The resignation or termination of a senior WCC officer has led to a substantial payout. Image: ABC
Analysis – Carol Altmann
When is a termination a resignation or vice versa?
The Warrnambool City Council’s forthcoming financial report for 2015-16 contains an intriguing line, saying the substantial sum of between $390,000 and $399,000 was paid out to a senior officer as a result of a “termination” of their employment.
As far as the public record is concerned, nobody has been terminated from the Warrnambool City Council in the past 12 months, but there has been a number of resignations, including director of city growth Bill Millard, who left last November, and that of former head of infrastructure Peter Robertson.
Mr Robertson left the council in January this year after losing the confidence of several councillors.
According to the council documents, the total payout of between $390,000 and $399,000 was a result of a “contractual payment” that was made in addition to the unnamed senior officer’s normal entitlements.
Given the highest salary for a senior officer (not including the CEO) is between $200,000 and $210,000, this is one heck of a payout and begs the question of where that extra $100,000 has come from? Parking fees and fines? And what has been cut in the budget to accommodate it?
We will probably never know due to confidentiality clauses and a general reluctance by the Warrnambool City Council to reveal the salary arrangements of its public officers. After all, we still don’t know, officially, exactly how much CEO Bruce Anson is paid each year.
In the US, for example, it is widely accepted that if you are paid from the public purse – from the US President down – then you can expect full public scrutiny of your entitlements.
Given ratepayers are the ones footing the bill for the Warrnambool City Council, it should be exactly the same here.
Analysis: The wrecking of the Warrnibald
A stunning portrait of former art teacher Ollie Morgan, by Megan Cheyne, is among the 16 portraits vying for this year’s Warrnibald prize (detail).
Analysis – Carol Altmann
[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] I[/dropcap]t sounds almost inconceivable, but the wonderful and extremely popular Warrnibald portrait prize has been wrecked within just 12 months of falling under the control of the Warrnambool Art Gallery.
How?
By quietly turning it into a “prestigious” art prize where many of the local artists of all abilities and ages who entered will not have their works shown.
Indeed those works deemed not good enough have already been returned to the artists who took the time and effort to capture someone from the local community who they considered worthy of being painted.
As a result, only 16 of the original 26 entrants are on display – spread thinly across the gallery space and under ambient lighting – and in contention for the $2000 main prize and $2000 People’s Choice Award.
But it is not about missing out on the chance to win a sizeable prize donated by WDEA (Western District Employment Access) that has disappointed those artists and supporters who contacted Bluestone in disgust – it is about the spirit of the prize being ruined.
[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] A[/dropcap]s one artist said, the person she had chosen to paint was bitterly disappointed that she wouldn’t be able to take her family and friends along to see her finished portrait on the walls of the Warrnambool Art Gallery.
Another amateur artist said that she was embarrassed to have her work rejected after being encouraged to enter by a friend for the first time after being convinced it was “a lot of fun”.
To add insult to injury, those who missed out had to forfeit their $30 entry fee.
DONATE
Anyone who knows the history of the prize knows that it was never meant to be a professional art prize where only the best artists get to have their work exhibited.
It was the polar opposite.
Under the control of WDEA, which runs the Artlink program for people with disabilities, anyone who wanted to “have a go” at painting the portrait of someone who they believed deserved recognition for their contribution to the local community was urged to do so.
It meant lesser known and amateur artists got to hang their work alongside some of the region’s best talents.
It also meant, even more importantly, that the “quiet heroes” of our community – neighbours, volunteers, charity workers – could be honoured alongside the higher profile people of our region.
It was a winning formula, with the Warrnibald attracting people who might not normally even visit a gallery, but would do so to see paintings of faces they might know.
Matthew Clarke’s portrait of artist and art teacher, Glenn Morgan, is among the final 16 portraits chosen for display.
[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] W[/dropcap]hen WDEA passed the hosting of the prize to the Warrnambool Art Gallery, it did so with every expectation that the spirit of the prize would continue and, in 2015, it did: all 40 entries were displayed at WAG.
[box]This in 2015: “All entries will be accepted for inclusion in the exhibition, except in the case of there being more than 50 entries. In this instance, the Judges will determine the final selection. Artists whose work is not exhibited will have their entry fee refunded.” (emphasis added)
And this in 2016: “The final exhibition will be selected from received entries. Works are not automatically included, and entry fees are forfeited if an artwork is not selected for display.” (emphasis added) [/box]
And with that, the whole thing changed from inclusion to exclusion.
So how did this happen and who changed it?
We asked the new gallery director Vanessa Gerrans and in an emailed reply she said:
“While the Warrnibald has always had an element of fun, it also carries a certain prestige and showcases the talent within our region. With this in mind, WAG and WDEA decided to compile a shortlist for exhibition in 2016.
“Via the application form, artists submitting portraits were informed that not all works would automatically be included in the final exhibition. This is a standard format in competitive exhibitions such as the inspiration for this exhibition – the Archibald Prize.
