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

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

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

I asked a simple question of the Warrnambool City Council last Friday: could I have the CV of our new CEO?

The answer was no.

Secrecy is so ingrained in the Warrnambool City Council that ratepayers are not allowed to see the CV of the person who we will potentially* pay around $340,000 – or $26,000 a month for the next 12 months – to run our city.

*(Edit: I have added the word potentially, as this was around the mark for the former CEO, Peter Schneider. Another former CEO, Bruce Anson, received a package of $320,000 in his final year. These salaries are in line with what is offered in “Band 2” councils which include W’bool. The WCC has not disclosed the package for the new CEO.)

As we know, the council’s head of Community Development, Vikki King, was thrust into the top spot by the Four Horsemen who decided to axe Peter Schneider and replace him with the person they wanted in the job.

Given this extraordinary turn of events, I thought it logical that we, as ratepayers, should see the credentials and work history of the person we just “hired” as our chief executive.

The request was denied by Ms King herself.

Here we go again.

It’s just a few weeks since the release of the community survey which showed the people of Warrnambool have had a gill full of being treated like shiitakes, but nothing has changed and, if the past week is any guide, it’s worse.

We were not told by our councillors that the former CEO was about to be sacked, or why, and in some sort of perverse charade the councillors spent the last monthly meeting congratulating themselves many times over for their brilliance.

We also don’t know the cost of this whole set up, and because the coup conveniently happened after 30 June, that cost won’t be included in this year’s annual report.

Amidst all this darkness, it’s the terriers who have to do the digging and delving and poke holes into the walls so that the light gets in.

As I say many times over, scrutiny of our council is not about personalities, but process: when decisions are made on behalf of the public, and involve public money, we have a right to know.

So what do we know?

Well, we know Ms King has been with the council for five years as head of Community Development and, according to some of those who worked with her over that time, is known as “a straight shooter”.

As it happens, Ms King’s contract was due to end in August and who knows what that meant for Ms King’s plans or her future with the WCC?

It doesn’t matter now, because Crs Neoh, Gaston, Cassidy and Owen had Ms King pegged for a whole new post and signed her up for a full 12 months, all without asking the Mayor or the other two councillors.

They didn’t even bother to put an ad on the tearoom noticeboard: “Vacancy. Long hours. Pays well.”

Ms King told the local newspaper last week that she had no idea what was coming.

Judging by the evidence put forward so far by Mayor Tony Herbert, neither did Mr Schneider, who had passed his performance reviews and received a pay rise before being booted out the door without so much as a farewell speech and a WCC tie-pin.

Ironically, Mr Schneider’s departure is the latest in a string of senior resignations from the council these past 12 months under his watch.

Among them was head of governance Anne-Marie Neal, who reported directly to the CEO – both Bruce Anson, and then Mr Schneider – before she departed suddenly late last year without any explanation or comment by the council.

A reader alerted me to a case listed in the Magistrate’s Court for September involving a worker’s compensation claim between Ms Neal and the WCC, so perhaps the circumstances surrounding that situation will soon become clearer.

Another three senior managers have also resigned in the past six months: Manager Economic Development Shaun Miller, Facilities and Projects Manager Ben Storey and, most recently, Director City Infrastructure Scott Cavanagh.

The council itself now has more holes than Swiss cheese and the councillors have never been more divided, with many now asking the same question: how did it get this bad?

And as the Warrnambool Ratepayers Association asked at the weekend, where to from here to turn it around?

As we head toward an election on October 24 and have a chance to determine who runs our city, both behind the scenes and up front, these questions have never been more important.

If you would like to support the Terrier, you can throw something in the tip jar below. 

The Tip Jar