GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 5, 2011

Glen Eira Does Not Rate

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments 

From today’s Caulfield Leader.  Stories by Jenny Ling –

GLEN Eira Council has ranked lower than its fellow city councils in the latest Local Government Victoria survey. The 2011 community satisfaction survey asked 28,000 residents across 77 councils to rate their council’s performance. The data showed that though Glen Eira rated higher or similar to all Victorian councils in overall performance, advocacy, community engagement and customer contact, it didn’t fare so well compared with its fellow metropolitan councils.

Glen Eira achieved a score of 69 per cent for overall performance. The average for metropolitan councils — Baysid e ,Yarra, Stonnington, Kingston, Melbourne, Monash, Port Phillip, Moreland, Boorondara, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Maroondah, Moonee Valley, Banyule, Whitehorse and Glen Eira – was 85 per cent. For advocacy, which covers the representation of the community’s interests, Glen Eira rated 64 per cent compared with the Melbourne average of 77 per cent. Glen Eira rated 62 per cent for community engagement compared to t he metropolitan councils’ 71 per cent average, while local customer contact was 77 per cent compared with 80 per cent.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Don Dunstan said there needed to be more transparency and open governance in Glen Eira. ‘‘The core problem is the way council meetings are run,’’ Mr Dunstan said. Glen Eira Mayor Margaret Esakoff said ‘‘given the survey was taken at the same time as severe flooding (February) and the bin downsizing, it is a good outcome for Glen Eira’’.  

Victorian Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell urged councils to analyse the ratings to see where improvements were needed.

************************************

Libs on back foot

THE Liberal Party has backflipped on the contentious $1 billion Caulfield Village development faster than a Bart Cummings champion. Planning Minister Matthew Guy and Caulfield MP David Southwick applauded the project which will attract 2000 residents and create 35,000sq m of office and retail space on 5ha around the racecourse when they announced its approval on Tuesday.

In October, Mr Southwick said it would cause traffic congestion, anti-social behaviour and parking problems, and pledged to stop the ‘‘ monstrosity’’ that would ‘‘ destroy Caulfield’s amenities and identity’’ with a postcard petition to households in the electorate. Mr Guy, then Opposition planning spokesman, echoed Mr Southwick’s pledge. Mr Southwick said there were several concerns which he ‘‘made very clear’’. ‘‘It was important for me to be on the front foot and be involved in negotiations with Glen Eira (council) and residents,’’ he said. ‘‘The main issue I had was open space . . . being able to get a win for the city.’’

Glen Eira Council approved the plans with height restrictions in April, capping buildings in the Smith St precinct at 20 storeys. Mayor Margaret Esakoff said Caulfield Village would provide the community with a range of housing options close to transport and facilities. ‘‘The wider community will also be able to enjoy the improved open space and recreational areas in the centre of the racecourse,’’ she said.

Glen Eira Residents’ Association president Don Dunstan said there was no provision for carparking and no amenities being provided for the thousands of people who will live there. ‘‘And this is the right thing for a suburb? I don’t think so,’’ he said.

COMMENT: This is now the second time that The Leader  has taken a pot shot at Southwick. Whilst his backflip is undeniable, and the criticism is justified, good balanced reporting might also have commented on the role played by this council and its ‘gang of four’. We suggest that if all the facts are being presented then Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams and Pilling should also come in for their equal share of criticism!

 

July 1, 2011

GESAC: The Mess We Didn’t Have To Have

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

From Council Minutes (28th June)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee  

That Council;

 1. Reiterates Council’s desire to maximise community use of GESAC.

2. Recognises the expressions of interest of both Warriors Basketball Association and McKinnon Basketball Association in supporting Council’s objectives at GESAC.

3. That Council seek independent legal advice as to whether the communication between Council and Warriors Basketball Association;

(a) constitutes a legally binding agreement; and

(b) stops Council from cancelling the allocation awarded to Warriors Basketball Association at GESAC.

4. That pending receipt of the legal advice Council not execute any agreement or contract with respect to the allocation of the basketball courts at GESAC.

