Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Exclusive

Sacked Warrnambool City Council chief Peter Schneider has launched legal action in the Supreme Court to get his job back.

Lawyers for Mr Schneider today lodged an “originating motion” against the council in the Supreme Court of Victoria, arguing that Mr Schneider be reinstated.

The action argues that the council failed to provide Mr Schneider with procedural fairness and natural justice.

As a result, they argue, Mr Schneider should be reinstated.

There you have it: as predicted, Mr Schneider was never going to just take this lying down, having been unceremoniously dumped on 13 July on the vote of four councillors: Crs Gaston, Cassidy, Owen and Neoh.

A judge will now ultimately decide whether Mr Schneider should return to his post, but many people of Warrnambool have already decided that this sacking has been a public relations disaster for our city.

It is also costing us money.

What a mess: just weeks before an election and in the middle of a global pandemic that is squeezing us all.

We are about to be squeezed even further.

I doubt the council lawyers, Maddocks, will be providing their advice “free” this time around, so you can set the clock on the legal bill that will be funded by ratepayers – your time starts now.

And all of this has been brought upon Warrnambool by four councillors who thought they knew best and could act on behalf of the next council, whoever that might be.

As it sits, we still don’t know what the four councillors considered so awful, so terrible and so unfixable that it warranted the former CEO being dumped after just 18 months and despite passing his performance reviews and saving the council money on its bloated staffing bill.

At least part of those savings will now be gobbled up in payouts and expensive legal bills.

The four councillors involved seemingly want to wish this mess away and “move forward”, but it won’t go away because we have been swept up in a power play that was not of our choosing, or making, but for which we are paying dearly.

“No reason” just doesn’t cut it.

Mr Schneider’s lawyers obviously agree.

I will continue to write more on the back story to this dismissal in coming weeks.

If you would like to keep the Terrier digging, toss in a tip.

Terrier Tip Jar

Words by Carol Altmann

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”]T[/dropcap]he Warrnambool City Council is being sued for negligence over the death of a young man at an Allansford rail crossing in 2013.

You can read the Supreme Court writ here.

For those of you who may have missed our Facebook post from earlier this week, we followed up on a report in the Herald-Sun by Tom Minear that revealed the council and V-Line are being sued by Colin Grant, the father of Sam Grant, the 22-year-old tragically killed at an Allansford level crossing in March 2013.

Mr Grant is taking action against both parties for failing to improve safety at the Brown St crossing.

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] T [/dropcap]he writ lodged in the Supreme Court on July 1 on behalf of Mr Grant claims that the council had “the responsibility, management and control of Brown St, including the approaches to the crossing”.

It further argues that the WCC had a duty of care with respect to its “management, control and supervision of Brown St and the approaches to the crossing”.

In particular, the writ outlines five areas of negligence:

• failing to have the crossing controlled by boom gates, flashing lights and warning bells;
• allowing the crossing to be used when it was unsafe and not properly controlled;
• failing to have adequate warning signs in Brown St when approaching the crossing
• failing to close the crossing when V-Line knew or ought to have known it was unsafe and;
• permitting the crossing to be used with only passive traffic controls.

The WCC told Bluestone on July 18 it had “not received any notification of this court action” – despite the writ being lodged with the Supreme Court almost three weeks ago.

According to the writ, the council has 10 days after being served with the writ to “file an appearance”. Update: A writ can be served up to 12 months after it is lodged with the court.

We shall keep an eye on this timely story as it unfolds.

More good stuff:

 

Montgomery tipped to buy Glenormiston College

Tightening the tap on council leaks

A $4 million Loch Ard peacock, but who has the key?

Fun4Kids costs $450k but provides no report

Trees, transparency and truth

The big shed schemozzle: we follow the money

Wilma Wright, FOI and more