Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Update: The deadline for the Warrnambool City Council to lodge its sworn written evidence (affidavits) in defence of its sacking of former CEO Peter Schneider passed at 5pm tonight – and nothing has been lodged with the Supreme Court.

As far as I know, there has also been no request for a further extension.

What does this all mean? I am not a lawyer, but perhaps it means the matter will be settled out of court, or a judgment will be made purely on the sworn statements supplied so far by Mr Schneider and former Mayor Tony Herbert or….

The hearing date is set for 1 February 2021. A lot can and will happen between now and then, including, of course the election of a new Warrnambool City Council.

We shall wait to see how those final numbers fall, but word is that change is firmly in the air, if not an unprecedented number of new councillors being elected in one swoop.

The VEC website is now saying we should have results from as early as Monday.

Have a good weekend.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

I have learned that one of the options for sacking former Warrnambool City Council chief Peter Schneider would have cost ratepayers around $30,000, instead of more than 10 times that amount – $365,709.

If getting rid of the CEO just 18 months into his contract was such a matter of urgency, why did the councillors involved have to rely on the most expensive option?

It turns out Mr Schneider’s contract contained a number of clauses for termination, including two for instant dismissal.

The first of these two – let’s call it the “CEO Stuffs Up Big Time” clause – sets out a number of specific grounds for instant dismissal that, if proven, result in a much smaller payout.

The thrust of these grounds is as follows:

is negligent in carrying out his duties (ie. the responsibilities, duties and functions set out in his contract);

commits an act of serious misconduct;

seriously or persistently breaches a term of the contract;

breaches the council’s policies that apply to the CEO including occupational health and safety, privacy, anti-discrimination, and use of council IT’s systems;

engages in conduct that may cause imminent and serious risk to the health and safety of another person;

is declared bankrupt;

fails to immediately notify the council that he has been charged with or found guilty of any criminal offence;

is charged with a crime, or found guilty of a crime, that brings the council into disrepute;

is unable to work in Australia.

Under this clause, the CEO would only be entitled to his salary, holiday pay, sick leave and long service leave up to the time he was sacked.

As of 13 July 2020, when Mr Schneider was dumped, this total came to around $30k.

As we know, the four councillors who voted to sack Mr Schneider didn’t – or couldn’t – use this clause and I can only speculate as to why, given it contains the sorts of grounds that most of us would expect behind a CEO getting the boot.

The councillors instead used another clause in the contract, which I will call the “Not Telling” option.

Under this option – as we now know –  the council could sack the CEO for “any reason or no reason”, which pretty much covers everything from leaving the hot tap running in the tearoom through to serious misconduct.

Not surprisingly, the payout for pulling the lever on this trapdoor is much higher: 12 months remuneration OR the remaining value of the contract, whichever is less.

With 30 months to go on Mr Schneider’s contract, the 12 month payout is what came to pass – $365,709.

The “Not Telling” option is the most expensive of all the options and, I can only assume, is used when the other “instant dismissal” option can’t be justified, or doesn’t apply.

All of this, I am afraid, only raises more questions and takes us further away from the answer that everyone is seeking about Mr Schneider’s rapid demise: why?

The full story will be slow in coming, if at all, as the dismissal heads to the Supreme Court in February.

Speaking of questions, one of I have left with the council today is whether it has acted on the recommendation of the Victorian Ombudsman to refer the misuse of a council credit card by former tourism manager, David McMahon, to police.

It is now 10 days since the Ombudsman’s eye-popping report on the ratepayer funded booze fest was made public, so I am sure an answer is imminent.

If you would like to support The Terrier, please consider throwing something in the tip jar.

Terrier Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Oh the battle over the sacking of the Warrnambool City Council boss Peter Schneider is turning into a dog fight.

If Mayor Tony Herbert’s sworn affidavit wasn’t enough to digest yesterday, today’s instalment is the four councillors behind the sacking threatening legal action against Cr Herbert.

The warning relates to a written media statement that was given to the local newspaper by Cr Herbert last month, but not published.

Cr Herbert prepared the 500-word statement with Councillors Peter Sycopoulis and Robert Anderson, setting out what they allege happened when their fellow councillors sought legal advice on the dumping of Mr Schneider.

Having learned of the statement, Crs Kylie Gaston, Mike Neoh, Sue Cassidy and David Owen shot an email to Crs Herbert, Sycopoulis and Anderson, describing the account as “misleading and false” and “a complete distortion of the truth”.

“We will seek legal action if there is any defamation of our characters or false information published anywhere,” the four councillors wrote.

I asked all four councillors yesterday for a comment on this legal threat and why they felt it was necessary.

“It is up to the media to decide what is inflammatory or not and if people are defamed it is their right to take recourse,” was the joint response.

It’s hard to believe that only a year ago, Cr Herbert was elected Mayor for a second term on the votes of Crs Neoh, Gaston and Owen.

At that time, it was Cr Cassidy shooting barbs across the room at Crs Gaston and Owen for switching sides.

What a poisoned pit the chamber has become since then.

The media statement by the three councillors has not seen the light of day, but it referred to an email that, in the name of public interest, you can download here.  (I have removed names irrelevant to the content.)

The email, which is not marked confidential, was sent by Cr Gaston to Cr Owen and cc-ed to all councillors on 12 July – the day before the council held its special meeting to sack Mr Schneider.

Under the ominous subject heading of “imprisonment and $100,000 fine”, Cr Gaston sets out a chronology of events around the seeking of legal advice leading up to the CEO’s dismissal.

