Carol Altmann – The Terrier

I have been thinking about consequences and wondering if there will be any for what unfolded in the last 12 months of the last Warrnambool City Council.

Because while we wait to see if sacked CEO Peter Schneider wins his court case, there are some other potentially illegal dealings that also require attention.

The first is alleged fraud or alleged theft (take your pick) of public money as part of the corporate credit card scandal.

The council confirmed that the credit card misuse involving former tourism manager David McMahon was referred to the police, as recommended by the Ombudsman in her report tabled six months ago.

The police, I can only assume, are now investigating Mr McMahon’s repayment of more than $6000, the doctoring of receipts, and writing fake invoices that saw staff parties at the Lady Bay put down as “room hire” so they would be picked up by the public purse.

Despite leaving messages, I have been unable to get an official update from the detectives involved.

I wonder if charges will be laid, or if there are two sets of rules for so-called white collar and so-called blue collar crime?

Under that form of justice, if you pinch a mixed grill from Woolies, you are charged, but if you misuse thousands of dollars in public funds, you get to pay it back and that’s the end of it.

We shall see.

Second, we have confirmation that four former councillors sought detailed legal advice from the council lawyers, Maddocks, in Melbourne, to work out how to sack Mr Schneider.

This legal advice, as the Supreme Court heard last month, was not approved by the full council.

This is against the law.

Such legal advice normally costs money and is paid for from public funds.

Maddocks sent the council an invoice, but it was withdrawn and never paid.

These are the simple facts, so the question is: does an illegal act by four councillors become legal if the bill is torn up?

Can the former councillors involved – knowing the public was expected to pay the bill – just get away with it?

And, if so, who decided that the invoice would be withdrawn and why?

All of this was referred to the Local Government Inspectorate last year as part of a request for a broader investigation into the sacking of Mr Schneider.

Another spurious decision was also referred to the Inspectorate, which was the re-appointment of acting CEO Vikki King for another five years to her position as manager of Community Services.

Ms King’s contract was due to expire in August last year.

Ms King was appointed acting CEO the night Mr Schneider was sacked on 13 July.

As Acting CEO, Ms King delegated off the authority to re-appoint herself for another five years.

We still don’t know exactly who signed off on Ms King’s reappointment, but I understand it was a casual staff member.

These are the simple facts, so the question is: can a casual worker sign off on a $240,000 a year position and why didn’t a senior manager put their name to it?

The Local Government Inspectorate confirmed last August it has launched an investigation into Mr Schneider’s dismissal, and that investigation is ongoing.

Any details on the scope of the investigation, however, and how it is coming along, are strictly under wraps.

I recently contacted the LGI and the latest update is this:

“The Local Government Inspectorate is investigating a complaint in relation to Warrnambool City Council. This investigation is ongoing.

“The Inspectorate deals with complaints or requests for investigation in strict confidence and does not provide comment on investigations that are yet to be finalised.”

The passing of time does not diminish the importance of these ongoing investigations and the need for either closure or consequences.

Only then will this sorry chapter in our civic history be fully laid to rest.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Tonight I want to pause and reflect on this simple fact: the Warrnambool City Council is now the subject of not one, not two, but three investigations.

One of those investigations is the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the misuse of corporate credit cards.

The second is the council’s own internal inquiry into these credit cards.

The third is a Worksafe investigation into alleged bullying.

And the fourth – revealed here on Friday afternoon – is an investigation by the Local Government Inspectorate into the sacking of the former CEO Peter Schneider by Crs Sue Cassidy, Mike Neoh, Kylie Gaston and David Owen.

What a freaking mess.

And all of it – ALL of it – will come at a cost to ratepayers, which is the bottom line of this latest disgraceful manoeuvring, backroom dealing and secrecy.

We are footing the bill.

We will pay for Mr Schneider’s payout, whatever that is, because we still don’t know.

The Four Horsemen involved in lopping off the CEO’s head were happy to swing the sword, but haven’t had the spine to reveal how much it will cost ratepayers, because that information will undoubtedly upset voters as they head toward the October election.

The councillors don’t want that bitter truth spoiling their campaigns.

