The Glen Eira Audit Committee Charter (Council Minutes: 22nd July, 2008) states:
Term of Membership
Independent members of the Committee are not officers or employees of Council and have no executive powers. Independent members shall be appointed for an initial term of three (3) years after which time they will be eligible for reappointment. No independent member is to be appointed for more than two consecutive three year terms unless Council resolves otherwise. Terms will be scheduled to facilitate continuity of the Committee such that no more than one Councillor and one independent member’s terms cease within the one year”
The current independent members of the Audit Committee (Gibbs and McLean) have been on the committee since at least 1997 in Gibbs case, and McLean possibly soon after. That makes it roughly 14 years straight – and now it looks like they may have been granted another 3 year ‘extension’ bringing the grand total of consecutive service to close on 17 years! Even more disquieting is the way in which these reappointments have been handled – all executed via single, camouflaged one liners in Council agenda items.
The in camera items of February 22nd, 2011 read: “under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Audit Committee Membership”. Identical items are noted in the minutes of: 22nd May, 2006; 8th April, 2008; 24th February, 2009 and the 17th March, 2009. So it appears that each time either Gibbs or Mclean’s term of service is close to finishing, there appears this single innocuous and buried item that is voted on in camera. Yes, this fulfils the legal requirements of a ‘council decision’, but we have to ask:
- Why is this done in secret? Why is there no public announcement of reappointment? Why is there no recommendation from the audit committee that is minuted? Why on earth does such an item deserve the classification of ‘confidential’ unless the intention is to keep this from the public?
- Why does every other council we have looked up include such items in their Audit Committee minutes (ie. recommendation to reappoint or advertise) and some even issue a media release on the subject. Yet, Glen Eira is always silent, always secretive.
- Why does Newton insist on this practice – since he alone declares an item to be ‘confidential’ and determines that it be listed for in camera discussions?
- What of all the other councillors? Do they question? Do they want to know why the reappointment is so ‘secret’? Does anyone even think that 17 years of the same independent members of an Audit Committee is not according to current best practice and especially the recently released Minister’s Guidelines? Or is the simple fact that amidst the mountain of papers landed in councillors’ laps, this one single sentence is somehow engineered to escape notice?
- What does Newton have to gain by such secrecy? And what does this do to the public’s perception of the governance practices within Glen Eira?
Perhaps a few interesting examples from the minutes of Glen Eira’s Audit Committee meetings require reflection by residents –
Feb 5th, 2008 – “Mr McLean suggested that for future audit reports the internal auditor’s comments could be more positively stated. For example, under item 1 “Total purchase from vendors” on page 2 of the report, the wording “all the above appeared to be reasonably justified” be changed to “all the above were justified”.
14th December, 2010 – “The Chairman stated that he and Mr McLean would meet separately with Management to discuss further enhancement of the BCP (Business Continuity Plan) documents.”
Secrecy is the hallmark of Glen Eira and as we’ve said, the modus operandi of its administration. But it relies on complicit and compliant councillors in order to succeed. The result is to the detriment of the community and to the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 21, 2011 at 10:31 AM
The answer to all of GlenEira’s questions is dead set obvious. There’s perhaps some very shonky, shonky, shonky stuff going on. Love the bit about the selective editing of the internal auditors reports so that things look terrific. This is Newton to a tee. Creative editing, perhaps even creative accounting? It’s the boys’ club. Add Lipshutz and Tang and the game’s in the bag.
March 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM
The Newton strategy is now writ large. Time for a cleanout from the top to the bottom.
March 21, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Perception is everything and all this leaves a nasty taste in people’s mouths. I can think of no valid reason as to why this pattern of behaviour as instituted by Newton has taken place except to shield such antics from public view. This then leads to perceptions that there must be something to hide. If there wasn’t then all should be open and transparent.
As GlenEira has stated – this is “legal” but far from normal ethical standards that one should expect from a CEO running an operation of billions of dollars worth of assets. I also query whether any organisation should allow so called “independent” members to remain for such a period of time on any board of management. Independence is inevitably eroded, and people tend to become far too comfortable. I’m not questioning the credentials of Mssrs. McLean and Gibbs. I’m merely pointing out that I believe such practice is not justified and certainly not common. If this Council is really concerned about public perception then it needs to either answer the questions asked of it in the post or institute some real “risk management” protocols that prevent such instances happening. I’m becoming increasingly irate at the continual flaunting of guidelines and the evidence that is piling up about how this council seems to function in a very idiosyncratic manner.
March 21, 2011 at 6:45 PM
Received notice from Council advising that the C60 amendment hearing is at 7pm on Monday 4 April at Caulfield Park Pavillion. All submissions are to be less than Three minutes but once again it does not allow any two way discussion with the MRC. What are their plans regarding the two five-storey guineas carparks? How will parking be managed when all the current parking is removed? How will traffic flow work? No it seems that Council will attend the Conference but the question remains, will they listen and facilitate discussion?
March 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM
This is not a ‘council meeting’ as such. It is the Racecourse Committee and the idea is not ‘discussion’. Lipshutz stated that they deferred the original vote in order to ‘listen to the community’. So here you go – your three minutes of fame. Then after an unreasonable period of time, they’ll vote to accept the C60.
What should also be noted is that as of now (7.10pm) there is nothing up on council website informing people that this is on. Wonder if there will be any ads in tomorrow’s local paper. Bet ya there won’t! Or if this is, it will be miniscule. Fits in with the overall philosophy – bury info, keep folks ignorant.
Reckon as many people as possible should show up and give Lipshutz and his cronies absolute hell. Tell them exactly what you think of their planning, their consultations, their representations of the community at the panel hearings and their pathetic pretense of ‘listening’. It’s all a joke!
March 22, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Just because something *can* be done doesn’t mean it *should* be done. While in March 2009 Crs Esakoff/Lipschutz moved that the meeting be closed to the public to consider “Confidential Items” including the Audit Committee, it was carried unanimously by all Councillors. Any one of the 7 remaining Councillors from that meeting should be able to answer why they decided it was necessary. It does appear to be an abuse of the Local Government Act 1989 though. Their definition of “personnel” is a poor fit to “the body of people employed in an organization”. There is a requirement to provide a reason too. Here’s where ethics comes in. Council is free to provide a lousy reason, and they have chosen to do so. It shouldn’t be sufficient just to identify a power under LGA. Time and again corruption flourishes under the veil of secrecy.
March 22, 2011 at 4:56 PM
Beautifully said Reprobate. This is a council which has got down pat the art of dissembling and semantics. All communication becomes a game of not answering questions, of literal interpretations rather than common sense ones, and of totally ignoring the intent and spirit of any law, guidelines, and regulation, and insisting on the letter. In this way their arses are covered. But at a cost. Every shred of ethics and natural justice has been undermined and perverted by this group. Every legal loophole has been exploited and turned into the service of secrecy. Every word that emanates in public documents is an exercise in public relations rather than an exercise in information exchange. This council is a blot on the political landscape. It should be dismissed.