PS – ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW CEO

mck

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

DELAHUNTY: whilst reporting on this meeting, Delahunty referred to Item 8 of the minutes which stated – “The Committee noted the paper on changes to Council’s risk profile.”. Said ‘we had a paper presented’ and that she wanted the mover and seconder of the motion to accept the minutes of the advisory committees to ‘amend their resolutions’ in the minutes so that the ‘paper’ would be incorporated into these council minutes. This amendment was not accepted by Hyams and Lipshutz. Sounness seconded Delahunty’s amendment.

DELAHUNTY: asked Newton to confirm whether the paper presented to the Audit Committee was written by himself and whether he considers it to be confidential. Newton stated that he did write it and was confidential. Delahunty went on and said that she thought the paper would be available under FOI and that she thought it was ‘important’ for people to see ‘items such as this and how they reflect on the risk profile’ of the organisation. Said that council takes its ‘risk profile very seriously’. Said that the paper is about the changes to the risk profile ‘of the organisation as a whole’. Believed that ‘it is an important paper for the public to have access to’ and that ‘it would go some way’ to help people understand ‘some of the media reports’ of recent times. Asked councillors to find ‘in their hearts the transparency’ that is important and to release the paper because ‘the public is intelligent enough’ to ‘have a conversation about risk management’.

SOUNNESS: said he had attended the meeting and thought the paper was ‘factually important’ and highlights ‘the risks looked at by council’ and without specifying anything that he might feel ‘uncomfortable’ about some of ‘what those risks might be’.

HYAMS: thought that Delahunty’s implication that councillors didn’t want the item put into the ‘public’ domain was because councillors didn’t think residents were ‘intelligent’ enough and there were ‘lots of other reasons’.

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order and stated ‘that’s not what I said’

HYAMS: ‘that’s exactly what you said’.

Pilling then asked Delahunty on ‘what point of order’ and she replied ‘on misrepresention’. Pilling fumbled and mumbled and asked Delahunty to ‘clarify’. Delahunty said that she said that she thought that residents were ‘intelligent enough’ and ‘did not infer’ that council thought otherwise.

HYAMS: stated that ‘Delahunty’s comments speak for themselves’. Continued that ‘there are plenty of other reasons’ why you might want to keep something confidential’. The Local Government Act has 9 such sections and so do other branches of government. Found it extraodinary that Delahunty could want the ‘underbelly’ of Council published and he was ‘sure’ that if the Audit Committee wanted it published they would have provided for this. Said he was ‘quite disappointed’ with the motion.

Delahunty then asked Newton that she thought it was Lipshutz who had asked for the ‘insurance map’ to ‘be released’ to full Council. Said that this was just ‘another example of Audit papers that come before council’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he is being ‘misrepresented’ and that he didn’t ask for this.

DELAHUNTY: apologised and said that she thought ‘it might have been’ Lipshutz and that it could have been someone else. But it is ‘still another example of audit papers’ released.

NEWTON: confirmed that something like this had been ‘suggested’. Said that there are papers that go to councillors and vice versa.

LOBO: claimed that the ‘basic responsibility’ of a councillor is to ‘heighten the awareness of residents of risk’. Said in this instant if the ‘servant is serving his master’ then it is the servant’s ‘responsibility to tell where the risk lies’ and ‘why we hiding all the time’ and that people’s ‘perception is that we are not trustworthy’. Thought it was ‘time to break’ this perception and ‘start a new year 2016’.

AMENDMENT PUT TO THE VOTE – VOTING FOR – DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

AGAINST – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESKAOFF, PILLING, OKOTEL, MAGEE

Original motion then put and speakers asked for.

LOBO: said that CEO is retiring and that there is ‘normally a procedure’ for an exit interview with a ceo ‘who has served more than a decade’. With Newton leaving ‘he could tell us what we do not know’ so ‘that’s another risk we may have’.

LIPSHUTZ: sprang up on a point of order.

DELAHUNTY: asked Pilling to determine the ‘grounds’ of Lipshutz’ point of order.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Lobo was ‘talking about what should happen’ and not ‘what did happen’.

DELAHUNTY: claimed that if this was about ‘relevance’ then the issue was ‘considered at number ten of the Audit Committee’.

PILLING then ‘over-ruled’ Lipshutz and said that the issue was raised at the audit committee.

LOBO: said that he was ‘used to rubbishing’.

LIPSHUTZ – another point of order and Pilling asked him to ‘speak to the issue at hand’.

LOBO: said he was speaking to the issue because ‘my masters are here’ (ie gallery). Said that they had ‘left’ the exit interview to the ‘discretion of the CEO’ and he ‘may or may not have accepted’ but ‘it is his responsibility to let us know why he resigned on the 20th October – a very good date’.

PILLING: said that it ‘is true’ that Lobo raised this at the audit committee meeting. The ‘offer was made’ to Newton and it ‘was declined’ and ‘that is the end of the story’. Said that it was ‘not mandatory’.

Motion put and carried. Voting against – Lobo, Sounness, Delahunty.

Voting for – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling, Magee