Former Cr Owen outlines reasons for sacking WCC chief

Former W’bool City Councillor David Owen. Image: WCC.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Just in: Sworn evidence by former Warrnambool City Councillor David Owen sheds some light on why he was one of the four councillors who voted to sack CEO Peter Schneider.

The five-page affidavit was received by the Supreme Court at 6.30pm last Friday 30 October, which was the revised deadline for the Warrnambool City Council to lodge any affidavits in defence of Mr Schneider’s claim that he was denied natural justice when he was sacked on 13 July.

Mr Owen claims in his affidavit that, among other things, Mr Schneider:

was slow to act on decisions of the council;

had failed to replace a key staff member who had resigned in September last year (former Manager Community Policy and Planning Lisa McLeod);

had stalled the building of a fishing pontoon on the Merri River after unfounded complaints from former councillor Peter Hulin;

and that Mr Schneider was “sidelining” the Warrnambool 2040 plan.

The affidavit also claims that a staff survey had revealed “poor morale amongst staff due to a lack of direction from the CEO” and that “workplace bullying was also an issue”.  Mr Owen also alleges that, after the credit card scandal, staff felt nervous to use their credit cards “around Mr Schneider because he repeatedly told them that he was going to investigate them all”.

Mr Owen rejected claims by Mr Schneider that his responses  to a “360 review” of Mr Schneider’s performance had been “vindictive” and “spiteful”, but instead “accurately indicated my perception of his level of performance”.

“I have worked with many CEOs in the photographic industry. I scored Mr Schneider on his merits in the 360 degree survey as I had previously done when assessing the performance of these other CEOs.

“Someone who is earning $1000 a day must deliver a level of performance that justifies that level of public expenditure,” the statement says.

Mr Owen said he also participated in the six and 12 month reviews of Mr Schneider’s performance on the basis that they were “intended to help Mr Schneider, who was new to the role of CEO, to find his feet”.

Mr Owen claims that he had approached Mr Schneider over a number of months asking that he replace Ms McLeod, who was a key driver of the Warrnambool 2040 plan which aimed to “address the effects of climate change and other challenges”, but Mr Schneider failed to do so.

“…it became clear to me that he (Mr Schneider) was sidelining the Warrnambool 2040 Plan,” the statement says.

“…Mr Schneider was very slow to act on anything and, consequently, a number of important projects like the Warrnambool 2040 Plan did not proceed as they should have or just stalled”.

Mr Owen said he considered that “Mr Schneider’s performance had been of  a standard which warranted the termination of his employment” and the four councillors acted upon the advice of the council lawyers, Maddocks, to terminate his contract without providing a reason.

“(I) deny that my actions have resulted in any damage to Mr Schneider’s reputation, alleged or at all,” the affidavit says.

Mr Owen also responds to claims made under oath by former Mayor Tony Herbert that the four councillors refused to mediate or negotiate with Mr Schneider just prior to his dismissal, and refused to answer questions from the other three councillors on the night of the sacking.

Mr Owen says that by 14 June, a month before the sacking, “Crs Gaston, Neoh, Cassidy and I were beyond discussion or mediation with Mr Schneider”.

He then goes on to say that all four councillors were “acting on legal advice, received from Maddocks, including the advice conveyed to us by Cr Neoh, that we should avoid discussing Mr Schneider’s performance.

“Accordingly, I did not respond to any of the questions put to us at the meeting on 13 July 2020, regarding Mr Schneider’s performance.

“During the meeting, I said “let’s get this done Tony, so we can all go home”. I did not say “when will the meeting be finished as I want to go home.”

Mr Owen also denied that at any time he spoke to Community Services Manager Vikki King about her becoming the Acting CEO.

The affidavit also claims the recruitment process for the CEO was flawed, as nine applications were later found to have gone missing. Access to Mr Schneider’s psychometric test – which was later leaked to Cr Sue Cassidy in the mail – would have also changed Mr Owen’s mind about Mr Schneider’s suitability for the job.

“…had the psychometric test results been submitted to councillors during the recruitment process, I would not have supported the appointment of Mr Schneider…the decision to employ Mr Schneider may not have been made”.

Mr Owen is, to date, the only councillor of the four who voted to dismiss Mr Schneider to submit sworn evidence. Acting CEO Vikki King also submitted an affidavit.