5. That this resolution be incorporated within the public Minutes of this meeting.  

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

QUESTIONS

 What a mess this whole issue is. Councillors have finally exerted some authority and appear to be attempting to ensure that local groups are catered for at GESAC. The real questions are:  

  1. Where were councillors right at the start in setting performance criteria, overseeing the tendering process and establishing clear protocols and expectations?
  2. How much will this ‘legal advice’ now cost ratepayers? Will it be added to the overall escalating costs of GESAC?
  3. What of other local groups who have been refused allocation? Will we be going through the same process with them? Or are contracts already signed? Or does it take a public backlash to get any action?
  4. What role will the administration and the lawyers play in all this? Will the ensuing advice simply be ‘sorry folks – nothing can be changed’? This at least saves face!
  5. If the Warriors contract is null and void, then by how much will this affect the figures for GESAC? Does this mean that costs will go up elsewhere in the next budget and in the renewal of leases throughout the municipality?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of councillors’ duty to set policy and administrator’s duty to deliver services according to Best Value principles – ie. a real cost benefit deliverable. It would appear that neither of these mandates have been achieved thus far and in the process occasioned much needless angst for many in the community.

 

June 24, 2011

Agenda Items: Part 1

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

The notion of open, transparent and accountable government remains a myth in Glen Eira when one considers the Pools Steering Committee minutes. Given the fuss and furore in recent weeks regarding the McKinnon Basketball Association’s failure to obtain court allocations and the appalling mess of membership subscriptions, we were entitled to hope that any meeting of this committee would have been far more informative than what has been dished up in the guise of ‘minutes’. All that Lipshutz as Chair can produce is:

“Matters considered

(i) General Business – Site Inspection

(ii) GESAC Project Update Report”

Records of assembly

Plenty of items here attracted our undivided attention. The most intriguing however was this one from the meeting of 31st May 2011

Esakoff – “a letter received from the municipal inspectors and a requirement to provide certain materials” (“The CEO and all officers apart from DCS (Burke) were asked to leave the Briefing Room”. So, should we conclude that the saga of investigation is far from over and that another one is possibly brewing? And who are the targets? Councillors or administrators?

There are also these little tit bits of information:

24th May – “Public questions taken on notice from Mr. Varvodic at the council meeting held on the 17 May 2011” and “Public Questions Policy”

Cr. Esakoff – “GESAC indoor court allocations and emails from members of the MBA                     ‘

Hyams – “responses to councillor requests, including alternative Town Planning Recommendations, to be emailed to councillors”

Penhalluriack – “advice to be provided in relation to changes to dates of meetings of the Audit committee”

Esakoff – “Occupational Health & safety” (bullying?)

6th June 2011 – Urgent Business – Magee ‘call for an in-camera report on the awarding of the use of the GESAC basketball courts”.

14th June 2011 – Magee – “his email to all councillors concerning the legal registered status of the Warriors Basketball club” Again, contracts being written for ineligible groups? Who is responsible for what could possibly be another foul up?

15th June 2011 – Esakoff – “6 June 2011 B (i) (f) adjust the wording” (so which version has been published? – the edited account, or the original version?)

 

June 24, 2011

We Were Right!!!!!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

Miracles do happen! Agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting are replete with surprises.

  • First, there is the tacit acknowledgement that WE WERE RIGHT!!! The figures provided in response to a public question on bookings at Allnutt Park, have now been ‘corrected’. The problem according to Newton is that there was a ‘clerical error’. No apology mind you, just the ‘correction’. This would of course have gone undetected and unacknowledged if not for Cr. Forge and her question. As a consequence, one must also wonder how many other ‘clerical errors’ have been made and not fessed up to?
  • The Drains and Flood report requested by Esakoff in late February has finally been pulled from the hat – it’s only taken 4 months.
  • For the very first time we learn that the difference between the publicised budget and the amended budget involves over $1 million dollars. So without giving people the opportunity to comment on this ‘new’ budget, this has now come up for adoption by council.
  • The GESAC allocations to McKinnon Basketball is also under consideration

Once we have had time to carefully analyse the numerous items we will report back in detail.

 

June 21, 2011

Who Runs Council?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[9] Comments 

Recent events such as the GESAC fiasco raise the question of who is actually running council – our elected representatives, or those faceless and unelected bureaucrats? We therefore thought it might be a good idea to remind councillors of their legal and fiduciary duties – according to the guidelines set down by the MAV, State Government, and VLGA in their combined document The Good Governance Guide. All the quotes below derive from this publication.