Best to distract ratepayers with other shiny things, like bike paths and taverns and new grass at Reid Oval.

And the four councillors involved in the coup brought in all the lawyers they needed to get rid of Mr Schneider, and guess who pays for that?

We do.

How much was spent on these lawyers? We don’t know.

And who decided to get that legal advice?

It sure as heck wasn’t supported by all seven councillors, because three of them – Crs Tony Herbert, Peter Sycopoulis and Robert Anderson – were dead set against the whole idea.

This begs another key question: can four councillors rack up a legal bill without the approval of the other councillors?

I am no expert on the finer details of the Local Government Act but the Inspectorate is, and I hope it will pull this question apart during its investigation, because, as a ratepayer, I have a vested interest.

We all have a vested interest, because the four councillors involved have been spending my money – and yours – and we deserve to know the full story.

Rates notices are going out as we speak and blowing people away: I am getting messages every day from people shocked by how much we pay in Warrnambool compared to other cities.

I am also talking to people worried about what lies ahead as the full economic impact of the C19 virus kicks in.

And yet here are four of our councillors, blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and payouts for reasons which are all secret.

The inspectorate’s investigation will probably take some time, but my hope is that the four councillors who are now part of this investigation will step up themselves and tell the public the full story about this coup and the cost.

They know the truth.

As we inch closer toward the October election, there will be many shiny distractions and photo ops and promises, but the two things that I am hearing voters want the most right now are transparency and integrity.

Transparency and integrity.

Over to you, councillors.

If you would like to support the work of The Terrier, please make a contribution to the tip jar.

Terrier Tip Jar

Exclusive

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

The Local Government Inspectorate has launched an official investigation into the sacking of former Warrnambool City Council chief executive officer Peter Schneider.

Acting Chief Municipal Inspector Dr John Lynch confirmed the investigation this afternoon in response to questions from The Terrier.

“The Local Government Inspectorate is investigating matters relating to the recent termination of a CEO contract at Warrnambool City Council,” he said.

The LGI is Victoria’s top, independent watchdog over local government and has powers to investigate, audit and prosecute breaches of the Local Government Act.

Dr Lynch said he was unable to provide any detail on the scope of the investigation while it is underway.

“The Inspectorate deals with complaints or requests for investigation in strict confidence and does not provide information that may compromise current investigations.

(It) will be able to provide further comment when the investigation is completed,” he said.

While the depth and breadth of the LGI’s investigation is confidential, there has been mounting speculation and public unrest around the circumstances that led to the sudden dumping of Mr Schneider on 13 July.

Mr Schneider, who had relocated from Perth to take up the position in February 2019, was sacked after just 18 months in the job.

The dismissal happened behind closed doors, with four councillors – Crs Michael Neoh, Kylie Gaston, David Owen and Sue Cassidy – voting as one and using a “no reason” clause in Mr Schneider’s contract to dump him.

The council’s Community Development Manager Vikki King was then immediately appointed acting CEO for up to 12 months. Ms King now holds both positions.

Confirmation of the investigation comes as Cr Sue Cassidy today announced she would run again in the October election.

Former mayors Crs Neoh and Gaston have already declared they will run again.

Cr Owen is yet to make an announcement.

Mayor Tony Herbert, Cr Robert Anderson and Cr Peter Sycopoulis all voted against Mr Schneider’s sacking and have remained vocal in their support for the former CEO.

While it’s still not known why Mr Schneider was sacked, it is known is that rumblings of discontent among the four councillors behind the coup started as early as February.

Despite this, Mr Schneider went on to pass his performance review and received a pay rise as a result.

The discontent reignited in June, with Cr Neoh demanding the release of key findings of the latest WCC staff survey results – something he had never done in his previous 16 years on council – telling the Standard on 28 June he held “grave concerns” about the results.

That same month, on 22 June, the annual community satisfaction survey showed the WCC had hit an all time low.

Mr Schneider was sacked just three weeks later. He is now pursuing his own legal action against the four councillors involved.