“The passionate debate that surrounds which works are included, the selection of the winner by the guest judge and the work identified as the Peoples Choice provides great opportunity for discussion and robust expression of points of view. And ensures the relevance of this event.”
Ms Gerrans mentions that WDEA agreed to the shortlisting process, but Bluestone has been told that WDEA was stunned and angry to learn that only 16 paintings had made the cut.
[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] S[/dropcap]o who picked the shortlist?
“Usual curatorial processes were applied to selection,” Ms Gerrans said via email.
We can only assume that WAG curator Gareth Colliton had to be excused on the grounds of a conflict of interest, given that one of the 16 portraits selected was that by last year’s winner, the sublimely talented Madeleine Peters, who Mr Colliton now employs at his new gallery business, Wisharts, in Port Fairy.
I want to stress that this is no reflection on Madeleine’s work – it more than deserves to be there – but for Mr Colliton to exclude himself would surely be in line with normal Warrnambool City Council protocols.
The winner of the 2016 Warrnibald portrait prize, as judged by Hamilton Art Gallery director Sarah Schmidt will be announced at the Warrnambool Art Gallery tomorrow night (Friday 29/7/16).
It will be a packed house, no doubt, but to my mind the glaring blank spaces on the walls reflect the holes in the prize: the surprise, joy and communal spirit that is now missing from the Warrnibald.
Let’s hope that spirit returns next year.
[box]Bluestone is currently working subscription-free, ie. I write for nothing because I believe independent media is so important to this region, if you would like to make a contribution to keep our pulse ticking while we rebuild for 2017, you can do so here.[/box]
In the wake of the recent rail crossing accident at Pirron Yallock, it has been revealed the WCC is being sued for negligence over a death at an Allansford crossing in 2013.
Words by Carol Altmann
[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”]T[/dropcap]he Warrnambool City Council is being sued for negligence over the death of a young man at an Allansford rail crossing in 2013.
For those of you who may have missed our Facebook post from earlier this week, we followed up on a report in the Herald-Sun by Tom Minear that revealed the council and V-Line are being sued by Colin Grant, the father of Sam Grant, the 22-year-old tragically killed at an Allansford level crossing in March 2013.
Mr Grant is taking action against both parties for failing to improve safety at the Brown St crossing.
[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] T [/dropcap]he writ lodged in the Supreme Court on July 1 on behalf of Mr Grant claims that the council had “the responsibility, management and control of Brown St, including the approaches to the crossing”.
It further argues that the WCC had a duty of care with respect to its “management, control and supervision of Brown St and the approaches to the crossing”.
DONATE TO BLUESTONE!
In particular, the writ outlines five areas of negligence:
failing to have the crossing controlled by boom gates, flashing lights and warning bells;
allowing the crossing to be used when it was unsafe and not properly controlled;
failing to have adequate warning signs in Brown St when approaching the crossing
failing to close the crossing when V-Line knew or ought to have known it was unsafe and;
permitting the crossing to be used with only passive traffic controls.
The WCC told Bluestone on July 18 it had “not received any notification of this court action” – despite the writ being lodged with the Supreme Court almost three weeks ago.
According to the writ, the council has 10 days after being served with the writ to “file an appearance”. Update: A writ can be served up to 12 months after it is lodged with the court.
We shall keep an eye on this timely story as it unfolds.
We heard it was coming and it has arrived – the clamping down of councillors being able to speak freely to the media and a whopping fine if they leak what a council considers confidential information.
Tomorrow night (July 4) the Warrnambool City Council will use a special meeting to vote on a new code of conduct that, among a raft of other things, demands that councillors tell the communications manager, Nick Higgins, if they talk to a journalist.
It also includes a provision to fine councillors $18,200.40 (!!) – or charge them with serious misconduct – if they leak confidential information to a journalist, or anybody else for that matter. This change is one that had been recommended for councils across Victoria under changes to the Local Government Act.
In another change under the Act, all councillors must sign the code of conduct if they wish to remain on council.
The changes to the Act make no secret, pardon the pun, that they are intended to improve accountability and “standards of behaviour” which is another way of saying that “rogue” councillors will be dragged further into line.
I am not in favour of councillors running amok, but this clamping down comes as more and more information is kept from the public, or carefully massaged by council media units before release, and will only make it even harder for journalists to tell you what is really going on.
In fact, at the time of writing, if you try and find the agenda for tomorrow night’s special meeting on the council’s website, it is not there. Nor is a copy of the draft Code of Conduct so that we can see what the councillors are being asked to consider.
More importantly, as we have already written, there has been a string of critical information that has been considered “confidential” by the council that surely should be in the public domain.
The exact salary package of WCC chief executive Bruce Anson is one of the many items considered confidential. Image: ABC.
All of the stories we have written about these issues have relied on sources, leaks and Freedom of Information applications – the bread and butter of any good journalism, but also becoming the only way to find out even the most basic of information (eg. how much is council CEO Bruce Anson actually paid?)
