Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Today’s emphatic victory in the Supreme Court by Warrnambool City Council CEO Peter Schneider did more than give him his job back – it has exposed the poisonous culture that tries to silence our city.

This victory exposes a rotten culture of power and entitlement that was allowed to take root and fester in the council for almost two decades.

Mr Schneider, wide-eyed and pink-cheeked off the plane from WA, walked into a culture that thrived on the cruel concept of  “insiders” and “outsiders” and the snivelling, sycophantic silence of those who quickly learned how the game was played, and who chose not to speak up, but to join in.

By joining in, they thought they might have a tiny slice of power too.

How did that work out?

Mr Schneider walked into a joint that had not had seen a staff review in 12 years.

The WCC had become a place of power plays, backroom deals, favours, payback, revenge, circles of influence, pet projects and political aspirations.

In this culture, one councillor who was on council for 16 years, Michael Neoh, was elected Mayor five times.

Peter Hulin, who was on council for a decade, was not allowed to be Mayor, even once.

Insiders and outsiders.

Mr Schneider was an “insider” for about 23 minutes – having been chosen for the job and relocating his family from across the other side of Australia – only to find he wasn’t an insider at all.

He didn’t fit the plan.

When those who thought they held all the power decided he had to go, they gathered, they plotted, and they ripped his voice out.

As Justice Michael McDonald’s judgment said in no uncertain terms today, Mr Schneider was denied the basic right to defend himself.

He was silenced.

Three other members of council, including the Mayor and a former Mayor, tried to ask questions.

The four councillors who believed they had all the power, stayed mute.

Is there any more brutal example of those who are allowed to speak and those who are not?

We have seen this silencing time and again in Warrnambool: where the cliques have gathered to protect their own and the powerless were ignored.

We see it in the ribbons fluttering on the Loud Fence outside St Joseph’s church in Lava St.

We saw it during the March4Justice rally on 15 March when sexual abuse survivors spoke for the first time.

We saw it in the battle to save Levy’s Beach from the might of the racing industry, where the words of the indigenous elders were lost in the tailwind of Darren Weir’s blazing comet.

We are seeing the same silencing take root in Lyndoch Living right now, in real time, where becoming a member or board member is no longer an opportunity open to everyone, but to a select few.

As a result, we have a situation where more than 1000 people have now signed a petition asking Lyndoch simple questions that it refuses to answer.

Insiders and outsiders: that’s how Warrnambool used to roll.

Mr Schneider’s victory today should send a message to all those who believe the voiceless will stay silent that those days are over.

The days of stepping on heads for personal power – those days are done.

But the cultural clean-out at the council is still not over.

There is an ongoing Local Government Inspectorate investigation that we all hope will provide answers to exactly what happened in the lead up to Mr Schneider’s illegal sacking and afterward.

This includes the “free” legal advice provided to then Cr Neoh, and the appointment of Vikki King as Acting CEO who, before the ink was dry on that deal, was also reappointed for another five years as manager of Community Services.

None of Ms King’s managerial colleagues signed off on that deal, so it was passed to a subordinate – a casual.

I have always believed that the truth rises and it will, and when it does, it comes with a roar.

Find the full judgment here:

Schneider v Warrnambool City Council [2021] VSC 337

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Former Warrnambool City Council CEO Peter Schneider failed to perform in his job almost from day one, according to sworn evidence by former councillor Kylie Gaston.

Ms Gaston submitted a 10-page affidavit to the Supreme Court late Monday, setting out her defence as to why she was one of four councillors who voted to sack Mr Schneider on 13 July – 18 months after he replaced CEO Bruce Anson.

(The affidavit was released by the Supreme Court today, after the Melbourne Cup holiday).

Ms Gaston was the last of the four councillors to lodge an affidavit, but the evidence reiterates and reflects many of the justifications made by former councillors David Owen, Sue Cassidy and Michael Neoh, which have already been reported here. Acting CEO Vikki King was the fifth affidavit.

In particular, Ms Gaston refers to Mr Schneider intervening with the now infamous Queens Rd fishing pontoon that was built opposite the then-home of former Cr Peter Hulin, and the results of the council staff survey that showed poor staff morale and concerns of bullying.

Ms Gaston claims councillors also raised concerns with Mr Schneider “multiple times” about key staff not being replaced, governance issues and about staff well-being, but “he did not respond to many of our requests”.

Ms Gaston also raises fresh allegations, including that former CEO was under performing virtually from day one and, a month after he started, both she and the former Mayor were checking the fine print of his contract.

“In March 2019…I had a meeting with the Mayor for a general catch up. I asked him how Mr Schneider was going and he told me he was worried that Mr Schneider might be out of his depth.

“Together, we decided to check if Mr Schneider had a probationary clause in his employment contract, as the Mayor did not recall.

“We did not find a probationary clause and just left it at that, figuring that Mr Schneider would start to improve with time”.