The case, in which Mr Schneider is seeking reinstatement, is due to be heard on 1 February next year.




Acting CEO King denies knowing plan to sack WCC chief

Acting W’bool City Council chief Vikki King and the four councillors behind the sacking of the former CEO Peter Schneider. Images: WCC

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Just in: The Supreme Court has just released an affidavit lodged late yesterday (30/10/20) by acting Warrnambool City Council CEO Vikki King in relation to the sacking of CEO Peter Schneider.

The five pages of sworn evidence responds to claims made by Mr Schneider and former Mayor Tony Herbert in their affidavits lodged last month.

The evidence does not shed any light on the motivation or justification for Mr Schneider’s sacking, but sets out Ms King’s working relationship with the councillors involved.

In particular, Ms King denies claims by Mr Herbert that she was privy to the move to sack Mr Schneider on 13 July and had been in discussions with Michael Neoh, Kylie Gaston, Sue Cassidy and David Owen about his removal.

This speculation that she “…had been involved in discussions with all or, one or other, of Councillors Gaston, Neoh, Cassidy or Owen” is entirely without any foundation,” the statement says.

“I had not been privy to any discussions about Mr Schneider’s position with any Councillor and had not been given any indication or been “sounded-out”, about acting as the CEO.”

Ms King also denied the inference in Mr Schneider’s affidavit “that I had, or presently have, any close, personal relationship with any of the Councillors and say that during my 11 years in local government, I have never socialised with any Councillors or staff on a personal level, let alone maintained any such friendship or other close personal relationship”.

Ms King said she had worked closely with Crs Neoh and Gaston during their times as Mayor and when she was previously acting CEO – just as Mr Herbert, as Mayor, had worked closely with Mr Schneider.

“Such a working relationship was “unremarkable and common place” in local councils, the statement says.

Ms King also denies any particularly close relationship between the former Manager of Governance and Risk, Anne-Marie Neal, and the four councillors, saying it would be “impossible” for anyone to perform this role “without working very closely with all the Councillors”.

“I, otherwise, say that Ms Neal’s conduct, to the best of my knowledge, gave me no reason to doubt that her interaction with all the Councillors was entirely professional,” the statement says.

Claims by Mr Herbert that Crs Gaston and Neoh were close to former CEO Bruce Anson are also denied:

“…my observation of the relationship between Mr Anson and Crs Gaston and Neoh, from August 2015 to late 2018 (when Mr Anson retired) was not as alleged by Cr Herbert but was entirely professional and consistent with the close working relationship which is both necessary, and unavoidable, between a CEO and mayors (and Councillors),” the statement says.

Ms King’s affidavit also includes a recollection from the night of Mr Schneider’s sacking, where she learned she would be Acting CEO:

“Cr Herbert telephoned me after the special council meeting on 13 July 2020 and, to the best of my recollection, said words to the effect that, “Council sacked Peter tonight and you’re CEO for now”.

“After a long sigh, Cr Herbert said words to the effect that, “I suppose we should meet in the morning” and he said, in response to my question, that the meeting would be at 9am. The call was extremely brief.”

“The Terrier” also makes a cameo appearance, with Ms King rejecting a claim by Mr Schneider that he only learned of the credit card scandal after reading The Terrier, and had not been previously briefed on the matter.

“…insofar as Mr Schneider appears to suggest that he did not know of the credit card issue until the publication of the material by “The Terrier”, Mr Schneider had been briefed by me about that issue, on 11 February 2019, in the course of the hand-over to him upon his commencement as the CEO.”

Ms King’s affidavit, to date, is the only sworn evidence that has been lodged with the Supreme Court in defence of Mr Schneider’s claim of being denied natural justice and seeking reinstatement.

No affidavits have been lodged by the four councillors.

The revised deadline for these affidavits was yesterday at 5pm, after lawyers representing the WCC requested more time.

A hearing has been scheduled for 1 February 2021, where a judge will make a decision based on the evidence provided – there will be no witnesses called.

The saga rolls on.




Deadline passes for WCC defence docs in CEO sacking

The deadline for the WCC to lodge its affidavits in defence of sacking the CEO has passed without any documents being supplied. Image: ABC

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.




Sacked WCC chief launches legal action against councillors

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Lawyers for sacked Warrnambool City Council CEO Peter Schneider have issued defamation proceedings against four councillors.

