existed," he said.
Deputy mayor Cherry Lucas identified an occasion in which it took a councillor 1 minute and 27 seconds to ask a question.
Cr Christine Garey said the issue was about sharing and "not having a whole story before we get to the next question".
She was one councillor wary of attempts to bring in extra rules, as much could be accomplished by a person chairing a meeting firmly, she said.
Cr Garey said it could be appropriate to ask a subsequent question and Cr Kevin Gilbert said there might sometimes be a two-part question, or a question that set up the main question.
Councillors cannot make decisions at workshops, but their comments can assist with direction for council staff.
Another key topic was whether people who made submissions in consultation processes could have a second go during the public forum of council meetings.
This was one issue that arose when the council was considering the possibility of selling Aurora Energy.
A public hearing was held in May and the council ended up deciding in September to retain the company.
Two people who wanted to have their say in August were told the matter was "subject to a hearing, including the hearing of submissions where the local authority or committee sits in a quasi-judicial capacity".
The possibility of community boards, or organisations in general, being allowed more time to make submissions was raised, but did not seem to attract support.
Other subjects that got a mention during yesterday’s workshop included non-verbal communication around the chamber such as eye-rolling and gesticulation, as well as questionable practices such as off-microphone comments and behaviour open to interpretation or a matter of degree, such as sighing and "snorting".
