Clarence Valley Council: let's play the guessing game

The 11am 3 March 2017 Clarence Valley Council extraordinary meeting took a whole 8 minutes to move into a closed session which lasted approx. 1 hour & 21 minutes and, then a further 6 minutes was spent unanimously passing a motion to the effect that the closed session resolution concerning the General Manager's employment contract is to remain confidential before closing the meeting*.

The Daily Examiner on 4 March 2017 reported Mayor Simmons as stating "So far as I'm concerned Scott is still the general manager of the council". 

Nothing to see here, move along says the council.

However, this is an intriguing situation as the newspaper also reported; Sources inside the council confirm there is intense speculation among council employees about the future of the general manager.

So let's play the guessing game.....

The business paper and minutes of Clarence Valley Council’s 21 February 2017 ordinary monthly meeting contained Item 11.001/17 Mayoral Minute.

This mayor minute specifically dealt with the “General Manager’s Performance Agreement” or as characterised elsewhere in the monthly meeting minutes the “General Manager’s Performance Agreement – Proposed Variation”.

A Performance Agreement contains the agreed benchmarks used to conduct a General Manager’s Performance Review and the minutes stated words to the effect that that an agreement between council and the general manager needed to be reached on details discussed in the 21 February Item 11.001/17 closed session.

So far it seems pretty straightforward.

Either council or the general manager requested changes to the contents of the Performance Agreement ahead of a Performance Review conducted by the mayor, deputy-mayor, a councillor nominated by council and a councillor nominated by a general manager.

Because of the form in which it came before Council-in-the-Chamber, I suspect that the variation request came from the general manager.

It is noted that within days of the ordinary monthly meeting the general manager went on what appears to be unexpected leave scheduled to end on 13 March. This leave has since been publicly described as "sick leave".

Then ten days after this February monthly meeting an extraordinary meeting was held – with a council spokesperson making a point of saying that meeting process allows two or more councillors to call an extraordinary meeting.

Because of a remark made to a journalist on 3 March and reported online via video, it is unlikely that this meeting was called by more than the minimum number of councillors required.

By then the subject of the one item before Council-in-the-Chamber had changed from a specific mention of Performance Agreement to the term “General Manager’s Employment Contract” and, local media were saying that the extraordinary meeting was to decide the future of [the] Clarence Valley Council general manager.

It doesn’t take an Einstein to work out that it is likely that council and the general manager could not reach an agreement concerning either changes to the Performance Agreement, some aspect of the Performance Review or another contract issue  – and matters had quickly come to a head.

So what would happen in such a situation if the issue or issues remained unresolved?

Well the general manager could arrange to extend his paid "sick leave" indefinitely while employment matters continued to be argued. According to one local retiree with business experience this has been known to occur in management circles.

Though the simplest course of action would be for council or the general manager to terminate the employment contract before its expiry date.

Something which is allowed for in Guidelines For The Appointment & Oversight Of General Managers under section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993 (July 2011):

The general manager may terminate the contract by giving 4 weeks written notice to the governing body of council………..

A governing body of council may terminate the general manager’s contract at any time by giving the general manager 38 weeks written notice or pay the general manager a lump sum of 38 weeks remuneration in accordance with Schedule C of the Standard Contract. If there are less than 38 weeks left to run in the term of the general manager’s contract, a council can pay out the balance of the contract in lieu of notice.

Now 4 weeks written notice by the general manager would possibly see an end to his employment in April 2017 and, depending on the exact start date, 38 weeks’ notice given by council would possibly end in October 2017.

On the other hand, 38 weeks remuneration in lieu of notice for a Clarence Valley Council general manager would have to be in the vicinity of $183,000 if not more.

In the grand scheme of things neither April nor October are that far away, but I’m willing to wager that there are a number of residents and ratepayers who would be in favour of council paying out that large sum as soon as possible.

It has been five long years since the current general manager was hired and those years have been marked by varying levels of disapproval, discontent, distrust, tension and alienation within council's governing body, council's staff and the valley community - due in some measure to the management style and attitude of this general manager.

* It was stated on The Clarence Forum Facebook page that immediately the closed session segment of the meeting ended Cr. Richie Williamson left the meeting. This is not yet confirmed by mainstream media reports.

BACKGROUND

See Clarence Valley Council: a local government history lesson…..

Quote of the Week

Data released by travel app Hopper in early February looked at international flight search demand prior to and in the wake of Mr Trump's inauguration. Their numbers showed flight demand to the US had fallen 17 per cent since the January 20 inauguration, dropping in 94 of the 122 countries included in the analysis. [ABC News, 1 March 2017]

SE Queensland: a social, economic and environmental tragedy unfolded

SHOCKING Gasfield industrialisation of s/w #QLD

1984-2016: Who allowed this to happen?#CSG #Auspol #Qldpol pic.twitter.com/IvPoQP6b5q

— Jo Holden (@JoJamesHolden) February 23, 2017

 @JoJamesHolden Industrialisation of SE Queensland - gasfield growth

Just because it is beautiful.......(23)

Bronze Needle Damselfly
Synlestes weyersii 

Found in southern Queensland and parts of New South Wales & Victoria.