Those four councillors are Cr Mike Neoh, Cr Kylie Gaston, Cr Sue Cassidy and Cr David Owen.

This partly explains the flurry of confidential business happening behind closed doors at the council meeting last night.

The second matter, according to sources, is believed to relate to lawyers for Mr Schneider arguing that he be reinstated as CEO: in other words, he gets his job back.

There is a precedent for such a thing, with a sacked CEO of Logan City Council, in Queensland, being given her job back after challenging the motives of the seven councillors who deposed her.

Wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books!

With the council elections just two months away and a new council to be elected, it may not be as unthinkable as it sounds.

And the third matter, twisted up in all of the above, is understood to be a heated, ding-dong, hair-pulling (except for Cr Sycopoulis, no offence to him), full-blooded barney over who should pay for the legal expenses racked up so far and those yet to come.

Should it be the individual councillors involved in the coup? Should it be ratepayers?

Discuss.

I emailed all seven councillors today to ask for comment on the legal action, whether ratepayers would be footing the bill, and how much had been spent so far on council lawyers.

Only three replied by deadline and no prizes for guessing who.

Here are their statements in full:

Mayor Tony Herbert:
“Thanks for your email.

As you are aware I am unfortunately unable to confirm most of your queries although some of the info might be able to be sought through channels of FOI. We lost the resolution on the night of the 13th July regarding confidentiality.

It is a very unfortunate situation the council has decided to thrust itself into especially in light of the further and greater impacts of the pandemic on council, staff, council budgets and our community ongoing.

I certainly would have preferred when such significant costs have been incurred, to have spent funds in a more productive and positive way…as a stimulus for our community post COVID for example.

I also implored councillors on a number of occasions to take alternative actions to manage our CEO  through discussion and negotiations rather than this drastic and expensive action as our only management tool!

As far as legal costs questions, I’m unable to comment at this time.

Hopefully things will become clearer.

One thing I will add further, is that personally,  I feel the community has a right to know what happened in the lead up to the sudden termination, reasons for  the termination and also the costs.”

Cr Robert Anderson: 

“Thank you for your email Carol, unfortunately because of the confidentiality on the above subject I am unable to make any comment.”

Cr Peter Sycopoulis:

“Thank you for your enquiry. Due to confidentiality requirements, I am not at liberty to provide an answer to your questions. What I can confirm however, is that I personally have not received correspondence from any law firm in relation to this matter.”

So the council is about to enter a legal shitestorm, to be frank, and – so far – we are officially being told nothing.

Please keep this in mind when we all vote in October.

Think about integrity, transparency, openness, honesty, accountability and the-right-to-know: these, to me, are now the key themes of election 2020.

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

Terrier Tip Jar




Cr Neoh attempts to be hero, but nobody falling for this one

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Well this has to stick in your craw.

Cr Mike Neoh is riding in on his silver horse having realised – just 8 months out from an election – that things are broken at the WCC.

You are spot on there, Cr Neoh, but what did you do in the past five years to change that culture of which you now speak?

The bullies that have made life hell for some people in council didn’t arrive last week.

They were employed by the previous CEO.

The credit card rorting didn’t happen yesterday.

It started years ago, under the previous CEO.

 

False and misleading council reports -especially around things like Flagstaff Hill and the Aquazone – have been an issue for years. (I know, because I have been writing about it!)

That appalling “good bloke” culture that suffocated so many good people has thrived unquestioned for years.

You – and the other senior councillors – didn’t inherit this shite, you were right there, watching, as it all unfolded.

So while I am absolutely overjoyed that AT LAST the councillors have decided to listen to the staff who have been suffering for so long, it is disingenuous to act surprised.

The alarm bells have been ringing and, like him or not, Cr Peter Hulin was one of the chief bellringers.

The new CEO Peter Schneider, unfortunately, has not lived up to expectations and certainly not built bridges or healed the wounds.

Given Cr Neoh’s public declaration today, I suspect Mr Schneider is now a dead man walking. He will probably be gone within six months.

But he must not be the only one.

A clean out of all the dysfunction is necessary and that must come not only in the next few weeks, but also in October.

(Photo from The Warrnambool Standard home page, with my words added at the top. You can read Rachael Houlihan’s exclusive story here: https://www.standard.net.au/…/city-council-has-serious-cu…/…)