The minutes of 7th February, 2005record the following under ‘Enquiries: Director of Community Relations” – ie. Paul Burke. However, the extract we are about to quote is almost verbatim Andrew Newton’s words. As an ‘objective’, ‘unbiased’ Officer’s report to council, should Mr Burke even be citing (unacknowledged of course!) the words of his master? Here’s the extract::
The option to reappoint was included in the Local Government Act with the support of both the Liberal and the ALP. The reasons given in the parliament were that where a Council wishes to retain its CEO, reappointment avoids the cost of advertising and selection and months of organisational instability.
True to form, this extract is distinguished by oh so subtle distortions of what was actually said:
- We could find no parliamentary speech on this legislation which mentioned ‘organisational instability’ in the context of reappointment (see below)
- Where costs were mentioned (and this was a relative minor focus of the debates), they were repeatedly linked to small shire/country councils who did not have the resources to advertise widely.
What this extract conveniently fails to record are some of the following observations of the then sitting members. For example:
“At the heart of successful councils and communities lies a successful relationship between elected councillors and the chief executive officer. It is the essential relationship, and it is a relationship that should be based on mutual respect and communication. If that breaks down, as the member for Shepparton has said, the council becomes unworkable and the whole system breaks down. It is the most important relationship in local government”. (Legislative Assembly: 17th May, 2005 – beginning at page 1020)
Further food for thought comes from the same Hansard debate date:
“This particular bill will provide some certainty to the appointment and reappointment of chief executive officers. They are now employed on the basis of five-year maximum contracts which normally would see them probably working for two different councils. The councils are now going to be elected for a four-year period. We have to ensure that the outgoing council does not employ a current chief executive officer who may not be suitable for an incoming council. We are always careful to look at our chief executive officers and their political motivation — for example, if it were a Labor council which had employed a Labor chief executive officer and the councillors looked like they would be tipped out at the next election, they would like to get their Labor chief executive officer back into place so he could control the council until there was a different group of Independents, maybe Liberal Independents, that may be appointed to the council.
An honourable member interjected.
Mr SMITH — It may be a Liberal council with a Liberal chief executive officer. One would hope the chief executive officers, particularly the ones I have mentioned, would be classified as being independent. We know some that are not, and they tend to be manipulated along political lines.
To ensure that the outgoing council does not employ a new chief executive officer, it must not re-employ their current chief executive officer until six months before his contract expires. That gives him enough time — —
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Barker) — Order! Or her.
Mr SMITH — Or her. I actually have got ‘her’ written in here somewhere. My colleague from Brighton was going to raise this issue with me as well.
Thank you, Acting Speaker, I appreciate your involvement in this debate.
The contract should not be manipulated. The chief executive officer and the council can conspire together to manipulate the contract to shorten what they already had as being a fixed period of five years. They may bring it back to four years or three and a half years on the guarantee they can sign them up for another five years. It may be politically wise to do at the time, but it is not the sort of thing that should in fact occur. If it were coming up to a council election, that would be most unfair on the new council which would then be lumbered with a chief executive officer who might not be suitable for possible changes in direction being mooted by the new council. It could also be used as a political tool by unscrupulous councillors who would be pleased to have a chief executive officer controlling a new and apolitical council”.
Finally, we urge all readers to carefully dissect the provided CV and provide us with your thoughts, questions, and of course, comments.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 10, 2011 at 8:17 PM
Newton has really done his dash this time. Ten and more years of in fighting under his rule is 10 years too many. It doesn’t matter whose fault it all was. It simply points to the fact that he couldn’t do his duty and limit the damage. That is, he wasn’t a leader. The last ten years have also witnessed the continued erosion of community input into all areas and that coincides with Newton’s reign.
I’d also suggest that Glen Eira is about to lapse even further into mediocrity if he is reappointed. There’s the costs of gesac and a growing resentment against his planning strategies. Yes, all have been technically voted in by silly councillors – but he’s the one that’s come up with the plans. The buck ultimately stops with him. In my opinion his continued presence in Glen Eira can only turn more toxic than it already is. We need someone new with a new vision and someone who actually cares what residents think, want and need. That’s certainly not been Newton and his supporters.
November 10, 2011 at 8:31 PM
What a loser! All his mates have gone up and up and where’s ol’ Andrew ended up – in the backwaters of Glen Eira. What a comedown! Reckon this says heaps about ability or past record in getting on with people and organisations. Wonder why anyone would be on such a downward slide from federal to state to local. It should be the other way round if you’re any good. Only our schmuck gang councillors can’t see this.
November 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM
Andrew….You’re fired!
November 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM
I’m not sure I understand the point of this post.
The MP Smith seems to be saying that contracts for CEO’s should be fixed 5 year terms and should not be manipulated by shortening the contract so they can then give him/her another five years prior to the election of a new council.
But isn’t this exactly what Glen Eira council have done? In 2010 they gave Newton a 2 year contract and now with elections due next year they are going to impose a CEO (whether it’s Newton or someone else) on the new council. As it is likely to be a 5 year term, the new council will serve their full term without having any say in who they have as CEO. This seems to be a pretty cynical move by our councillors.
Furthermore, given the number of meetings being held, it would be reasonable to presume that council are having a lot of trouble reaching consensus. It just shows how divided and dysfunctional there are.
And if they do decide to advertise the position, what then? How much confidence do you have in the judgement of this bunch to appoint the right person?
November 10, 2011 at 9:53 PM
My interpretation is that with one year to go for this current council and assuming that Newton is reappointed for another two years, that would give him one year to work on the newcomers to council and then have the possibility of another 5 year extension on his contract. That would probably see him out until retirement. He would need Lipshutz and his cronies to be re-elected however to ensure the outcome. I doubt very much whether Tang will stand again and Lobo doesn’t have a hope. It’s very interesting times we live in.
Ultimately the best solution would be for an entirely new crop of councillors to come in with a new administration. We need to start from scratch in so many areas and have people who are determined to institute radical change in this mess of a council.
November 10, 2011 at 11:40 PM
Here’s to organisational instability. I welcome the speedy departures of Burke, Akehurst, Swabey and the rest.
November 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Glen Eira why are you allowing your blog to be used by unstable, medically challenged fools like some of the bloggers above. I love the City I live in and respect the positive contribution my Council makes to my lifestyle. Sure Council has room for improvement,and we should have the ability to tell them what requires change. However by allowing cheap ,nasty insults aimed at our Officers with no reference to facts , subjects etc your entire blog suffers credibility.
November 11, 2011 at 3:59 PM
Hows business Noel?
November 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM
I’m glad you love the City. I do too and that’s why I want to see dramatic change before it all is spoilt and too late to do anything. The first step is getting rid of this administration. Then we can look forward to getting rid of some councillors. Then it will be a city that is up to expectations all round.
November 11, 2011 at 10:10 PM
As you say, sure Council needs improvement!!!!
Have you ever thought that perhaps the “unstable, medically challenged fools” are in fact reasonable residents who have in fact tried polite and have gone through the processes that enable them to present their views on “what requires change”. Yet have consistently found disregard or indifference.
No wonder bloggers have pulled off the gloves – politeness has gotten them nowhere, except an exponential upgrade on the frustration scale.
As for “cheap, nasty insults…with no reference to fact, subject” – perhaps you should get both your eyes and brain checked. The posts do reference facts and if your brain can’t process what your eyes read then, while I sympathise, I’m afraid I have no expertise in the fields you obviously need
November 11, 2011 at 11:14 PM
I rest my case.