But, according to Ms Gaston’s evidence, the CEO did not improve and in early February 2020 – 12 months after he began – she asked for a copy of his employment contract, which Mr Schneider provided.

All councillors (except Cr Hulin, who had by then resigned) then attended a meeting with Mr Schneider on 21 February to raise their concerns.

“During Mr Schneider’s time as the CEO, he was never proactive in requesting feedback, whether from the councillors at meetings, or with me personally. He did not seek feedback even after the meeting on 21 February,” the statement says.

Ms Gaston also alleges Mr Schneider held up progress on the new joint WCC/TAFE library project by several months, by failing to follow up and confirm philanthropic funding.

This was later done by TAFE CEO Mark Fidge.

Ms Gaston also reveals that she received a leaked copy of Mr Schneider’s psychometric test in the mail, which she showed Mr Herbert.

“When the Mayor saw the results of the psychometric tests, he put his head in his hands and said words to the effect of “Oh God, now this all makes sense,” the statement says.

Ms Gaston then goes on to say that Community Services Manager Vikki King was appointed Acting CEO after Mr Schneider’s sacking because she had already proven herself in the Acting CEO position (Ms King was acting CEO between Mr Anson and Mr Schneider).

Ms King was also the only one of the four directors available, as Scott Cavanagh had resigned, and Peter Utri and Andrew Paton were “conflicted” by the Ombudsman’s investigation, the statement says.

Ms Gaston denied allegations by Mr Schneider and Mr Herbert that she had a close relationship with Ms King and had not socialised with any council staff outside of council events.

The civil case launched by Mr Schneider arguing a lack of natural justice is due to go before the Supreme Court on 1 February.

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

Terrier Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Former Warrnambool City councillor Michael Neoh claims sacked CEO Peter Schneider showed councillors a dog video as a progress report, and that it was hard to “pinpoint any strengths” in his performance.

Mr Neoh is the third of the four councillors who voted to sack Mr Schneider on 13 July to submit a sworn affidavit to the Supreme Court defending his actions in the face of a civil claim by Mr Schneider that he was denied natural justice.

In his eight-page affidavit lodged today – two days after the revised 3o October deadline – Mr Neoh denied claims by Mr Schneider that the responses of four councillors to a “360 survey” of his performance had been vindictive and spiteful.

Instead, Mr Neoh claims, “…it was difficult to identify areas in which Mr Schneider came close to exceeding average and it was difficult to pinpoint any strengths he had demonstrated.”

“This was my honest assessment and was consistent with the general view of the Councillors that they were unable to identify a single area in which Mr Schneider excelled.”

The affidavit then gives a specific example of what Mr Neoh claims were Mr Schneider’s inadequacies, involving – of all things – a dog video.

“…during Mr Schneider’s review, after six months at the Council, he was asked to report on progress to-date to the full Council. He presented a dog video and said his partner provided afternoon tea for some volunteers.

“I waited for the rest of his presentation but there was nothing else. I found it very disappointing that such a presentation would be deemed, by a CEO of a regional city, to be adequate,” the statement says.

Mr Neoh said, as with most new staff, “I allowed Mr Schneider some leeway so that he could adjust and become familiar with the organisation” but alleged Mr Schneider’s performance did not improve.

“As such, I accepted some business as usual, but I did not expect that settling-in period to prevent Mr Schneider from demonstrating leadership, vision, energy, networking and engagement with key stakeholders.”

In line with the affidavits of former Crs David Owen and Sue Cassidy, which I have published earlier today, Mr Neoh alleges Mr Schneider failed to resource the Warrnambool 2040 plan, despite it being a clear priority.

Staff survey results and community satisfaction survey results were also extremely poor.

“…the staff surveys disclosed that the bullying (being experienced by some staff) and a lack of direction by management were the main issues which concerned the staff.

“Contrary to the assertion by the Mayor (Tony Herbert), these were not restricted to legacy issues, in particular, the concern about the lack of direction”.

As with Ms Cassidy, Mr Neoh said he signed off on Mr Schneider’s pay rise in March, as it was linked to CPI, “rather than performance”.

The evidence also, for the first time, sets out Mr Neoh’s involvement in seeking legal advice on Mr Schneider’s dismissal.

This advice included a series of emails between Mr Neoh and the council’s lawyers, Maddocks, between 12 June and 28 June.

Mr Neoh said he sought advice from Maddocks, following verbal advice from Alison Lyon, General Counsel of the Municipal Association of Victoria.

He then “either forwarded the emails from, or the wording of the resolutions drafted by, Maddocks to Cr Gaston” as she was submitting the draft motions to Mr Schneider to be accepted on the notice paper.

Mr Neoh then discussed that advice with Crs Gaston, Cassidy and Owen in the lead up to the meeting on 13 July 2020.

