Terrier Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

And so it comes to a close.

Four years after the current Warrnambool City councillors were elected promising unity, transparency, positivity – and a bunch of other things that end in ‘y’ – they will hold their final public meeting tomorrow night (Monday 7/9) as a divided mess that has failed dismally to live up to that promise.

Ratepayers have not been told the truth about many things over these past four years – but the sudden dumping of the former CEO, Peter Schneider, is the Godzilla of the piece.

It is the mother-of-all finales to what has been four years of secrets and spin and it has split the council, because there is only so much bullshite one council can absorb, even when still smiling for Zoom.

As we limp toward the October election, we must demand the truth on this whole Schneider affair, because we are paying for it.

We want evidence of the claim, for example, that the CEO was failing to deliver on the council’s 2040 plan.

As it happens, tomorrow night’s hefty agenda contains a little coloured graph that shows an update on council “activities and initiatives” between April and June this year (see above).

Of the 145 things listed:

118 of them were finished;

21 are progressing;

5 are on hold;

and only one is not progressing.

This, of course, is at a time when Covid-19 had thrown the world into chaos.

Those figures don’t look like a failure to me, but more like council staff getting stuff done.

So what is the truth? Was the CEO making progress or not?

And, as I wrote on Friday, we have the wobbly story around the thousands of dollars in legal fees that were racked up by the four councillors who plotted the CEO’s demise.

Ratepayers were expected to pay for this legal bill, before it was torn up and the advice was suddenly pro bono (free).

Why was it free?

Cr Mike Neoh told the Standard on Friday that he believed there was a problem with the invoice.

A council spokesman told me on Friday that the council didn’t ask why.

How does Cr Neoh know what happened if the council officers don’t?

What is the truth of the matter?

Is the root of it, as MP Bev McArthur told Parliament last week, that the councillors had no authority to hire the lawyers in the first place?

Lastly, we’ve been told that Mr Schneider was also dumped because of the terrible community survey results and terrible staff survey results.

But planning for this coup started in February: Crs Gaston, Neoh and Owen were already making their moves.

They had begun to talk to people. Phone calls were being made. They just needed one more councillor to come on board.

That was in February – well before the results of the surveys were known.

On top of this, once Cr Cassidy signed on and the axe could be swung on 13 July, dozens of WCC staff swamped councillors with emails of support for the CEO.

So what is the truth?

Was the former CEO a friend or foe of the staff who hoped to see a better council than the one he inherited, which was wracked for years with allegations of bullying, ignoring staff surveys, favouritism, and a “mates club” mentality?

It’s a sweet irony that the council’s final meeting contains the annual report which opens with this:

“WCC is committed to transparent reporting and accountability to the community.”

Given the state of play, we can only take this as humour as the lights fade on this sorry chapter and we prepare to write a new one.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

By Carol Altmann

Like him or dislike him, long-serving Warrnambool City Councillor Peter Hulin exposed a simmering issue inside council this week when he spoke out on the “bullying by exclusion” that has kept him from ever being chosen as mayor.

As Cr Hulin told Standard reporter Rachael Houlihan, he didn’t even bother to run for mayor this time around because he knew he didn’t have the numbers on council, and he was right. He also no longer sits on even one council committee, having been excluded from those too.

Cr Tony Herbert, who was selected as mayor on Monday and who chairs not one but two council committees, was in the box seat for the mayoralty all along and Cr Sue Cassidy will get her chance next year.

Because as we now know, Warrnambool no longer selects its mayors based on years served, or council experience, or even popularity among the voters.

If it cared about experience, Cr Robert Anderson would not have been chosen last year, his first year on council, over Cr Hulin who has now served 10 years.

And if it came down to the will of the people, Cr Hulin would have had a turn by now too.

In 2008, when he first joined council, Cr Hulin polled 2078 first preference votes – second only to Cr Rob Askew on 2260 and well ahead of Crs Mike Neoh (1578) and Jacinta Ermacora (1348).

Both Crs Neoh and Ermacora (who is no longer on council) have been mayor.

The second time he came up for election, in 2012, Cr Hulin scored 2250 first preference votes, almost double that of newcomer Kylie Gaston on 1210. Cr Gaston went on to be mayor too.

And at the last council election, in 2016, Cr Hulin came in fifth but was still the preferred first choice of 1519 voters, which was a higher first preference vote than Cr David Owen (1206) and not far from Cr Gaston (1800). The two candidates elected behind Cr Hulin were, wait for it, Cr Tony Herbert (1456) and Cr Robert Anderson (1058).

Despite being in their first term as councillors, Cr Anderson and Herbert have now both been mayor too.