“It is important that issues of transparency and accountability are considered with regard to Council briefings. If councillors determine their position through the briefing process, and only go through a brief or perfunctory endorsement at the meeting of Council, this can impact adversely on the public’s ability to follow the decision-making process. The opportunity to fully explore and address an issue in private must be balanced with the accountability and transparency requirements of good governance.

To ensure transparency and accountability, it is also important that the administration is made accountable for the formal advice it provides to the Council meeting which subsequently takes place. This advice may or may not be entirely consistent with the discussions which took place at the council briefing. (page 12)

The elected body is ultimately accountable for the financial management of the local government. While the elected body should not have a hands-on role in financial management, it needs to ensure that it has the information to be satisfied that the finances are in order and that budgetary and financial planning goals are being met.

The role differentiation between the elected body and the administration is important in this area. The elected body should not be micro-managing the finances, but must demand financial reporting which provides the information it requires to meet its financial accountability responsibilities. (p.32)

Councillors must ensure that they have all appropriate financial information regarding financial performance. It is not enough merely to rely on assurances by the administration that all is well. If the financial situation is not as it should be, councillors will still be held accountable, even if they maintain that they received assurances from the administration. Councillors should ask questions, until they are satisfied that they know and understand the financial situation. Other potential sources of information and assurance are the internal auditor and the audit committee. (p.35)

QUESTIONS:

  • How often did councillors ask questions about GESAC?
  • Were the answers (if given) acceptable? If not, what did councillors do?
  • How often were councillors provided with up to date information?
  • What evidence was provided to councillors that the income from GESAC would be $2.91 million as stated in the budget?  
  • Why does it take a public outcry before any ‘action’ is initiated by councillors?

 

 

 

 

June 19, 2011

The Games That People Play

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[9] Comments 

‘Bullying’ forces CEO to take leave

6th January 2010

LOCKYER Valley local government has been thrown into turmoil after council chief executive officer Colin O’Connor took three months sick leave after claiming the mayor was a bully. It is believed Mr O’Connor is currently on paid sick leave on an annual
salary approaching $250,000.

Gatton resident Bob Fowke, 71, said Mr O’Connor had the support of a majority four-member faction of councillors. Mr Fowke worked in local government for 35 years and has attended almost every meeting of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council since the government amalgamations in March, 2008.

He said he was present at the council meeting on September 23 when Mr O’Connor started distributing an unsigned letter accusing Mayor Steve Jones of bullying staff. Mr Fowke said the situation was quite the opposite as the faction of four councillors always used their votes to carry out Mr O’Connor’s wishes.

The faction, which has previously been highlighted by Mayor Jones, includes councillors Jim McDonald, Janice Holstein, Tanya Milligan and Graham Moon. Mr Fowke said the manipulation was blatantly obvious in chambers.

“(Mr O’Connor) shakes his head, nods his head, and smiles when he wants them to do something,” he said. “It is total manipulation in my book and he’s taken stress leave because people are waking up to it.”

Mr Fowke said his fellow ratepayers were disgusted council was being run by the only non-elected member, Mr O’Connor. “The CEO is virtually running the council and the councillors haven’t got a hell of a lot of say.”

On November 27, Mr O’Connor sent an email to staff informing them that his doctor had ordered him to take three months “sick” leave. He said in the letter he felt a “deep sense of failure” for not being able to “protect” staff from the mayor. On the same day,
Mr O’Connor lodged a Workplace Health and Safety claim for compensation. Mr Fowke said the scandal had halted progress of the council.

“Because the mayor keeps asking questions, he’s labelled a bully,” he said. “But these questions need to be asked, need to be addressed and these problems need to be solved. “Council needs to move forward. “I would like to see the council open up the book as it is closed by the faction at the moment. “So much is hidden from the ratepayer and it’s absolutely hindering good decision-making.”

One example of the faction’s power was highlighted after Mr O’Connor ordered the unauthorised clearing of a fauna sanctuary at Lake Apex in April. The council is facing a $165,000 fine for tampering with an animal breeding place without approval. Mayor Steve Jones wanted an independent body to investigate the incident. However, the faction voted that Mr O’Connor would compile the report on his own decision.

