Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Lyndoch staff were today sent a message from board chair Sue Cassidy announcing that CEO Doreen Power is on ​”​annual leave​”​.

The chair may be hamstrung, legally, by what she can say at this point, but “annual leave” only creates confusion and uncertainty for staff.

The same statement was made to the local paper and explains nothing.

This is how Lyndoch has rolled for the past four years: full of uncertainty, mistrust, confusion and “who do we believe?”.

So, in the face of this “who do we believe?”, I again defer to my rock solid sources​ ​who have never let me down these past four years while ​we have navigated ​a​ lonely and torrid river toward the truth​.

I can tell you this: Ms Power went to work yesterday and was gone from her office by 4pm, apparently lugging two large bags. They were not suitcases packed for a trip to Port Douglas.

Also in the building yesterday afternoon were board Chair Ms Cassidy and Treasurer Kane Grant who met with the CEO.

They were not checking on her holiday plans.

What I understand is at that meeting, the CEO was given the option to resign, or an independent investigation would be launched into the many allegations surrounding her “management style”.

The board would then use the results of this investigation to make a decision on her future.

Such an investigation would protect the board from any claims by Ms Power of unfair dismissal, because – as we know – the board has fully supported the CEO and everything she has done.

Ms Power now has a choice while on “annual leave”: resign and, most likely, be paid out for the remainder of her contract OR remain on leave and be mired in a full-blown investigation.

But why did the board act NOW? Why not last week? Or last month? Or last year?

My sources tell me there was movement from ​health worker unions and WorkSafe that was about to hit the board with a sledgehammer.

Worksafe and the State Health Minister have been watching Lyndoch closely, and my sources tell me that Wednesday, the day before Ms Power was confronted by the board members, another long list of complaints had been formally lodged with Worksafe by a lawyer.

There can only be so many complaints and allegations about over-work, intimidation, bullying, toxicity and pressure to “do certain things”, before the hammer swings.

The board has legal obligations around staff safety which it must uphold or it may face serious penalties as individuals, including fines and jail.

The State Minister also has a duty of care, as Lyndoch Living is contracted by the State Government to run its state-funded beds at Lyndoch.

This explains a lot.

We all know the seven board members didn’t wake up yesterday morning and suddenly decide the CEO was not the same person they had backed all the way for seven years.

Just three weeks ago, the board refused to let our local MP speak confidentially at its board meeting about the CEO.

But yesterday, after our local MP spoke about the CEO in Parliament on Tuesday, they were all action stations.

Turn out they could be all running for the life boats because with WorkSafe now heavily on the case, it’s either the CEO, or it could be them.

Trouble is, the board has lost community trust and credibility.

We lost faith in them a year ago, not only because they have continually backed the source of all the toxicity and troubles, but they have treated the community with contempt.

They must go.

All of ​those responsible for enabling the culture that has almost killed Lyndoch cannot be a part of its ​healing and its ​renewal.

The next Lyndoch AGM is in October: all board positions should be advertised now, for a complete spill and a new start.

We, as a community, deserve nothing less than a clean sweep.​

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

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.