Cr Hulin has every right to feel angry, but so do the people who voted for him – consistently – election after election, since 2008.

These voters clearly want his voice in the mix, they want him to have the same opportunities as his other council colleagues and they believe he has something to contribute.

For the other councillors, aided and abetted by powerful forces within the council itself, to continually exclude Cr Hulin from the spheres of influence because he doesn’t fit with their particular style or agenda, is to take a gouge out of democracy.

It is also basically a big “stuff you” to those who vote for him.

Being mayor of a city the size of Warrnambool is no longer about ribbon cutting and wearing a big robe with a big medallion, although I think Cr Anderson thought it was because, with all due respects to him, he was unremarkable as a mayor.

It is now a job with a $70,000-plus a year allowance that relies on a mayor being able to promote the city, lobby for the city, ask questions of the city and put the city’s best interests first.

There are many things I disagree on with Cr Hulin – his support for racehorse training at Levy’s Beach and looking at enclosing the harbour are just two of them – but there is little doubt he has a passion for Warrnambool.

He also asks tough, detailed questions, and surely that sort of inquiry – too often dismissed as being “negative” – is just what we need to keep our council accountable?

Cr Hulin could be a disappointment as mayor. He may stand up in public and make bad jokes about FIGJAM, who knows? But to be excluded from ever having the opportunity to spend even 12 months in the role sends a chilling message that unless you play a certain way, you will be frozen out, and that should be of concern to all of us.

If you would like to keep seeing more pieces like this about local issues, please make a small contribution below.

Donate

Comment – Carol Altmann

It is a question that has been swirling around Warrnambool for a fortnight – now that Mayor Michael Neoh has been preselected to run for the National Party, why is he still Mayor?

It is more than two weeks since Mr Neoh switched parties from the Liberals to the Nationals so that he had a clear run at the October 31 by-election for South West Coast without having to endure a potentially bruising preselection battle inside the Liberal Party.

In that one move Mr Neoh revealed many things, not least that – like any politician in the making – he will use whatever political advantage he can to boost his chances of election, even if it means swapping parties.

His refusal to step aside from his role as Mayor is another such move.

For no matter how you look at it, staying in the mayoral role for as long as possible is all about gaining a political advantage.

By wearing both hats, as a mayor and as a National’s candidate, Michael Neoh doubles his public profile.

Sometimes he is out and about as the Mayor, other times he out and about as the candidate for the Nationals, and sometimes he swings between both and – for the average person – it can be hard to tell the difference.

It also means Mr Neoh – as Mayor – has access to opportunities and information that would not be available to him as just a member of the public.

I am not suggesting Michael Neoh has improperly used these opportunities for his own political gain, but the fact is that when he now attends any public event, he is seen as both the mayor (not the former mayor) and the Nationals candidate.

It also means when he reads any council documents, attends any briefings, or receives any other information as Mayor, he has to be disciplined enough not to let it have any influence on his election campaign.

Again, I am not suggesting Michael Neoh has been anything but disciplined in this regard, but the potential conflict of interest looms large.

No wonder the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) describes the “politicisation” of local councils from councillors running for state or federal parliament as a “contentious” issue.

When Mr Neoh was first nominated by the Nationals on Sept 10, he said he would take leave when the election date was set (the issuing of the writ).

The election date was announced 10 days later on Sept 17, but, in the meantime, it appears Mr Neoh ran a magnifying glass over the rules and found he could stretch his time in the chair even longer.

The MAV says, as a minimum (not a maximum), a councillor running for Parliament should take leave when the electoral commission is formally notified of their candidacy. The last date for this to happen is October 2.

Again, in a smart political move, Mr Neoh is applying the bare minimum of what is required and will stay on for as long as possible to gain maximum exposure during the by-election campaign.

We did ask Mr Neoh, via email, if he was using any of his mayoral time, allowance, car or mobile phone for his campaigning. We also asked about the potential conflicts of interest as outlined above.

This was his response:

“I have a campaign car that I use and also non council equipment.

I am following the MAV policy in regards to taking leave of absence and I do not use mayoral invited functions to campaign.

If I meet with stakeholders outside of Council duties and as a candidate I make it very clear that I am an election candidate and are not representing council.”

The boundaries, in Mr Neoh’s eyes, are very clear. But I know they are far less clear to the general public, many of whom are asking why he has not “done the right thing” and stepped aside.

Guidelines are just that – guidelines – and it is up to the individual to decide whether they wish to follow them to the letter, or embrace the spirit of their intent.

Bluestone also asked Mr Neoh, straight up, why he was staying on as mayor until the final hour.

We have not yet received an answer.