The minutes from last week’s CEO Special Committee have been published. The relevant motion reads:
Crs Magee/Pilling
That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider Agenda Item 6.1 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and is confidential pursuant to section 89(2)(a) ‘personnel’ and (d) ‘contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
Forge and Lipshutz were absent and Penhalluriack obviously excluded. Several observations are necessary:
- Newton’s latest contract officially began in April 2012. Hence less than three months into this new contract we have a performance review? Why? Local Government Victoria recommends one performance appraisal per year. Even if Newton’s contract varies these terms, it is still most unusual to conduct this appraisal so early into a new contract. We surmise that these tactics are due to the upcoming election and the real possibility of a different group of councillors. It would thus make sense to bank some brownie points whilst the gang is still in office.
- It should also be asked why the meeting went ahead when two councillors were absent – leaving only 6 to adjudicate. Surely no catastrophe would have occurred if the meeting was several weeks later when all councillors were present?
- The continued secrecy of this council in all matters dealing with the CEO is unacceptable. Other councils appear to have no problem with making public the performance criteria that is used to assess their CEOs. In Glen Eira, nothing is public. The following links provide clear examples of how other councils choose to operate –
http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Files/CEOPerformanceReviewCriteriaAppointmentReappointment2011.pdf
http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_13_-_Chief_Executive_Officer_Annual_Review.pdf AND http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_13-_Attachment_1_-_Achievements_Against_2010-11_Council_Plan.pdf
When salaries of well over $300,000 (PLUS POSSIBLE BONUSES) are paid to individuals, it behoves organisations to ensure full transparency and accountability. Note, we are not suggesting that performance reviews be done under the full glare of public scrutiny. What we are suggesting is that it is imperative that residents know precisely HOW and against what targets performance is assessed.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Betyas that they gave him 10 outa 10 for gesac and the millions that have been lost. Another 10 outa 10 for ousting the MBA in favour of Oackleigh and courts standing empty. He’s a genius our bloke and deserves another 50 year contract.
July 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM
“Not So” Smart Aleck. Its ok to constantly critisize but try to be a little factual, Try going to the courts when the Warriors have them, open your eyes, embrace all the local Glen Eira kids who are playing and their families who are watching.Be honest with yourself and then report back. More Glen Eira kids are now playing basketball in this great facility. An apology wouldn’t go astray either for misleading people………….
July 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Don’t think that Alec needs to apologise for anything and he can answer for himself anyway. The facts as you like to call them are staring us in the face every time a single court isn’t being used by the warriors. That means that residents are losing out on promised income and the bullshit in Burke’s report that the bid from the warriors was tens of thousands more is meaningless. More Glen Eira kids might be playing at gesac, but how many aren’t and how many more would there have been if mckinnon got the courts. Selling out to the highest bidder has fallen flat on its face and that is Newton and Burke’s fault as well as the gutless councillors who let them get away with selling out locals. These are the real facts and not your pathetic version.
July 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM
In my experience, performance appraisal of staff is always a holistic exercise, relying equally on “subjective” assessment as well as objective criteria. Local government generally ignores the former to its detriment. The culture of an organisation stems from the top, from the standards and behaviours of its executives. These cannot be quantified by reliance on meaningless Community Satisfaction Surveys that do not ask the right questions and only include a handful of respondents. Further confounding the validity of such data is the fact that most residents would not even know who the ceo is, much less how he performs. They will judge on services, rates, publicity, and perceived successes or failures.
Newton’s time at the top has seen many controversies that have been highlighted enough times on this blog and all seem to centre on governance. Evaluating “governance” is not only a matter of publishing reports and minutes. It should include assessments of why certain things are declared “secret” and why some are released. This is not quantifiable, but it is essential in appraising any performance. When a council restricts itself to only the objectives listed in a rammed through Council Plan, then residents are short changed time and time again and ceos escape unscathed. Their potential incompetence is continually rewarded rather than remedied and improved. I would say that the central issue with evaluating Newton’s performance must be on questions of governance, accountability, and transparency.
July 16, 2012 at 4:42 PM
The VLGA put out a notice on CEO key performance indicators a while back. I’ve copied a few paragraphs from this – Identifying what constitutes good performance and how this is measured is intrinsic to good performance management. Yet, our observation is that in a number of cases, a fairly standard, bland set of performance requirements and measures are used.
The common measures tend to be such things as ‘delivery of the Council Plan”, “delivery of the Annual Budget” and so on. The Council Plan and the Budget are important to the operation of the council. These are really a „given‟ and are very important, but just using these as KPIs often doesn‟t get to the heart of what a council wants from its CEO.