The evidence also claims Mr Schneider did not meet “expectations” when he failed to report David McMahon’s credit card abuse to the council’s Audit and Risk Committee – of which he and Ms Cassidy were members –  although Mr Neoh concedes there was no obligation for a CEO to do so.

The affidavit also reveals that an external audit of the council’s credit card policies was never endorsed by the Audit and Risk Committee (and therefore not the council), as it failed to address when Mr Schneider was first told about the credit card abuse.

Mr Neoh tried to raise this with the Ombudsman as part of her investigation into the abuse, but was told by the Ombudsman’s office on 28 September that his submission was too late and too close to the council election.

As with former Crs Owen and Cassidy, Mr Neoh denied that his actions in sacking the CEO “have resulted in any damage to Mr Schneider’s reputation as alleged or at all”.

Former Cr Gaston has, to date, not submitted sworn evidence in the case, which is due to be heard on 1 February next year.

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

Terrier Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Former Warrnambool City Councillor Sue Cassidy has lodged an affidavit defending her decision to sack CEO Peter Schneider, including – at one point – asking the Mayor what the former CEO “did all day”.

Ms Cassidy’s 10-page affidavit was lodged in the Supreme Court earlier today in response to Mr Schneider’s civil action against the council, in which he claims he was denied natural justice when he was sacked on the vote of four councillors on 13 July this year.

Ms Cassidy’s evidence reaffirms many of the claims made by former Cr David Owen in his affidavit which I wrote about earlier today, but contains detail of other allegations, including that all councillors (other than Cr Peter Hulin who had resigned) met with Mr Schneider on 21 February and raised a number of concerns about his performance.

These included:

complaints made by staff about bullying;

concerns of staff about the lack of action in filling vacancies;

lack of positive engagement with the media;

stopping work on the Queens Rd fishing pontoon without a Council resolution;

a failure to fill staff vacancies including the Governance Manager; and

the overly close relationship between Mr Schneider and the then Mayor Tony Herbert.

Ms Cassidy said after Mr Schneider left the meeting, the Mayor was told to inform the former CEO that he had one month to improve.

Ms Cassidy alleges that two days after this meeting, on 23 February, she attended a meeting at Mr Schneider’s private home organised by Mr Herbert and “we informed Mr Schneider that he had a month to address the concerns. Mr Schneider assured us that he would take steps to address those problems”.

It was because of this assurance, Ms Cassidy says, that she agreed to the recommendation (from an independent member of the CEO employment committee) that Mr Schneider receive his CPI pay rise in March.

Ms Cassidy says the councillors continued to raise their concerns regularly with Mr Schneider during briefings, but her evidence suggests he continued to fail to meet their expectations.

“Whenever I asked the Mayor, ‘what does he do all day’ he replied that he did not know what Mr Schneider did,” the affidavit says.

“It was not until the last week of Mr Schneider’s employment that the Mayor attempted to explain to the councillors what Mr Schneider did.”

Ms Cassidy also claims that the former CEO failed to act on claims of bullying, despite showing an early willingness to do so, including allowing staff who had been subject to bullying to contact him on his private mobile.

When Ms Cassidy followed up these claims with Mr Schneider in May, he allegedly told her that “there were no bullies at the council and that it was just their personalities and staff had to learn how to deal with these personalities”.

“It was then I realised that Mr Schneider was not capable of improving the culture at the Council,” the affidavit says.

Ms Cassidy’s affidavit also raised concerns about the uncertainty around the outcome of the staff review and fears that staff would continue to leave,  jeopardising the future of projects including the Reid Oval redevelopment.

Intriguingly, Ms Cassidy’s evidence also provides more detail of Mr Schneider’s psychometric test that was leaked to her in the mail. 

According to Ms Cassidy, she received an anonymous envelope in her letterbox on 23 December last year which contained a sheet of paper with the names of all the applicants who had applied for the position of CEO, together with their psychometric test results.

Ms Cassidy said she was surprised to receive the document and didn’t know what to do with it, but as it was Christmas, she put the information aside.

It was only in the new year that Ms Cassidy showed the information to the chair of the Audit and Risk Committee, Rob Wallis, who advised her not to do anything with it, then Mr Schneider, who was “shocked” that she had the information, and also to Cr Peter Hulin at a breakfast meeting in January.

In April, former Cr Robert Anderson asked for an investigation into the leak: “At the time of swearing this affidavit, I had not been informed of the outcome of that investigation”.

Ms Cassidy’s evidence gives further insight into the mood of the 13 July meeting where Mr Schneider was sacked and where, allegedly on legal advice, the four councillors behind the sacking declined to answer questions from the other three councillors.

Ms Cassidy claims former Cr Peter Sycopoulis used language that “was intended to bully and intimidate” the four councillors including words to the effect of:

“we would lose our houses and anything else we had because of what we were going to do” and “he would not want to be in our shoes” and “we were going to fuck the city he loved”.

The case is due to go before the Supreme Court on 1 February.