Griffith Cemetery has been at the height of contention for many years.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
With so many rules and regulations put in place, it’s not difficult to see why residents are often confused – particularly when those rules seem conflicting with others.
And, it seems the Cemetery Working Group (CWG) and Griffith City Council will continue to butt heads over the matter until it is resolved.
Recently, CWG member Michael Crump raised concern over a sign posted at the cemetery office referencing a 2006 by-law, however Mr Crump claims the sign is outdated.
And, while Griffith City Council claim the sign is current, Mr Crump isn’t convinced.
RELATED:
The sign referred to highlights Section 26 of the Crown Lands (General Reserves) By-law; the placing of objects on or near burial places.
When approached for clarity, Director Infrastructure and Operations Mr Phil King said the sign “cannot be changed or amended by Council.”
“The intent is to provide the part of state law that relates to the operation of our cemetery and then provide reference to Council's Cemetery Management Plan (CMP),” Mr King said.
While Mr Crump claims there are discrepancies between the 2006 by-law and the 2009 Cemetery Management Plan (CMP) – and is therefore leaving residents at a loss – Mr King has said:
“There are no known discrepancies in the Cemetery Management Plan (CMP) and it provides the detail so that the ‘direction given’ can be consistent,” he said.
Mr King also noted that at the December 12 2017 Council meeting, Council “resolved to amend the CMP to allow for the recommendation made by the working group.”
“That recommendation allows the placement of embellishments, as long as they are not glued.”
Mr King then commented on Section 26 (2) and elaborated that the “authorised person” is referring to Council.
However, Mr Crump notes, “unless you are conversing with the English language, you would interpret differently to what it says.”
He also said the use of the word “contravention” in the by-law is creating further confusion and should be explained for the public in layman’s terms.
“I went and got a legal opinion on it, but what does the general public do if they don’t have a good sound education?” Mr Crump said.
Mr King spoke about the recent changes to the lawn section stating there will be an allowance for “some additional considerations to be utilised when considering the placement of embellishments.”
In response, Mr Crump has said to what that refers should be on the notice board.
Mr Crump also said that while the Cemetery Management Plan is incomplete, it should – upon completion – ideally sit next to the 2006 by-law at the cemetery office “so the sign is not ambiguous and everybody has a clear idea.”
“I have some sympathy for Mr King, because he has been put in a situation that should never have evolved, but that stems back from Mayor John Dal Broi shutting the Working Group down,” Mr Crump said.
“And, in all fairness, Cr Dal Broi has demonstrated poor decision-making ability in the past – how could you expect anything different for this.”
At this stage, the CMP is under review.