You may recall that the internal panic about leaks from Warrnambool City Council came to a head after the leaking of documents to The Ageabout the expansion of Midfield Meats and the political connections of boss Colin McKenna.
That saga led to an investigation and public shaming of three councillors that, locally, generated more heat than the vastly more important story about links between Mr McKenna and then Premier Denis Napthine.
It also led to this latest move to stop councillors from saying anything to journalists without the council’s media adviser knowing about it.
You have to ask – who is this policy designed to benefit?
Only those who want to keep you, the ratepayer, in the dark about the potentially controversial, embarrassing or debatable decisions that are made behind closed doors.
As a wise person once said: “news is what somebody, somewhere doesn’t want you to know. The rest is advertising”.
And I, for one, believe we need far more news.
The Vault: WCC spends $450k and no report?
[printfriendly]
[author] [author_image timthumb=’on’]http://the-terrier.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/vault3.jpg[/author_image]Welcome to The Vault – this is where Bluestone will place all sorts of subscriber-access-only material. If you have something you would like to submit, please email us at editor@bluestonemagazine.com.au[author_info][/author_info] [/author]
By Carol Altmann
[box]Bluestone would like to acknowledge subscriber PT for funding the Freedom of Information application used for this piece.[/box]
[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] B[/dropcap]luestone subscribers will know that we cop quite a lot of flak for continuing to ask questions about the sacred cows of Warrnambool including Flagstaff Hill, Fun4Kids and the increasing secrecy and lack of transparency around how the Warrnambool City Council runs its affairs – but as long as there are huge gaps in the information, we will keep asking.
Bluestone has just uncovered this fact and it is staggering, irrespective of your views on Fun4Kids or whether it has picked up tourism gongs.
Anyone who has ever dealt with public funds will know that full disclosure on how that public money was spent and the results of that spending is standard procedure.
It’s called accountability.
Indeed I remember when working for the might of News Ltd that we were expected to account for every dollar we claimed when working on a story, right down to producing a receipt for a $10.50 pizza – after all, Rupert might be a very wealthy man, but he was still the boss.
Yet the Warrnambool City Council has spent almost half a million dollars of public money on an event that, until now, has always produced a full report on its budget and the festival results.
When we asked the council media manager for a copy of the 2015 Fun4Kids report, he said the key results of the festival had already been released to the media.
So, what was told to the media via the council’s media unit should be enough.
Well some journalists in Warrnambool might be happy to swallow the pre-chewed lines delivered by the council, but Bluestone is compelled to dive deeper.
So when the council told us that “about 15,000” people attended the 2015 festival and that 24% of these were from Melbourne and that they surveyed 1000 of these patrons for their views, we wanted to know more.
Can we have the full report? We asked.
Nothing was forthcoming, so we lodged a Freedom of Information asking for two things:
i) the report and/or documents prepared for the council relating to the financial results of the 2015 Fun4Kids festival
ii) the report and/or documents prepared for the council relating to the patronage, including any breakdowns or analysis on these figures.
[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] A[/dropcap]fter the obligatory 45-day wait, the council’s Freedom of Information officer Wendy Clark, who is also chief executive officer Bruce Anson’s personal assistant, came back with this jaw-dropping response:
“I have found no documents that meet the terms of your request…”
This means, we must assume, that there were no reports prepared for the council.
Ms Clark then attached two documents that, we must also assume, amount to the full documentation available on the results of Fun4Kids 2015.
One was a single budget line reference and the other was five paragraphs that included not one single figure, but plenty of motherhood statements like:
“The Fun4Kids Festival achieved a positive percentage increase in the metropolitan market, while maintaining regional attendances. This outcome is a key growth strategy for the festival moving forward.”
I don’t know about you, but whenever I read those last two words – “moving forward” – I know we are deep in the river of public relations spin and far from the shores of plain speaking.
People were outraged after a row of old tea tree was pulled out from Pertobe Rd – one reader asked for more information on why it had to be done and is still waiting.
[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] I[/dropcap]n a similar vein, you may remember the uproar that followed the sudden removal of a row of old tea tree along Pertobe Rd just before Christmas.
The trees were removed, we were told, after an arborist inspected them and found them to be unsafe due to infestation by a certain worm and cracking.
A Bluestone reader dared to ask more. In early January, she asked for a copy of the arborist’s report (or at least more detail) and whether the trees would be replaced.
She is still waiting for a reply, let alone any more information.
Such queries could normally be thrashed out by elected councillors in general council business, but that, as we know, has been abolished and now councillors are timed for how long they talk, even though meetings were usually over within a couple of hours.
All councillors, not just some, should be demanding more, not less, transparency on behalf of ratepayers.
The fact they aren’t, and that this sort of “trust us” mentality is gripping the council, is of serious concern to anyone who remembers that it is the ratepayers who, just like Rupert, are the boss.
More Opinion and Analysis:
Analysis – Carol Altmann
Find more in The Vault here…