(http://www.gattonstar.com.au/story/2010/01/06/bullying-forces-ceo-to-sick-leave/)

 

Turmoil as councillors sue over bullying

Updated Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:43am
AEST

Peter Watson is calling for intervention after more councillors sue the city over bullying (ABC News). The Member for Albany Peter Watson has described the local council as the laughing stock of Western Australia. Two Albany councillors are threatening to sue the city after an independent investigation rejected allegations they had been involved in bullying.

Councillors Roley Paver and Jill Bostock are now claiming more than $500,000 in damages. The action comes after the dismissal of the city’s former chief executive, Paul Richards, who claimed he was bullied by councillors. Last month, the Local Government Standards panel found there was no evidence of bullying of Mr Richards who received a $250,000 payout when he left the
council. Mr Watson says the council is an embarrassment to the city and the Minister for Local Government John Castrilli is not doing anything about it.

“We’ve got a culture there at the City of Albany which is the laughing stock of Western Australia and if the Minister can’t see that, maybe he should be looking after a different portfolio and put someone into his portfolio of Local Government that’s got a bit of grunt,” he said.

Mr Watson says there must be intervention. “We have councillors suing the council, we have a CEO who’s been sacked who is suing the council, we had the previous CEO sue the council,” he said. “Obviously, there’s something wrong there and the longer the Minister sits on his hands, the worse it’s going to get.”

Mr Castrilli has declined to comment on the matter. Mr Watson says he will raise it in parliament at the next sitting.

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/25/2992687.htm)

 

June 18, 2011

More Games Versus Good Governance

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[13] Comments 

Sadly, we are becoming increasingly accustomed to the games that this administration (and some councillors) insist on playing at the expense of proper governance and adherence to council’s own policies. The latest example involves public questions that have been ‘taken on notice’. A few facts first.

Council’s Local Law states that questions may be taken on notice and that responses “shall be given within a reasonable time (usually in less than ten working days).” Most people would assume that this means more than simply a letter of response to the questioner. Then there is also this: “Where an answer is given later in writing, the question shall be resubmitted to the meeting at which the answer is available and both the question and the answer shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

At the May 17th Council meeting a series of questions from Mr. Varvodic was taken on notice. Since then we have had another council meeting and no response to these questions has been forthcoming. If included in the next council meeting minutes, that will make it 6 weeks for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the vast majority of these questions.

Readers will remember that the issue of ‘vexatious questions’ has previously come up under Lipshutz’s role on the Local Laws Committee. We simply ask:

  • Is the tardy non answering and non publication of answers merely a de facto introduction of this ‘policy’ since it would appear to achieve the same outcome?
  • Why should it take at least 3 council meetings to publish responses?
  • Is this a tactic that will now be continually employed whenever ‘uncomfortable’ public questions are asked by ratepayers?
  • Surely the combined intellectual powers of Newton, Burke, Lipshutz and Hyams can do better than this silly stalling game?
 

June 15, 2011

More On Games & Ratepayers’ Money

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[2] Comments 

The following articles from the Leader have direct relevance to what is currently going on in Glen Eira. We invite comments:

Nillumbik’s legal bill squabble continues

1 Feb 11 @ 05:54pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has hit back at claims it misled ratepayers on the cost of a legal stoush with a councillor.

Cr Belinda Clarkson last week accused it of grossly underestimating its legal fees, which the council expects will be $10,000 a day – $50,000 for the anticipated five days of the hearing.

Cr Clarkson said the figure would be closer to $150,000, including the hearing and preparation. “In my opinion, the council’s failure to take responsibility for the cost to ratepayers is seen in their statement’s only cost estimate figure of $10,000,” Cr Clarkson said. “I believe that is misleading.”

But Mayor Helen Coleman said the council had been upfront about its legal bill. “The advice that we have been given is that our legal costs will be around $10,000 a day, but we won’t know the final costs until the hearing,” Cr Coleman said.

She said ratepayers would have been spared the cost if Cr Clarkson had taken part in a relatively cheap councillor conduct panel last November. Instead, Cr Clarkson will answer misconduct allegations during a five-day hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. She faces 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act.

Cr Coleman said the council had resolved not to hire a solicitor, but had been forced to engage one when Cr Clarkson fronted the hearing with a lawyer from the firm Piper Alderman.