The four councillors have refused to disclose how much the coup will cost ratepayers, but it’s expected to run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The LGI investigation is the second major investigation into the council as it limps toward the October election, with the Victorian Ombudsman still to release her report into the misuse of council credit cards.

If you would like to support the work of The Terrier, please make a contribution to the tip jar.

Terrier Tip Jar

By Carol Altmann

It has been a bit like pulling teeth, but the Warrnambool City Council has finally released more detail about why it has rented two properties to two of its staff for – in one case – more than 30 years, and 14 years the other.

The five-page article posted on its website is a direct response to the stories that have appeared here about one senior WCC staff member living in the old bank building at 130 Timor St, part of the Archie Graham Centre, since 1987 and currently paying about $190 a week.

This property also saw about $43,000 from the Archie Graham capital works budget used to build a new garage, retaining wall, garden bed and sealed driveway in a spend that sources say incensed many of the Archie Graham staff.

The other property is a beachside former caretaker’s residence, currently rented at $221 a week.

Both are open-ended, on-going leases with no end in sight.

So, what is the council’s more fulsome explanation as to how these arrangements work and why they exist?

You can read the whole thing for yourself here – please, do – but the nub of it appears to be that these two properties are “unusual” and the council is lucky to find good tenants to rent them:

“Because of the unusual locations and nature of these properties if Council staff were not renting these properties they would not be made available for rent to the general public and Council would lose income.”

What exactly makes the properties “unusual”?

Well, according to the council’s explanation, the Archie Graham tenant is virtually a live-in security guard, turning off lights and appliances left on by the staff and centre clients, and, on occasion, even responding to attacks by vandals:

“Over a recent weekend the staff member was able to set in train urgent repairs when an intoxicated individual smashed a glass entrance door.”

Further, the tenant can only access the apartment via the main entrance to Archie Graham, which I guess when you put all of these things together, means that not all WCC staff could be entrusted with such an arrangement and they could not be guaranteed a good night’s sleep.

(Apparently councillors were also told privately in response to my stories that the tenant had to share a bathroom with the public. This does not appear in the public explanation and my sources say that such a claim is is not correct.)

The beachside house apparently has similar issues with noisy passersby:

“In the past the house at Shipwreck Coast Holiday Park has been made available to the public to rent but Council experienced difficulties in the rent being reliably paid and tenants finding the level of amenity acceptable with regard to being in close proximity to excited holiday makers.”

I will leave that image of the excited holiday makers for you to ponder.

As I say, read the full statement – it is too long to reproduce here – and I will finish with just one or two more points.

First, I recently asked the Local Government Inspectorate if these two lease deals breached the Local Government Act because, under the Act, a lease of more than 10 years must be advertised.

The inspectorate contacted the council CEO Bruce Anson and reported back to me that, no, the leases did not breach the Act because neither was for more than 10 years, even though one is 31-years long and the other inching toward 15 years.

I think George Orwell would be impressed.

I don’t know how frequently these leases are renewed, but the collective total for each is definitely more than 10 years. This, according to the inspectorate, is an “alleged loophole”.

Moving on.

Much of the council’s response has been about privacy and protecting people’s names and addresses:

“As a responsible landlord and to ensure the privacy and security of the tenants, Council will not broadcast the identities of the tenants in these homes.”

Some readers may also share this view.

But I have to point out that this issue is about due process, not particular individuals, which is why I have not published names.

Nothing written about the people in these two properties is not on the public record. You can visit the council offices and read the lease register, which is a public document and the reason it is public is because it deals with public property.

Of course Mr Anson, parts of the council, and probably the tenants in question, would all prefer we didn’t go poking about in lease registers and asking questions about rents and new garages and sealed driveways and forcing them to write long statements justifying their actions, but this is exactly what we need to do – and what I do on your behalf – because that, as we know, is all part of a healthy democracy.

A freedom of information application asking for copies of the two lease agreements is still being processed. Thankyou to those of you who donate $ to help me pay for these applications. If you too would like to support independent journalism, please consider making a small contribution below.

Donate

ANALYSIS – Carol Altmann

The attempted shaming of three Warrnambool City councillors for speaking to a journalist is yet another step toward shutting off information to the public.

