The minutes of 7^th 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: 17^th 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.

Local government: confidentiality

Mr BROOKS (Bundoora)
— I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Local Government. The specific action I seek is that she introduce changes to the administration of local governments to ensure greater transparency when confidential matters are considered.

Members would be aware that section 89 of the Local Government Act 1989 currently allows for councils to declare some items of their meetings closed to the public. That provision has been used in a responsible manner by local government for some time; however, there have been many relevant reports recently, centring on the City of Melbourne. I am not aware of the detail of those particular issues, but they have drawn back to my attention some concerns I have had about one of my local councils, Banyule City Council, and its increasing use of confidentiality provisions in council meetings, particularly over the last few years. Some research my office did found that in 2009 there was a large increase in the number of items considered confidential; there were 24 items. That rose to 40 items in 2010, and I understand there are already 40 such items this year, with a few meetings to go.

I think it is important that the local government minister have a look at this particular area and see whether the act needs to be changed or whether her local government office could work with councils to ensure that where there are high levels of confidentially considered items they are legitimately confidential

Alternatively it could be that information about items should be made public at a later date if the items no longer require confidential status. It could also well be that the Local Government Act 1989 could be altered so that councils have to give more information at the time they state an item is going into confidential consideration.

There is a well-known saying originally stated by a former US Supreme Court justice that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Where local government is concerned it is important that as much business as possible be transacted in the open so that local communities and the local media in many cases are able to make a judgement about what is transacted by a particular council. I ask the minister in good faith whether she could consider these requests and come back to me in due course.

NEWS FLASH: MORE SECRECY!

Another 2 CEO Special Committee Meetings have been announced. As per usual, the announcements are buried under ‘Public Notices’ on Council’s webpage. See the uploaded announcement here

The minutes of November 2nd have finally made an appearance. To be frank, we are appalled at what can only be a deliberate attempt to distort the events of that evening. The result is anything but a true and accurate representation of what occurred. We highlight the following:

• Esakoff’s statement that she has “urgent business” and then the belated Hyams’ motion does not appear. The minutes record NO URGENT BUSINESS
• Penhalluriack’s ‘request for a report’ is again not his original (short motion) but now a long, and UNPUNCTUATED account. This is not the first time that such tactics have been employed.
• Penhalluriack’s ‘Right of Reply’ does not exist. Regardless of whether his attempt was cut short by Esakoff, she still accepted that he had ‘set the record straight’ and thus his words up to this point needed to be included in these minutes.

The agenda items for the CEO Special Committee have also appeared – that makes it barely 11 hours prior to the actual meeting. There are 3 items: 2 identical ones concerning OH & S and compliance with the Local Government Act and another one which reads:

“This item is confidential pursuant to section 89(2) (a) “personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the CEO Employment contract.”

Again, we must ask whether this is a typical case of gentle coercion, or if the cart has already been put before the horse? To discuss ‘contracts’ implies that a decision to reappoint Newton has already been made. If it hasn’t been made, then surely the discussion must first focus on whether or not the CEO position is to be advertised and ONLY THEN should discussions centre on contracts.

These minutes and the agenda items are merely the latest in a long list of incidents which make us question both the ethical and governance practices at this council.

Secretive  council urged to open up

Miki Perkins

November 8, 2011

MELBOURNE City Council needs top-level government advice on whether its  meetings have become too secretive, a councillor says.

At a council meeting tonight, Jackie Watts will call on her fellow  councillors to ask the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell or the  Auditor-General for advice on how the council is interpreting  the guidelines  around confidentiality.

The council has been under fire for the high percentage of items deemed  ”confidential” on its agenda, which closes the meeting to the public.

A council meeting in September was public for just 12 minutes.

Cr Watts said she wanted to get clarification on how the Local Government Act  determined which items should be confidential, because she believed the  council’s ”default position” should be one of disclosure.

”How can people make a decision about performance of council without knowing  what’s going on?” Cr Watt said.

”My reading of the act is that the default position is disclosure, and the  option is confidentiality, [but] this notion hasn’t been developed as much as it  might.”

The debate hinges on a section of the Local Government Act that says a  council ”may” deem items confidential – including personnel, industrial and  proposed development matters – but doesn’t compel councils to do this.

Cr Watt said the council did deal with matters that should be made  confidential, but some of these could be partially disclosed so that the public  knew what was being discussed.

Also before what is likely to be a highly charged meeting, are two motions  relating to the removal of protesters at City Square.

Greens councillor Cathy Oke wants the council to support the protesters’ call  for an independent inquiry into the eviction and produce a report detailing the  chronology of its actions leading up to the eviction. Cr Brian Shanahan will put  forward a proposal to consider attendance – rather than postal – voting at the  next election in 2012, which, he says, will be less open to fraud.

”I have no evidence of fraud, but anecdotally people tell me it’s easier to  have looser arrangements with a postal vote, so that needs to be tightened up,”  Cr Shanahan said.

And Cr Watts wants her fellow councillors to replace paper Christmas cards  with electronic greetings, saying cards were a waste of ratepayers’ money, and  ban the use of personal photographs on any Christmas greetings.

”The inclusion of individuals’ photographs on Christmas greetings  constitutes self-promotion,” the motion before council says.

”It is an election year but, leaving that aside, any kind of personal  promotion is inappropriate,” Cr Watts said yesterday.  ”It’s a small matter,  but it signals a larger issue.”

The council will also consider if it will support a controversial Woolworths  planning proposal for a residential and supermarket proposal in North  Melbourne.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/secretive-council-urged-to-open-up-20111107-1n3w3.html#ixzz1d3xLx7lD