In it, Cr Gaston seeks to allay concerns that the four councillors had done anything wrong in obtaining this legal advice which, Cr Gaston confirms, she instigated in February this year – 12 months after Mr Schneider started in the job.

Cr Gaston’s reassuring email was prompted by phone calls from Cr Herbert that seemingly put the heebies into Cr Owen.

Cr Herbert had warned Cr Owen that, according to separate legal advice, the four councillors could face five years jail and a $100,000 fine for alleged misuse of council funds.

That’s enough to cause a restless night.

Cr Gaston’s email dismissed such concerns:

“I cannot believe our documented actions could qualify us for a $100,000 fine – from whom I wonder? Nor that any of this would warrant five years imprisonment.

“We followed every step according to the advice we received and at no time did we think we were breaking any laws,” the email says.

The Local Government Inspectorate has since launched an official investigation into the circumstances surrounding the sacking of Mr Schneider.

This investigation includes the four councillors seeking legal advice without a formal resolution of the full council.

In the meantime, Cr Herbert alleged in his sworn affidavit that Cr Gaston attempted to pass a motion at the 13 July meeting that, if successful, would have seen the public pay for the legal advice.

I asked Cr Gaston yesterday for a comment on that allegation, but have not yet received a response.

The council recently confirmed an invoice was received from law firm Maddocks for the legal advice, but was later withdrawn.

As it sits, we have a Supreme Court challenge, a Local Government Inspectorate investigation, a legal threat, and a whole lot of confusion for the rest of us – outside the tent – who are still trying to piece together exactly what went on inside.

If you would like to support the work of The Terrier, please consider throwing something in the tip jar.

Terrier Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Shrugs, a smirk and a question: when can we go home?

A sworn affidavit by Warrnambool Mayor Tony Herbert sets out what allegedly happened behind closed doors on the night former council CEO Peter Schneider was sacked just 18 months into his job.

And it is not pretty.

In fact, it’s brutal.

The 22-page affidavit was lodged in the Supreme Court on Monday in support of Mr Schneider’s civil action against the Warrnambool City Council, scheduled for a hearing on 1 February next year.

Cr Herbert’s sworn evidence, obtained from the court today, paints a damning picture of how Crs Kylie Gaston, Michael Neoh, David Owen and Sue Cassidy allegedly behaved during the confidential council meeting on 13 July, which saw Mr Schneider lose his head.

According to Cr Herbert, all four councillors point blank refused to discuss the reasons why they wanted Mr Schneider gone and stayed mute during a list of questions put to them by Crs Herbert, Peter Sycopoulis and Robert Anderson.

“Each time (we put a question) we were met with silence.

“That is, Cr Gaston stared back at me, said nothing, shrugged, shook her head and raised her hands in the air with her palms outstretched,” the affidavit says.

“On one occasion, Cr Cassidy simply smirked.

“After about half an hour, Cr Owen asked when the meeting would be finished, as he wanted to go home.

“I, and Crs Anderson and Sycopoulis were appalled and shocked at Councillor Owen’s attitude.”

Cr Herbert said after the motion was passed to sack Mr Schneider, Cr Gaston put forward a motion written on a piece of paper that would see Director of Community Development, Vikki King, appointed as Acting CEO.

“Prior to the meeting, neither I nor Crs Anderson and Sycopoulis had any knowledge of the proposal to appoint Ms King.

“(The four councillors) gave no reasons for, or justification, for selecting Ms King, requiring her to perform two roles, or increasing her remuneration.”

Cr Herbert said after the meeting, when he told Ms King she had been appointed as acting CEO, she “showed no surprise about the decision and did not ask for any details of her role or her remuneration”.

This reaction led him to conclude that Ms King had already been in discussions with at least one of the other four councillors.

The affidavit also claims Cr Gaston attempted to put forward a motion at this 13 July meeting which would have seen the public pay for legal advice received by the four councillors who voted to remove the CEO.

An invoice for this legal advice from Maddocks arrived at the council in June, with no indication of who had asked for the advice.

Cr Herbert’s statement says separate legal advice found the councillors had acted unlawfully in seeking this advice without the approval of the full council.

Cr Gaston’s motion did not eventuate because, Cr Herbert claims, the councillors were advised that they could not retrospectively approve the payment.

This invoice, according to the council, has since been withdrawn.

While Cr Herbert sworn evidence is yet to be tested in court, it underscores a growing sense that Mr Schneider’s management style was met with disapproval by some councillors very early into his contract.

Cr Herbert claims that Mr Schneider had in fact lost the support of Cr Gaston just three months into his job due to his approach in securing funding for the new library project.

“From my observations, Crs Gaston and Neoh were less comfortable working with Mr Schneider than they were with (former CEO Bruce) Anson.

“Because Mr Schneider sought to treat all councillors equally, Crs Gaston and Neoh had less influence than they had previously enjoyed, even after they had ceased being Mayors.”

According to Cr Herbert, he had a conversation with Cr Gaston in June 2019 – just four months after Mr Schneider started as CEO – where Cr Gaston allegedly said she wanted to remove Mr Schneider and replace him with a former CEO from another council.

“(Cr Gaston) suggested that ‘we could get (name removed by The Terrier) in the role for 12 months, settle everything down and then go again, possibly with a woman’.

I told Cr Gaston that I was not interested in her proposal.”

From that point on, according to Cr Herbert’s evidence, there was a series of events aimed at undermining or embarrassing Mr Schneider, who is now suing the council for a lack of natural justice and is seeking to be re-hired.

More tomorrow night.

If you would like to support the work of The Terrier, please consider throwing something in the tip jar.

Terrier Tip Jar