Performance measures for a CEO should pass three tests. They should really address what Council wants from the CEO; they should be within the power of the CEO to achieve; and they should be appropriate to the role of the CEO.
CEO KPIs should focus on advice and implementation. Community outcomes, on the other hand, should be amongst the KPIs of the Council Plan.
For instance, if Council wishes to achieve lower rates increases, the ultimate decisions to achieve this are made by Council via the Council Plan and the Budget. Incorporating lower rates as a CEO performance indicator confuses both powers and role. Lower rates should be a KPI of the Council Plan.
The CEO‟s role in making lower rates possible is via advice around feasible options for the Council Plan and the Budget that will deliver lower rates and still achieve Council‟s other goals (or the extent to which the goals need to be varied in the light of changes to resourcing). This is within the CEO‟s role and powers and can be measured.
Every council must determine what it requires from its CEO. There is not one set of KPIs that can be applied across the board, as each council will have different priorities.
July 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM
All responsibility for what happens in the municipality must rest with Andrew Newton. Councillors may vote things in or out, but they invariably do so on the advice and reports of his officers. If this advice isn’t up to scratch then it’s Newton’s fault. I don’t buy the argument that he doesn’t vote and that this gets him off the hook. No one in their right mind would believe that he didn’t have anything to do with the c60 and the racecourse decisions. Burke’s errors over gesac must in the end also land on his desk as must the poor planning over carparks and playgrounds and all the extra money that was unnecessarily spent including the fortune that’s been spent on persecuting Penhalluriack. The KPIs that I think should be the most important would include things like: how well does this man meet community expectations, and how many contracts and tenders go over budget. These figures are never released so the post is right about secrecy.
July 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM
I agree with Peter’s KPI’s and on his basis the CEO should have his Contract extended to 5 years. Look at the Financials of GESAC before you play the man instead of the ball.Also look at the Community Survey.
July 17, 2012 at 11:25 AM
After all the talk of imposing liquidated damages on the contractor for late delivery of GESAC, were they even applied? Have liquidated damages been imposed on the Melbourne Racing Club for late delivery/avoidance of their obligations regarding the centre of the racecourse agreement? Three lawyers on Council but none seem to have an idea on the law of contracts.
July 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Is this really a binding contract or an act of good faith. It doesnt really say on condition that the centre of the racecourse is developed you have the right to develop your slums.
July 17, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Mental note for all budding politicians – DO NOT TRUST THE MELBOURNE RACING CLUB. Good faith indeed!
July 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM
This is what David Southwick, MP for Caulfield stated on his website:
“This morning I had the pleasure of joining the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Matthew Guy, in my electorate to announce the approval of a planning scheme amendment that will allow for a $1 billion development near the Caulfield Racecourse. As part of this development Caulfield residents will see an improvement in the quality of open space facilities for the community. I am pleased this agreement that I helped facilitate between the Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club has led to such a wonderful result. Facilities for the community to enjoy will include a picnic area by the lake, a large off-leash dog area, walking and jogging paths and a junior soccer pitch. I look forward to continuing to engage with the community on ways to utilise this fantastic facility”.
Seems from this that the approval of C60 was tied to the improvements to the centre of the racecourse. There is a ray of light that C60 could be overturned.
July 17, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Doubt that C60 can be overturned. What could be done is that Council could pursue an enforceable undertaking from the Courts against the MRC to imrpove the centre per the agreement. Could there be compensation? Unlikely although Peter Jenkins sister may have a case as she sold her house after C60 and before the centre improvements.
July 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Yes it is not a contract but I agree with Viewfromahill that it will affect any future dealings with the council. This assumes that people in the counci or Southwick ar embarrased by the lack of progress. Be interesting also if any of them were at the spring racing carnival this year.
July 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM
My sister sold her place because she saw what was coming and lost about 40 to 50,000 in the process. I blame the gang and Newton for this as much as the MRC. They’ve all put residents on the bottom of the pile and turned belly up for their mates. The agreement is a farce and keeps changing all the time to suit the MRC. The original agreement said stuff about passive recreation areas. All of a sudden it got changed to soccer pitches and no one said a damn word about any of this. The silence over the last year is disgusting. The gang should be booted out. I hope that their consciences don’t let them get a good night’s sleep.
July 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM
see cos the soccer pitch can be used for parking!. It says that in the agreement and that they are going to make repairs after it is used! Is there really demand for model aeroplane area at the racecourse. the residents around here have to listen to this. you are right about passive recreation. I notice so many dog owners who walk there dogs on sports ovals (most very reponsibility) however racecourse would be a much more suitable area for this.