Cr Clarkson, who has not revealed her own legal costs, said the council was at fault for taking the matter to a conduct panel “and as part of that process, therefore to VCAT”.

More debate was curtailed.

Comments

Natalie Woodley writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 11:15pm

“Clowns” is a good way to describe these people, unfortunately elected to Nillumbik Council. Hellbent on their witch hunt after Cr Clarkson, under the guise of “confidentiality” they believed they could continue the bullying, it would never come out in the
open, spineless uninformed people. Obviously they were not cognisant of The Local Government Act, unaware a councillor being unmercifully hounded with vexatious, frivolous charges ,was able to receive “Natural Justice”. Cr Clarkson has only ever requested “Safe Planning” in this extremely bushfire prone area, surely we require all our Nillumbik Councillors to have Human Life as their priority?? If the councillors were using their own personal dollars they would have withdrawn their frivolous charges, made a public apology to Cr Clarkson and got on with attempting to govern for the good of Nillumbik, taking note of the oath or affirmation they swore on being elected.
Obviously they are a group of people who care less about spending other peoples money, hard earned dollars of the Nillumbik Ratepayers. They are a disgrace, totally unaccountable for their actions.

Melissa Eaton writes:

Posted on 7 Feb 11 at 05:27pm

When a council starts suing it’s own councillors, I have to start wondering what major secrets are they covering up to be using this ridiculous witchhunt as a deflection? As we are approaching the 2nd anniversary of the disastrous Black Saturday bushfires, I think
Nillumbik has better things to do than waste rate payers money (like mine) on legal bills to argue an alleged councillor conduct matter which only came about because same councillor was trying to get air time in council to discuss the very real risks of bush fires in the area. Clearly council needs re-education about what they are there for….I thought council was there for the community with bushfires being a real issue for Nillumbik. This money would be better spent on getting on with bushfire prevention which I can see from looking around the shire seems to be several weeks if not months behind in this fire season.

Daniel Potter writes:

Posted on 5 Feb 11 at 08:16pm

Nicole Singh……I Concur Totally. The Nillumbik Council Is Managed Totally By Overpaid Clowns.

nicole singh writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 11:54pm

i thought my Glen Eira council was dysfuncitonal thanyou to nillumbik you are No1 and have the highest rates in victoria. a council that is losing money every day is spending your hard earned persecuting a councillor, the crime? for merely trying to stop yet more of its people from being burnt in bushfires its off to court you go. Is nillumbik an open mental asylum?

J Bullock writes:

Posted on 3 Feb 11 at 12:07pm

What a waste of ratepayers money! My hard earned money! Nillumbik council should be dissolved and spilt among neighbouring urban and rural councils. The formation of Nillumbik was a mistake and since then it has been a continual battle ground between waring sides with us poor ratepayer as the victims. For the sake of good governance it should be put out of its misery!

Nillumbik Council dumps Clarkson VCAT hearing

23 Feb 11 @ 01:32pm by Raelene Wilson

NILLUMBIK Council has withdrawn a misconduct case against one of its councillors from the state’s peak tribunal.

Cr Belinda Clarkson was expected to answer 14 alleged breaches of the council’s governance code and the Local Government Act at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May. But at a closed meeting last night councilors resolved to drop the matter.

Mayor Helen Coleman said the decision was based on the cost of a five-day hearing, estimated at $10,000 a day.

“The costs to council in pursuing this matter in VCAT would have been too expensive when we have other financial priorities,’’ Cr Coleman said. “We need to ensure that we are spending ratepayers’ money in a responsible way.’‘

Cr Coleman said she did not know how much the council had spent so far on legal fees. She said the council would “monitor’’ Cr Clarkson’s behaviour during the next three months. Cr Clarkson said last night’s meeting was confidential and declined to
comment.

QUESTIONS:

  • What is the current total of money spent on the Newton allegations of bullying?
  • How much more will be spent?
 

June 14, 2011

The Budget & The Farce Continues

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

The following facts, which have been noted previously, need to be reiterated –

1. The draft budget was amended by council resolution

2. No new ‘version’ of the amended budget and Strategic Resource Plan has been published

3. Residents have put in submissions based on a document which technically no longer exists or has any legal status. It has been superceded.

4. Tonight’s meeting is thus irrelevant since whatever people have written, or will say, is not based on what they could say if they were privy to the new budget.

