That a matter concerning a request from Council’s Solicitors, Norton Rose, dated 15 July 2010 seeking instructions from Council to allow them to meet a 23 July 2010 deadline be treated as a matter of Urgent Business. And that this item of Urgent Business be dealt with in the Confidential part of this Council Meeting as the first item of business under S.89(2)(f) Legal Advice.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously (July 20th Council Minutes).
Thus the public is informed (for want of a better word!) of the behind the scenes machinations of Glen Eira Council and the saga surrounding the (re)appointment of the CEO. Putting one and two together, we surmise the following:
- Only a court of law, or the Municipal Inspector would set a deadline
- Norton Rose (and the $40,000 going their way til now) were the legal eagles involved in the reappointment process – hence it’s reasonable to conclude that this is more of the same
- The motion was moved by Whiteside and Magee – devotees of Newton. Both had also voted in favour of an investigation months ago
In April this year, via a leak to the Caulfield Leader, the community learnt that a Municipal Inspector was investigating Glen Eira. This makes it 3 investigations in the space of 12 years – surely a record? The Inspectorate’s newsletter in turn, makes it abundantly clear that their function includes (and we quote):
- Investigating allegations against councillors and senior council officers concerning breaches of the Local Government Act 1989
- Conflict of interest
- Budgets
- Code of conduct
- Councillor and mayoral allowances
- Local Laws
- Procurement processes
- Chief executive officer appointment process
- Primary/ordinary register of interests
- Delegations
Clearly, the current investigation is about much more than mere ‘minutes’ of any meeting as claimed by Lipshutz in a Caulfield Leader letter several months ago. We can only speculate, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the major catalyst and central issue is, and probably always has been, the (re)appointment of the CEO. The sudden ‘Urgent Business’ Item of Tuesday night’s council meeting, only strengthens this supposition.
But what are the consequences for the municipality?
We appear to have reached a state of total inertia. Everyone is watching their backs, everyone is gagged, and the community again kept in the dark. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, one thing is absolutely clear. The decade long malaise of this council continues. It is a council divided, in spite of all the ‘club’ propaganda and motherhood statements to the contrary. To put it bluntly, councillors simply stuffed up as they did in 2005. The compromise ‘solution’ of a two year term will cost this community not only tens of thousands of dollars, but will continue to divide. Once again we are left with a dysfunctional governing body and a CEO fighting for his reputation.
This latest episode does no credit to anyone – councillors or administration.
July 26, 2010 at 9:52 PM
this is a bit of a disaster territory. ceo is the most important position at the council. if many, even if it is not a majority of councillors, have no confidence in a ceo, then trouble is clearly waiting to happen. the best way usually is to change a ceo to ensure that a collegial modus operandi is preserved. there is no credit to a ceo also if he persist to hold on to a position in which he cannot be fully trusted. councillors are elected to make right decisions not just hard ones. otherwise it is just a vote any mug can make by raising their hand. clearly not a wise decision has been made all around. no credit to anyone with the community to suffer for many years to come.
July 26, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Dead right anonymous. Even Gorton had the dignity to cast the deciding vote against himself when he saw he lacked the support of colleagues. But that’s not the way Newton plays the game. Lawyers become involved only when there are threats and intimidation. Wonder if Council is actually paying for Newton’s legal bills as well?
July 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Who leaked? Who complained? At whose bidding? Discover this and the whole dirty mess will come out.
July 28, 2010 at 9:30 AM
The only common factor in all this is the Liberal Party hacks. They are hopeless individuals driven not by their duty to their constituents but for furthering their political careers. This current Council is hopelessly bogged down and the Independant Councillors are affraid to tell us what is going on.
July 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM
I doubt whether this has anything to do with the Labour – Liberal divide, but everything to do with the managerial modus operandi of the council.
Pilling is a declared Green; Magee a short term Labour Party member; Lipshutz a failed Liberal aspirant; all the following I would suspect Liberal voters – Hyams, Esakoff, Penhalluriack, Whiteside and possibly Tang. That leaves the unknown Lobo. So who voted what regarding the CEO.
Magee and Whiteside are definite Newton stooges as is Lipshutz. Penhalluriack, Pilling, probably opposed to the reappointment, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Hyams and Esakoff also voted against. So that leaves Tang and Lobo. Did the compromise come from one of them – a stupid attempt to settle the stalemate?
As I stated above – this has nothing to do with labour or liberal. It is all about the CEO!