This is a tale of intrigue and secrecy. Secrecy by administrators with the result that not only the public, but councillors themselves are not given information which is vital in order for them to govern in the best interests of the community.
In February this year, Glen Eira City Council faced 88 charges in the Dandenong Magistrates Court. Council employed an SC, and the potential fines were in the vicinity of $2,000,000. The charges were laid by Vic Roads. Council was found ‘not guilty’ of these charges. This is not the point of our tale however. What we wish to highlight is that individuals whose job it is to protect the community and its assets did NOT KNOW OF THIS PROSECUTION! In other words elected representatives were excluded from an issue which had the potential to impact on all aspects of the municipality and its operations.
What must also be borne in mind is the following – taken directly from the Whelan Report (page 32) and citing the purported governance practices by the administration. The heading of this page is: “CEO/Administration and councillors”
“A Governance Digest is sent to Councillors by courier each Thursday. It includes a diary of all engagements involving the Mayor / Councillors, any key commitments by senior managers (e.g. conferences) and events which affect the community. It sets out information under five chapters laid down by the CEO:-
o “For Councillors to take action / decision” (e.g. extra information about a matter coming before Council; opportunities to attend development courses);
o “Sensitive issues that Councillors should be aware of”. This is the heart of the Digest. It updates Councillors on constituent concerns, media items, etc.
o “Decisions made by management that Councillors should be aware of” (e.g. decisions by the Delegated Planning Committee);
o “Reports on progress” (e.g. implementation of capital works);
o “General information”. Provision of this information is based on an internal policy which states:- “The golden rule is No Surprises. It is our policy to alert our Councillors beforehand of any issue which could reasonably become the subject of public discussion.”
Seems like this administration does not practice what it preaches – even after three municipal inspectors’ investigations. This court case speaks volumes about the failure of governance, transparency, and accountability. We ask councillors – who runs this council? You, or the ‘faceless men’?
You may read the full judgement or the Norton Rose synopsis via these links –
http://www.nortonrose.com/knowledge/publications/2010/pub28461.aspx?lang=de-de
Glen Eira Debates 
October 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM
This is the reason for Council forcing the cost of a three bin system on residents, but use the excuse of recycling even when recyables end up in landfill. Glen Eira only got off on a technicality as they were responsible for appointing Theiss and were well aware of the overloading issues. Mind you, the head of waste administration at Council has recently ‘retired’.
October 30, 2010 at 7:26 PM
Readers might also like to ponder the significance of the following paragraph taken directly from the judgement Para.23 –
“Doug Griffiths gave evidence as the Manager of Waste Management at the City of Glen Eira, a position he has held since 1997. He has extensive experience in the field as a civil engineer and gave detailed evidence. I found him to be a credible witness. I note that he was called by the Prosecution and yet he was the witness relied upon by the defence to discharge its onus under section 179. I commented on this being a course denying the prosecution the opportunity to cross examine on the issues it sought to rebut. I am still at a loss to understand why the Prosecution adopted this course”
October 30, 2010 at 4:35 PM
technicality is right – especially when someone is possibly willing to take a ‘swan dive’ for you. Wonder what ‘inducements’ might possibly have been dangled before the company’s nose? Wonder what it might cost to put a little blemish on the reputation of such a major company – but only if they were that way inclined?
November 1, 2010 at 8:05 AM
I just want to clarify that you are stating that Councillors were unaware that Council was possibly liable for $2M due to a Court appearance.
November 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM
There is something odd about the court’s reasoning: in both
Norton Rose summary and the Court decision there is reference to
the contract being structured to provide for “a payment formula
based on a bonus being paid when compliance was achieved”. Its
as if non-compliance was forseen.
In order for the bonus to be payable GEC would need evidence
that compliance had been achieved e.g. that the trucks were not
overloaded. This involves reporting gross weight and tare
weight for each truck. The trucks were weighed, and this
appears to have been reported, but not the tare weight. In the
circumstances that sounds negligent because without both pieces
of information you wouldn’t know if the truck complied.
There’s something else that seems to be missing from the
Decision, which is the predicted changes to mass and volume over
time. As the municipality packs in more people in higher density
developments (which is clearly predicted) there will be an
increase in rubbish generated. Each change to waste collection
practice will also have an impact. Were these forseen? (They’d
better have been.)
I’m surprised at the sensitivity and accuracy of the weighing
equipment used, given that by agreement the charges were amended
to reduce the weight in each charge by only 250 grams.
November 2, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Reprobate, you might also be interested in the following judgement – Vic Roads versus Whitehorse City Council. The latter was up on four charges, not 88. There are many interesting comparisons to be made, especially re contracts and prosecution tactics. See: http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/4a7bdb80440ace7eb405f61b048e52c2/Vicroads+v+City+of+Whitehorse.pdf?MOD=AJPERES