And if you care about freedom of speech and freedom of the media, then the events of the past few days should be very troubling.

First, some background.

Late last week, the agenda for this Tuesday’s council meeting was released and contained a report given to chief executive officer Bruce Anson from the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate following its investigation into the leaking of confidential council documents to The Age early last year.

The inspectorate concluded that it could not determine who leaked the documents.

But it did conclude that three councillors – Brian Kelson, Peter Hulin and Peter Sycopoulis – met with a journalist from The Age the night before it ran the first of several stories about links between then-Premier Denis Napthine and Midfield Meats owner, Colin McKenna.

It was not hard to reach this conclusion, because the councillors told the inspectorate about this meeting.

After all, it has never been an offence for an elected official to speak to a journalist and it happens every day.

The assumption, of course, is that the three councillors used this meeting to hand over secret documents, but this is wrong.

The Age journalists, Royce Miller and Ben Schneiders, have issued a statement to say that they were already in possession of the documents before this meeting.

How did they get the documents? Who knows, but in a world dominated by public relations officers and media managers, leaks and whistleblowing are often the only ways that information in the public interest can come to light.

The inspectorate knew the three councillors had done nothing illegal, and it prepared a confidential report naming the three councillors that could only be released with the approval of the CEO, Mr Anson.

Ironically, Mr Anson decided to make this confidential report public, and included it in the agenda. In other words, what is and isn’t kept confidential by council is entirely at Mr Anson’s discretion.

A front page headline by The Standard followed but, in what I believe is unprecedented for a newspaper, it didn’t defend the profession of journalism that relies on research, well-placed sources, whistleblowers and leaks, but instead leapt on the “revelation” that three councillors had met with a journalist, as if this was a crime.

Its sycophantic editorial went even further and defended the former Premier against such “damaging” behaviour, saying that he must “be itching” to ask what was discussed between the councillors and The Age journalists.

This is coming from an organisation that knows the trust between a journalist and a source is fundamental to flushing out what those in power don’t want you to know, but is in the public interest: like the fact – as reported by The Age – Dr Napthine (and our Federal MP Dan Tehan) held shares in a racehorse with Mr McKenna.

A compliant newspaper and a media-managed council is a powerful combination in a regional city, and it could soon get even worse.

Lost within the story is a recommendation by the inspectorate that the Warrnambool City Council put its boot even harder on the neck of elected members.

It has suggested – and the council will now consider – changing its media policy so that councillors MUST tell the council’s communications manager, Nick Higgins, when they speak to a journalist, about anything.

What right has a government inspectorate got to try and gag elected councillors?

It is an outrageous recommendation and one designed purely to ensure that the only information released to the media (and therefore, to you, the public) is that which suits the council’s chief executive or the mayor of the day, whoever they may be.

This closing down of voices in local government is a growing trend across Australia, and comes as newsrooms are shrinking.

Indeed academic papers* have been written on this increasing secrecy and the restraining of elected members by tightening a council’s media policy.

We need to ask ourselves, who does such secrecy benefit? It is certainly not intended to benefit you, the humble ratepayer.

No, it is designed for councils to move more and more information behind closed doors so that decisions can be discussed – and made – by those with power without any “distractions” from the public.

This means decisions, when they are made public, are virtually a fait accompli, such as the nine-storey apartment block proposed for 1A Liebig St, or the sale of land to Midfield for an enormous milk processing plant.

And it is designed to keep all of the potential “hot spots” under wraps, such as the true state of affairs of the Fun4Kids festival finances, or the declining patronage at Flagstaff Hill, or the actual salary package paid to the chief executive, or who was invited into the May Races marquee...

We here at Bluestone Magazine have already been cut off by the council’s media unit: our questions now go unanswered and our requests for interviews with certain council staff are denied.

This is what happens when you don’t play by the rules or you refuse to stick to “the message” – but Bluestone will keep investigating nonetheless.

Warrnambool should not be distracted by the public shaming of three councillors for talking to the media – this is not the problem. The much more worrying issue is the move to stop councillors talking to journalists at all.