Item 11.2 of the agenda items for next Tuesday night’s council meeting contains several statements from councillors and the CEO. All vigorously protest their innocence, emphasising that the Municipal Investigator found ‘no breach of the Act’. There is also a response ‘signed’ by 6 of the nine councillors, alleging the ‘selective, misleading or distorted reporting’ by the Caulfield Leader, and in particular Jenny Ling, the journalist. Of note, and make of this what you will, this final ‘letter’ fails to include the names of Oscar Lobo, and Jim Magee (Cheryl Forge is understandably absent since the incidents did not include her).
Readers would have far more confidence in these protestations of innocence if:
Councillors Hyams, Esakoff, and Penhalluriack, had seen fit to pen clearly INDIVIDUAL ‘rights of reply’ rather than each adopting the pro forma response of: “There was no suggestion from the Municipal Inspector in his letter to me or in his report to all councillors that there was any reason that I should not have been involved in the CEO appointment process.” Come on councillors – a little bit of independent creativity wouldn’t have gone astray!!
As to the epistle signed by 6 councillors we note the following: The constant refrain of ‘no breach of the Act’ is not an exoneration. It simply means that there are numerous ‘loopholes’ and gaping holes in the legislation. We remind readers that the Municipal Inspector did find repeated instances of lack of ‘transparency and accountability’. There was ‘no breach of the Act’, because these incidents fall outside the current wording of the Local Government Act. To claim in the end that the entire matter is really one of not keeping records properly, and that the public is not affected, is disingenuous in the extreme. We repeat what we have said time and time again – distrust between councillors, between councillors and the CEO, and between councillors and officers does affect the community. No orchestrated ‘united’ front can whitewash this irrevocable fact.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM
The Inspectorate found “…there is insufficient evidence to
prosecute any councillor for breaches of the Local Government
Act 1989 (Act) but has uncovered councillor behaviour that is at
odds with the objectives of council”. The report contains
multiple reminders to Councillors of S3C (Objectives of a
Council) since their behaviour was considered to be at odds with
those Objectives. See 3C(g) for example, “to ensure transparency
and accountability in Council decision making”.
The Preamble S1(4) also adds: “It is necessary…that Council is
responsible and accountable to the local community.”
It sounds like the Act is weak if there’s nothing in it that
requires Council to be transparent and accountable in its
decision making. If there was such a requirement, then that
would strongly indicate one or more breaches did occur.
Personally, I’m more concerned about Council staff, *their* Code
of Conduct (S95AA), and transparency and accountability of their
decisions, especially when using delegated powers.
September 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Newton claims that he “did not propose, recommend or in any way initiate the 1998 or 2004 or 2010 Investigations.” This may well be correct. He didn’t have to – there were willing lap dogs to do his bidding perhaps? There is a world of difference between proposing, recommending, and influencing, or becoming the trigger for these investigations. Whiteside’s dummy spit is the perfect example. All logic points to the fact that it was over his reappointment. What conversations went on behind closed doors we will never be privy to; what ‘advice’ was provided to her and probably Magee will also never be known.
The findings of the inspector remain highly questionable when it comes to staff. We are told that they ‘produced documents’ – but these so called documents are not in the public domain. There’s plenty of evidence however to suggest that officers reports lack accuracy and timeliness. So how this conclusion was reached is highly suspect.
Reprobate’s point about delegation is also crucial. Councillors cannot be expected to do the work of 1000 staff. Duties must be delegated. But it is councillors’ responsibility to see that there are sufficient curbs, and checks on this authority and that officers are held to account. Perhaps a good start would be to make public the Officers’ code of conduct – then we could all see how it differs from the gagging document that councillors imposed on themselves. We should also compare the delegation documents that this council ratifies with those of other councils – simply to gauge how other organisations keep their staff in line. I’m sure it would make for illuminating comparisons, especially in those vital areas of planning.
September 18, 2010 at 3:18 PM
I’m seeking clarification on another item that appears in the agenda. Under in camera there is $1,000,000 written down for maintainance of the Carnegie Pool. The budget only specified $250,000 and the community plan does not mention the pool at all – so how do we get to $1m? The tender application that Glen Eira Debates posted a while ago simply says a contract for one year with the possibility of renewal for future years. Council hasn’t budgeted for this, it’s not appearing in action plans, yet we’re told that this will cost about 1 million. Either this is attempting to create the impression that something long term is actually being done about the pool, or it is again a questions of governance and the pre-empting of formal council decisions. Either way we need an explanation.
September 18, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous if you have any credibility then simply name your Lapdogs.You continuously rubbish the Administration,not with facts but with suppositions you have made up. Put up or shut up. Name the Lapdogs?