Editor,
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A Code of Conduct complaint lodged against Cr Dawn Collins by General Manager Greg Lamont has resulted in a letter dated July 28 2015 which was tabled at this month's council meeting at the request of the Office of Local Government.
The subject of the complaint was that Cr Collins voted against the recommendations of the general manager's performance review panel. The mayor should have known that councillors can vote how they see fit, and should have promptly rejected the complaint. Instead the complaint was forwarded on to an investigator, who ultimately made findings against Cr Collins.
Council adopted these findings, requiring Cr Collins to apologise at its October 2014 meeting. Council closed the meeting to the public, but failed to comply with Section 10 of the Local Government Act, therefore should have kept the meeting open to the public. Cr Collins refused to apologise.
Cr Collins then appealed the investigator's decision, as is her right, and the Office of Local Government upheld her appeal, advising council that they considered the investigator had misapplied the standards prescribed under the procedures. The office also advised that council should review its decision and in doing so, rescind its decision and resolve not to adopt the investigator's recommendations.
At the February 2015 meeting, again ignoring the requirements of Section 10 of the Act, council again closed its meeting to the public, and chose to reject the recommendations of the Office of Local Government. The option then available to council was to reaffirm its decision and give its reasons for reaffirming its decision. However council altered its resolution, and in doing so only compounded its comedy of errors. After spending even more ratepayers' money on legal advice, council eventually apologised to Cr Collins in July. The apology was an admission by council that it had issued a false statement relating to Cr Collins. Council then made an unreserved apology to Cr Collins for any harm to her character and reputation, distress and offence.
At that time council also altered the adopted February minutes, an action which is not available to it. So now the February minutes are not a true and correct record of that meeting.
In giving its reasons for rejecting the advice from the Office of Local Government, council completely misunderstood the review process, claiming:
o the general manager was not given the opportunity to put a submission to the review panel whereas Cr Collins did so.
This reason was invalid because neither Lamont nor Collins was permitted to put a submission. The panel only reviewed the material previously presented to the investigator.
o By voting against the recommendations of the General Manager's Review Panel.
As previously noted, councillors may vote how they see fit. This is another invalid reason for council's decision
Cr Collins again refused to apologise, leaving council to appeal to the Office of Local Government to enforce council's decision. The office refused to do so, leaving the council unable to force Cr Collins to apologise.
In considering the July letter from the Office of Local Government at this month's meeting, council had the perfect opportunity to correct past wrongs and move to rescind its original resolution. Cr Lambert sought to move a motion but the mayor refused to accept it, ruling a notice of motion must be submitted ( which could not be dealt with till next meeting.) I am of the firm belief the mayor's ruling was incorrect, given the letter was an agenda item Cr Lambert's motion should have been allowed.
Cr Lambert also queried why this letter was not presented to council at the August meeting as requested. The mayor advised the delay was due to him awaiting a response from questions he raised in his reply to the July letter. Cr Lambert then requested councillors receive copies of the Mayors letter.
The mayor advised he would not be providing copies. It astounds me that the mayor would refuse to provide to councillors, copies of a letter he wrote on their behalf.
Cr Davies spoke, saying it was time this matter was finalised, all to no avail.
Having denied Cr Lambert the right to move a motion, the mayor then allowed another councillor to move to "receive" the letter. Can the mayor explain why he allowed one councillor to move a motion on this item whilst denying another the same opportunity?
To summarise, by failing to comply with Section 10 of the Local Government Act, councillors have considered the matter behind closed doors, but made their adverse findings against Cr Collins public.
They were forced to apologise to her, and they rejected the Office of Local Governments review findings.
General Manager Lamont, in lodging what may be perceived to be a frivolous complaint, has managed to impose a heavy financial and stress burden on Cr Collins at no cost to himself.
The subsequent disharmony has been detrimental to both the council and the community.
Cr Collins, although cleared, has been left to pay her legal fees, and the ratepayers have to foot council's legal fees and other costs, which may be as high as $20,000.
During the last five years there have been a number of staff grievances and Code of Conduct complaints which typically come at great expense to council.
Given council wishes to avoid amalgamation and seeks to demonstrate it is Fit For The Future it is time it stopped the dysfunctional behaviour and focussed on progressing the future of this shire.
Bob Barnett