FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK
REDLAND City Council has struck more comedy gold.
Well, sort of. In another epic eight-hour marathon of democracy —our councillors have finally settled one of the most pressing questions facing local government: can you abstain from voting?
The answer, after a long-winded debate that could have doubled as a sleep study, is a resounding no.
In the past, if a councillor failed to vote or tried to abstain, it was automatically counted as a “no.”
Under the newly clarified Section 7.7.7 of the revised Standing Orders, councillors can no longer abstain from a vote in the chamber.
No wiggle room. No middle ground. No moral hesitation. Just a cold, hard negative.
Which is, of course, very fitting for a council that clearly loves its rules as much as a gambler loves a slot machine—777 style.
Lucky number, jackpot outcome, and spiritual guidance all wrapped into one bureaucratic thrill ride.
Cr Shane Rendalls provided the coup de grâce with a quip that could only happen in Redlands: could he theoretically abstain on a vote to remove the ability to abstain?
You can almost hear the collective minds spinning in that chamber amidst the cackling laughter of the Deputy Mayor.
“So if I abstained before, it was counted as a negative. Now? Just a negative. End of story,” Cr Rendalls concluded.
If you thought this was tautological enough, Mayor Jos Mitchell reminded everyone that, in this Council, they “like to prosecute and investigate every single angle.”
Yes, every angle—even the angles that don’t exist.
Councillor Paul Bishop valiantly defended the right to abstain, citing ethical and procedural reasons, while Cr Peter Mitchell and others insisted abstaining is a “cop out.”
“Abstaining—it just doesn’t pass the pub test. It’s a cop out. If you’re not making a decision, you’re not representing your community,” Cr Mitchell said, summing up the majority view.
Cr Lance Hewlett offered a pragmatic view: if you abstain, it’s still counted as a no, but at least the public knows you did it.
“Removing that, or leaving it there, makes no real difference—except it doesn’t allow the public to see that you’re abstaining,” he said.
“So, it’ll still be documented as a negative, but sometimes you do abstain. It’s better to abstain than to get up and walk out of the room or get a glass of water if you don’t want to vote, which I know people can do.
“We live in a political world. If Councillor Bishop feels he sometimes wants to abstain, I think he should be allowed to.
“Officially, it’ll be counted as a negative, but the public at least knows he’s abstained, and he can explain himself to residents why, if he feels so.”
Somewhere in this debate, the audience may have been forgiven for wondering if they were watching a Council meeting or a particularly slow game of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
All in all, 7.7.7 has passed.
The councillors can now sleep easy, knowing they are no longer allowed to abstain from voting—a regulation that probably won’t change the outcome of a single motion but will provide endless fodder for bemused citizens and council officers alike.
And in true Redlands style, it all happened under the lucky number 777.