QUESTIONS:

  • Why haven’t the new budget and Strategic Resource Plan been made public?
  • Why haven’t councillors insisted that it be public?
  • Why is the public being subjected to the farce of commenting on something that no longer exists?
  • What does this say about governance at Glen Eira City Council?

 

 

June 12, 2011

Newton & A Little History

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[15] Comments 

Newton’s name first appeared officially in the Commissioners’ report. He was listed as ‘council officer’ on the finance committee. Council minutes indicate that in 1997-8 his official job title was Director, Corporate Services in charge of Business Planning, Public Relations, Finance, Corporate Assets, Risk Management, Service Centre, Human Resources, and Business Development – a finger in all the most important pies! But what we want to concentrate on are some very, very interesting agenda items bearing his name. All involve disharmony, and the publication of internal documents that we consider totally unethical. Further, each publication has had the potential to discredit various individuals, whom we assume, may have been likely critics or opponents. Sadly, there appears to be a very long list of ‘opponents’. More significantly, a distinct and consistent pattern of behaviour, tactics and overall strategy can be traced back to these early times. They are still evident today.

Alan Grossbard, the first mayor of Glen Eira, appears to be one of these early ‘casualities’. Whatever one’s opinion may be of Mr. Grossbard, he is certainly well credentialed. The Glen Eira Annual Report of 1997/8 cites his qualifications as: B.Sc., B. Ed., Dip. Ac., MBA. MACE; MAIE, MPRIA, MGAA. We’re also told that Grossbard ‘has a strong background in business management, finance and corporate relations and is employed as one of the top executives in a major Australian company’. In other words, not a slouch when it comes to running a business. So what happened? Why were items published that had no right to be in the public domain and what was the objective? We’re referring of course to the Mayoral Gold Chain affair. Here are the facts:

  • The minutes of 23rd June 1997 have Newton writing “The Mayor has proposed additional expenditures for Mayoral regalia and civic function to be included in the 1997-98 Budget”. (Please note the syntax – making it appear as if the proposal actually originated from the Mayor, who happened to be Grossbard) and the total listed for chains,  brooches and links was $29,500
  • There was of course a public furore over this and various articles in the Southern Cross regarding ‘communication rifts’ (16th July 1997); the chain affair (16th July 1997) and an advertising conflict of interest (16th September, 1998). A special meeting was called to refute all these newspaper claims.
  • Investigation of all the above was delayed until 1998 and after the first Municipal Inspector’s report came in.

The important bit however IS THE PUBLICATION IN THE AGENDA of a Memorandum written by Grossbard and some of his personal correspondence to councillors and the CEO. The Southern Cross claimed that Grossbard had told them that ‘staff, other than departmental directors, had to report all conversations with councillors’ to the CEO. He further was alleged to have said that ‘The officers are afraid to give answers. It’s a scare syndrome’.  So how best to haul Grossbard over the coals? Perhaps publish what could be seen as denigrating to Grossbard himself?

Well lo and behold, we get exactly that! A memorandum written by Grossbard (10th June 1997) to councillors and the CEO. In this memorandum Grossbard states “I would like to strongly recommend the following items be adopted in the 1997/8 budget’. There is then the itemised list of goods and costs, totalling $29,500.

In letter after letter to the newspapers, Grossbard claims that he was given the task of discovering the costs of such paraphernalia and that his memo was in response to this task. Further, that when the issue came up at council he was overseas and that the item ‘should not have been placed on the council’s agenda’. He further said that “I was asked by Council to find out what expense would be incurred if we were to commission collarette pieces for use as the City’s Mayoral Regalia. From the quotes I obtained I submitted the costs to Council. Unfortunately I was not in attendance at the Council’s meeting to stop the quotes being regarded as a proposal rather than general information for consideration only.” (21st July, 1997).

Whatever the rights or wrongs of this issue, two things are absolutely clear:

  • The publication of internal correspondence – but only when it suits. This trend still continues.
  • Governance issues, disharmony and lack of trust involving councillors and administration go way, way back and still continue – ie latest Municipal Inspector’s report.
  • The attempted discrediting of critics and opponents via the publication of such documents. Again this practise is still rife.
  • Selective editing that fails to give full context.
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »