ANALYSIS – Carol Altmann

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A5CECD;”] H[/dropcap]eritage Victoria has finished a three-week investigation into missing and damaged artefacts at Flagstaff Hill Maritime Village in Warrnambool and found it has no case to answer.

Instead, any responsibility for the missing artefacts and damage to relics from the wreck of the Loch Ard (1878), has been sheeted home to former management of the village.

As first reported in Bluestone Magazine, Heritage Victoria launched a formal investigation into the cutting of copper sheets from the Loch Ard, with a 10x10cm piece taken from one, while another had a large slice removed, allegedly for use as a sculpture or trophy.

Such damage to relics is an offence under the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act.

In addition, Heritage Victoria was investigating how the museum had lost track of at least 129 items from its collection, including the brass ship’s bell from the wreck of the Newfield (1892) that was once displayed in the Great Circle Gallery, and more than 200 lead ingots from the Loch Ard.

A spokesperson for Heritage Victoria today issued a two-sentence statement to Bluestone Magazine, saying the investigation was finished and there would be no further action, as “most” of the issues had happened more than a decade ago.

Here is the statement in full:

“Heritage Victoria has completed its investigation into suggestions of problems with the management of the collection at Flagstaff Hill Maritime Museum and determined that no action is required.

“Heritage Victoria noted that professional systems highlighting collection management and an internal audit process had been instigated under the present management and that most of the issues raised had occurred more than a decade ago under previous management.”

No other information was available and is unlikely to be available in the future, as Heritage Victoria does not reveal the details of its investigations.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A5CECD;”] S[/dropcap]o what happened to the copper sheets and who cut them?

And where is the missing Newfield bell, among other items?

Even after this investigation we are none the wiser and, from the sound of it, probably never will be.

The outcome of the investigation is not a surprise, however, in light of comments by Warrnambool City Council chief executive officer Bruce Anson to the February 2 council meeting.

At that time, and in response to questions from Cr Brian Kelson who first raised concerns about the missing artefacts, Mr Anson said “we are confident that our discussions with Heritage Victoria will not find any significant issues at all.”

“We have an ongoing and very positive relationship with Heritage Victoria,” he said.

When asked directly by Cr Kelson who cut the copper sheets, Mr Anson said one had been pierced by a nail, while on loan, and another had a corroded edge from lying in water.

The nailed sheet was in fact a drill hole, added to a sheet now on display at the Port Campbell Tourist Information Centre, so that it could be secured to the wall where it was formerly housed (the people responsible apologised to Flagstaff Hill in 1993 for their mistake.)

Mr Anson made no mention of the sheet that has had a large slice removed, or the sheet with a missing 10x10cm piece, but did say some of the cuts were “hearsay”.

Perhaps more will be ultimately revealed by the council, with Mayor Michael Neoh telling the same meeting that he would be happy for Director City Growth Bill Millard to do a full and formal report back to the council on these issues.

Let’s hope so, because as it stands we still don’t know what happened to precious artefacts that were given to our city by the Federal Government for safe keeping.

  More Analysis can be found here…

Veil of secrecy over salary of the WCC’s top job

The changing landscape under Midfield Meats

Abbott actions reveal toxic culture in council

Investigation launched into Flagstaff Hill

When scrutiny is sub-standard, democracy suffers

ANALYSIS – Carol Altmann

Exactly how much do we pay the Chief Executive Officer of the Warrnambool City Council, Bruce Anson?

And what does his salary package include?

A fortnight after Cr Peter Hulin stood up at the first council meeting of the year and stated that it was “about $1000 a day”, we still don’t know.

This is despite Mayor Michael Neoh telling ABC radio two days after Cr Hulin’s comment that he could give an exact figure and “it’s no secret”, when it appears that it is, in fact, very secret.

The closest you can get to a figure is to delve deep into the council’s annual reports – and I mean deep – where there is a listing of salary packages for “responsible persons”, of which Mr Anson is one.

In the list for 2013-14, there is a band of $280,000 to $289,999 which one person received and we can of course guess that it must be the chief executive.

So, did Mr Anson receive $280,000 or $289,999 or somewhere in between?

And how much of this is made up of salary, how much is a vehicle allowance and how much is a performance bonus, if any?

Despite the CEO being a public servant and the public being the one that pays the salary, you are not allowed to know.

This level of secrecy is strange on so many levels and here are just two of them:

First, some councils – you might even call them progressive councils – are completely transparent.

Melbourne City Council, for example, not only lists the salary package of its CEO in its annual report, but all of the other senior officers as well.

I can tell you that CEO Dr Kathy Alexander (until she resigned last December) was on a total remuneration package of $460,000 in 2013-14.

The Melbourne City Council Director of City Business Martin Cutter received a total employment package of $346,967 and Director of Community Development Linda Weatherson received $341,231. I could go on, but the point is made.

Second, there is a clause within the Local Government Act which says that if a CEO is reappointed without the position being advertised, then details of the proposed total remuneration package must be made available for public viewing within 14 days.

Mr Anson was first appointed to replace CEO Lindsay Merritt in 2007-08, when the position was advertised, but was then reappointed before the council elections in 2012, without the position being advertised.

A council spokesman said that, as per the Act, full details of the proposed salary package were made available in 2012.

Great, could I see those details now?

After a few more days of too-ing and fro-ing, I was told that the information was available for public viewing at the council, so I visited the council office and asked at the information desk for the documents.

They had no idea what I was talking about, so they called down the council spokesman, who said the document was held in the office of the Chief Executive and I could make an appointment to see it.

Surely, I argued, I could wait in the foyer while he retrieved it?

He obliged and soon returned with a thin, bright-pink manila folder which contained the same list as in the council annual report, stating that up to March last year, the CEO was paid between “$280,000 and $289,999”.

We had gone full circle and there was certainly no breakdown – as is usually provided under the Act – for what part was salary, car, super or bonuses.

What is even more puzzling about this level of secrecy is that Mr Anson’s package is on par with the average for other “large rural” councils with budgets between $60m and $100m, according to an annual remuneration survey produced by McArthur consultants that is used by councils to negotiate their CEO packages.

 

YEAR	WCC CEO PACKAGE	% INCREASE	LGA AVERAGE*
07-08	$200-209k	N/A	N/A
08-09	$220-230k	9.5%	$253,254
09-10	$240-250k	8.7%	$228,621
10-11	$240-250k	No increase	$251,956
11-12	$250-260k	4%	$277,532
12-13	$270-280k	7.6%	$283,875
13-14	$280-290k	3.5%	Not available

*McArthur National Remuneration Survey, 2012-13, p3.

 

Having trawled back through the annual reports, I can tell you that since being employed in 2007-08, Mr Anson’s salary bracket has increased by between 3.5% and 9.5% a year, except for one year, when it stayed the same.

And, just by way of comparison, the Warrnambool CEO package for 2013-14 ($280-290k) was higher than that for Ballarat ($270-280k), Shepparton ($260-270k), Glenelg City ($250-260k) and Latrobe Valley ($210-219k).

Why aren’t we told all this as a matter of course?

The second part of the mystery is: who determines the CEO’s final salary package and measures his performance?

Again, this proved extraordinarily difficult to nail down.

The council has a performance development review committee led by an independent chair, but unlike the council’s other advisory committees, I could find no details about it on its website or in the council minutes.

What the council spokesman could reveal was that the committee meets in confidence quarterly, including a main annual review to which all councillors are invited.

“The outcomes of all four stages are formally reported to Council, which provides councillors with further opportunity for input into the committee’s assessment report and to debate any recommendations put to Council,” the spokesman said via email.

From my understanding, the current performance review committee is made up of Mayor Michael Neoh, Cr Jacinta Ermacora and Cr Peter Sycopoulis, but who is the independent chair and how is he/she selected?

“Because the appointment of the independent chair was resolved at a confidential meeting of Council, the appointment is confidential,” the spokesman said.

Why?

We believe the independent chair is retired business academic Rod Coutts who also sits on the council’s Audit and Risk Committee and the Flagstaff Hill Advisory Committee.

While nobody expects the CEO’s performance review to be thrashed out in public, there is room for much more transparency, as happens across the border in South Australia.

In two councils I looked at, Tea Tree Gully and Streaky Bay, the public is notified when the performance review committee will meet, together with the meeting agenda and the minutes of these meetings are released after 12 months (you can read them on the web).

By comparison, the WCC has adopted a bunker mentality, where the letter of the local government laws are upheld, but not the spirit.

In such an environment, it is not surprising that Cr Hulin’s “$1000-a-day” comment brought gasps of disbelief: the ratepayers have never been encouraged to know how much they are paying their chief executive or why.

 

Analysis – Carol Altmann

If it is decided – as looks likely – to keep the mural by convicted child molester Rolf Harris in the Warrnambool Lighthouse Theatre, we must also decide to remove the perspex and present it in its full glory.

Otherwise, what is the point?

The arguments have been coming thick and strong from some in our community that the mural should be treated as a sacrosanct piece of art, up there with the likes of works by other “immoral” artists such as Caravaggio and Picasso and Rubens (none of whom, by the way, were convicted child molesters).

If we really believe this, we must take down the perspex and put the mural on show like the work of these masters.

There has also been the argument that art must be viewed as completely separate to any appalling crimes of the artist.

If we really believe all art work stands alone, why would we want to keep the Harris mural covered?

Indeed, if the mural stays – as the local newspaper and others have argued it must – then we need to stand by our conviction that any piece of art comes first, ahead of all else, and be proud of our decision.

The council could go even further and promote the fact that Warrnambool has what we consider to be a treasured work by Harris available for viewing, given that around the world his art has either been taken down or, as in the case of a similar impromptu mural in Melbourne, painted over.

A small sign could be added to explain that it was decided to keep the mural after a robust public discussion conducted largely through Facebook because the Warrnambool City Council, which owns the mural, failed to offer any leadership on the issue.

Indeed it has been eight months since the future of the Harris mural was first raised in July last year, and again in September, when Mayor Michael Neoh said it would be part of a council briefing paper in the near future.

It is now almost March and there has been no formal discussion either in the council or outside of it, perhaps in the hope that it would drift from people’s minds.

The only reason it is being talked about again now is because Cr Peter Hulin – who supports its removal – raised it and, like Cr Jacinta Ermacora before him, he plans to bring it up at the council briefing on Monday (16/2). These briefings are not open to the public.

Meanwhile, amid all the bluster about the dire consequences of removing the mural, there has been little regard for those who have suffered at the hands of child molesters like Harris.

These voices have been absent, despite assertions last year that they would be taken into account.

I contacted the South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault this week to see if they had been approached by anyone within or on council about the mural. No, they hadn’t.

I also contacted Emma House Domestic Violence Services to see if they had been approached by anyone within or on council about the mural issue. No, they hadn’t.

There are plenty of other people, however, prepared to give their views on what survivors of sexual assault might think.

One, bet-each-way argument they offer is that the mural must stay, even if covered, because it would serve as a permanent reminder of the evils of sexual abuse.

No it wouldn’t.

It would only serve as a permanent reminder that we lacked the courage as a community to roll over an impromptu mural because, according to some commentators, we would be morally obliged to also start demolishing Catholic churches and destroying every piece of art ever created by an artist who had committed a crime.

How ridiculous.

This is a very specific situation that demands a very specific response.

As has been said before, murals are – by their sheer nature – temporary. We had no qualms about recently freshening up the Lake Pertobe maze, for example, with works by Bonsai and Ghost Patrol, and it will no doubt be freshened up again in years to come.

What is not temporary, however, is the impact that the actions of sexual predators like Harris have on those they abuse.

The sick reality is that one in three girls and one in six boys are sexually abused in Australia and while we wring our hands about this shocking statistic, we too often shrink back from the opportunity to take a bold stand.

This is one such opportunity.

Instead of hiding Harris’s work behind a plastic cover, I would rather see an artist like Jenny Altmann (disclosure: my former sister in law) whose work often deals with the gritty themes of domestic violence and sexual abuse, be invited by the Mayor to re-interpret this mural.

This is not a debate about book burning, or slashing the canvases of Caravaggio, or demolishing places of worship.

It is about replacing a mural with a mural – and sending a strong message that when it comes to sexual abuse, perpetrators have nowhere to hide.

 

Words: Carol Altmann

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #8F9F59;”] W [/dropcap]hen Janis and Dean Bennett bought their little rough diamond of a house in Merrivale almost 10 years ago, they knew it wasn’t far from the Midfield meatworks, but they could live with that.

Like most young couples, they needed a home that would fit their budget and the little suburb on the west side of Warrnambool had a lot going for it: a primary school, a football and cricket club, close to a river and beach, and within walking distance to town.

The Bennetts have since had a child and, through hard work, slowly transformed their “rough diamond” into a cosy home, with a thriving vegie patch, herb garden and chicken coop. Merrivale has also changed from being a very working-class suburb to a socio-economic mix of people wanting to live in an area with character and a strong sense of community.

But now the people of Merrivale are being asked to accept two enormous changes to their suburb: a 29m tall cold storage facility (basically, a giant fridge) and a 35m tall milk powder factory, both of which would operate 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week, on Scott St.

In what is shaping up as a classic David v Goliath battle, people like the Bennetts are battling to have the expansion stopped and will put their case to an independent panel hearing that starts in Warrnambool on Tuesday, Feb 3. (See end of story for details and timetable).

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #8F9F59;”] W[/dropcap]hen the projects were first announced by the Midfield Group, they were expected to create up to 200 jobs. It has since been revealed, however, that only up to 22 full-time jobs will be created after construction. Property prices are also expected to be affected.

“We are not against a milk factory being built, but it is just in the wrong place: it needs to be out of town,” Janis said.

The planning laws, as they stand, agree with her.

Both projects require land to be rezoned from Public Use to Industrial, including land that was once owned by the people (as Crown land) and used by the Warrnambool City Council depot, until it was sold off to Midfield last year.

The Warrnambool Planning Scheme also asks that a cold store be no less than 150m from the nearest dwelling. The nearest house is less than 100m away.

The scheme also recommends that a milk processing factory be at least 300m from a home. The nearest house will be 130m.

The reason for these protections, of course, are that large-scale factories and freezers bring with them noise, lights, extra trucks, extra traffic and a whole raft of potential hazards that don’t sit well with residential areas.

“We quite happily live near a pre-existing industrial zone, but we also knew that there were laws in place to prevent certain things happening and to make sure that things weren’t forced through,” Dean said.

“The council is now being asked to change those laws and there is an expectation that it will go ahead because of the money behind it.”

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #8F9F59;”] T [/dropcap]he Bennetts are among those particularly concerned about the potential health risks of the expansion and the fact that both projects will be within 1km of a primary school.

As one Gippsland milk powder factory owner said after his factory exploded in 2012, explosions are “an occupational hazard” of such plants.

“I know we are talking worst case scenarios, but they can happen and (Midfield) has to plan for such things happening: this is what they want to put on our doorstep,” Janis said.

The Merrivale Community Association will be among those represented at the independent panel hearing, together with at least another 17 submitters against or in favour of the project.

Spokesman Keith McAlley – who will represent the MCA – has been wading through around 8kg of documents that outline the expert witnesses to be called by Midfield and the council.

There will be lawyers and QCs and a string of experts, and then there will be Keith, and other speakers from the community who wish to have their say.

“It is daunting, but I am at that point in my life where I ask ‘what can I do to help myself?’ and ‘what can I do to help my community?,” Keith said.

Keith hopes that wider Warrnambool will get behind the MCA campaign, because he believes the impact of the development will be felt across the city through more large trucks on the road, damage to roads and a dramatic change to the visual landscape of west Warrnambool.

“As ratepayers, you will be picking up the repair bill for any damage to the road, for example,” he said.

Once the independent panel has heard all submissions, it will make recommendations to the council.

It is then up to the council to decide if it will accept or reject the recommendations: giving the Midfield Group either a green or red light.

[learn_more caption=”Click here for the panel hearing timetable”]

Hearings start at 10am and finish around 4.30pm, South-west TAFE, Level 3.

Tuesday, Feb 3: (All day)

Representatives for Warrnambool City Council.

Wednesday Feb 4:

AM: Environmental Protection Authority; Representatives for 92 Liebig St Pty Ltd.

PM: Site inspection at Scott St. (2.30pm-4.30pm)

Thursday, Feb 5: Representatives for Midfield Meat International.

Friday, Feb 6: Representatives for Midfield Meat International.

Tuesday, Feb 10: Representatives for Midfield Meat International.

Wednesday, Feb 11:

AM: Merrivale Community Association.

PM: Various submitters from the community.

Thursday, Feb 12: Various submitters from the community.

Friday, Feb 13:

AM: Midfield Meat International closing comments and right of reply.

PM: Warrnambool City Council closing comments and right of reply.

[/learn_more]

[box]You can access the full set of relevant W’bool City Council planning amendment documents here. The Change.org online petition against the the development can be signed here.[/box]

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”]Is this the kind of journalism you like to read? Bluestone needs your support. Please subscribe here[/button]

 You might also enjoy reading…

 

Midfield plans may hit Merrivale house prices

The changing landscape under Midfield Meats

Abbott actions reveal toxic culture in council

Flagstaff Hill: a museum in transition, or a mess?

Sucking the wind out of Portland’s sails

EXCLUSIVE: Carol Altmann

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A5CECD;”] T [/dropcap]he Flagstaff Hill Maritime Village in Warrnambool is under formal investigation by Heritage Victoria over missing items from its collection and damage to relics from the wreck of the Loch Ard.

As recently reported in Bluestone Magazine, two of the 10 copper sheets from the Loch Ard (1878) that were loaned to Flagstaff Hill by the Federal Government have been cut.

It is believed that a large slice was taken from one of the sheets in recent years for use as a sculpture or trophy, while the other has had a 10 x 10cm piece removed.

The Loch Ard, arguably Australia’s most famous shipwreck, is listed as a wreck of state and Commonwealth significance.

It is an offence under Section 13 of the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act to “destroy or cause damage to a historic shipwreck or historic relic” and can lead to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for an individual, or a $5000 fine for a body corporate.

In addition, Flagstaff Hill manager Peter Abbott recently confirmed in a letter to the local newspaper that the museum had lost track of at least 129 items from its collection, including the brass ship’s bell from the wreck of the Newfield (1892) that was once displayed in the Great Circle Gallery.

Heritage Victoria told Bluestone Magazine late Friday that, as a result of the revelations, it had opened an investigation into the collection practices at Flagstaff Hill.

“Tim Smith, Executive Director, Heritage Victoria confirmed Heritage Victoria is investigating the care and storage of items at Flagstaff Hill Maritime Museum,” a spokeswoman said via email.

Mr Smith was unavailable for further comment.

Heritage Victoria is responsible for the initial investigation into any potential breaches of the federal law governing historic shipwrecks. It is also responsible for investigating if there have been any breaches of the Victorian Heritage Act, which carries its own penalties.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A5CECD;”] F [/dropcap]lagstaff Hill, which is accredited by the museum governing body, Museums Australia, has had the spotlight turned on its collection management processes after questions late last year by Warrnambool City Councillor Brian Kelson.

Mr Kelson’s probing about gaps in the museum’s online collection database led to revelations that 220 lead ingots from the Loch Ard could not be accounted for.

Flagstaff Hill was given custody of 872 lead ingots in 1984 as part of the same federal loan agreement that governed the copper sheets.

Mr Abbott and council chief executive officer Bruce Anson have both since given assurances that the bulk of the missing ingots are in the hull of the derelict Rowitta ferry, although there has been no official count due to the poor condition of the vessel.

The ferry, which sits on the pond at Flagstaff Hill, is scheduled for demolition later this year.

Mr Abbott has recently been caught up in a separate scandal, after he was named by the local newspaper as the author of several anonymous comments made to its online forums, in which he made personal attacks against Cr Kelson and Cr Peter Hulin.

Cr Hulin has since indicated he will move a motion of no confidence against CEO Mr Anson at the first council meeting of the year on February 2, citing his handling of Mr Abbott’s behaviour as an example of why the Local Government Minister should be asked to intervene.

 [button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”]Bluestone needs at least 500 subscribers in 2015. If you wish to support independent media, please click here to become one.[/button]

You might also enjoy…

Flagstaff Hill: a museum in transition, or a mess?

Are missing Loch Ard ingots the tip of the iceberg?

The changing landscape under Midfield Meats

Sucking the wind out of Portland’s sails

Granny’s Grave buried in bureaucracy

All words, no funding, for Fletcher Jones story