Photograph by 
@carolprobets

#NotMyDebt: it has spite writ large all over it

Despite any current or future ministerial or departmental denials, ‘explanations’ or excuses, I find it hard to believe that this 22 February 2017 end of business day release of a Centrelink client’s personal, sensitive, protected information to a journalist was accidental.

Particularly as this act was clearly repeated.

It has spite writ large all over it.

The Guardian, 2 March 2017:

The office of human services minister, Alan Tudge, mistakenly sent a journalist internal departmental briefings about a welfare recipient’s personal circumstances, which included additional detail on her relationship and tax history.

Senior departmental figures were grilled at Senate estimates on Thursday about the release of welfare recipient Andie Fox’s personal information last month.

Fox had written an opinion piece critical of Centrelink and its handling of her debt, which ran in Fairfax Media in February. The government released her personal details to Fairfax journalist Paul Malone, who subsequently published a piece attacking Fox and questioning the veracity of her claims.

Two responses were given to the journalist, one from the department of human services and the other from Tudge.

The department said its response – three dot points containing only minimal detail on Fox’s personal history – was cleared by lawyers and was lawful. The minister’s office then added two quotes from Tudge and sent its own response to Malone.

Guardian Australia can now reveal that the minister’s office also accidentally sent the journalist two internal briefing documents, marked “for official use only”, which had been prepared by the department.

Those documents contained additional information on Fox and her personal circumstances, which went beyond the dot points prepared by the department. They included further detail of her relationship history, including when she separated from her partner.

Those documents were then sent to Malone. The documents were also mistakenly sent to Guardian Australia when it raised questions about the disclosure of Fox’s personal information.

No mention of those documents was made in Senate estimates on Thursday, despite repeated questioning of what the minister had disclosed to Malone. Tudge’s office has now conceded the documents were sent to Malone in error. But the office says it was of no consequence, because all of their contents had been legally cleared by the department.

A welfare recipient’s personal details are considered protected information under social security law, and any unlawful disclosure is considered a criminal offence. Earlier, the department told estimates that social security law only allowed it to disclose the minimal amount of information needed to correct the public record. [my highlighting]

On 2 March 2017 Labor MP for Barton and Shadow Minister for Human Services, Linda Burney, wrote to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner requesting an investigation into the personal/sensitive information release by the minister and/or his staff:

Letter to Australian Federal Police Commissioner from Shadow Minister for Human Services Linda Burney MP by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/340678789/Letter-to-Australian-Federal-Police-Commissioner-from-Shadow-Minister-for-Human-Services-Linda-Burney-MP

BACKGROUND

DHS & Centrelink now threatening clients who expose unfair or inappropriate implementation of social security policy?

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs’ Inquiry into Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative

http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com.au/search?q=centrelink

SocialSecurity (Administration) Act 1999 - Sect 202

Protection of personal information

Excerpt from Department of Human Services Privacy Policy:

Our obligations under the Privacy Act 

This policy sets out how we comply with our obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles which are set out in a Schedule to that Act. 

The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) regulate how the department, as an APP entity, must collect, use, disclose and store personal information. The APP

What personal information and sensitive information is

The terms 'personal information' and ‘sensitive information’ come from section 6 of the Privacy Act.

References to personal information throughout the Privacy Policy include sensitive information unless otherwise indicated.

‘Personal information’ means: 

Information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

a) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and 

b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.

‘Sensitive information’ means: 

a) information or an opinion about an individual’s:

i. racial or ethnic origin

ii. political opinions

iii. membership of a political association

iv. religious beliefs or affiliations v. philosophical beliefs

vi. membership of a professional or trade association

vii. membership of a trade union

viii. sexual orientation or practices

ix. criminal record. 

b) health information about an individual

c) genetic information about an individual that is not otherwise health information

d) biometric information that is to be used for the purpose of automated biometric verification or biometric identification e) biometric templates

Sky News, 2 March 2017:

It was also confirmed Centrelink staff trawl social media for complaints about the welfare agency and may refer serious gripes to the responsible minister.

Senior bureaucrats responsible for Centrelink say their workers sift through print, broadcast and social media for individual complaints.

Deciding on whether to report grievances to the human services minister depended on the circumstances of each case.

Yamba Bay Park safe - for now

Coastal development pressure is never ending in the NSW Northern Rivers region and this was just the latest example, in the small town of Yamba perched where the mighty Clarence River meets the Pacific Ocean.

Image from Clarence Valley Independent

This was the NSW Roads & Maritime Services (RMS)request received according to Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting Minutes, 21 February 2017:

In a letter to Council from RMS received 2 December 2016 a potential site situated on Yamba Road, Yamba was identified by RMS as being suitable. The land situated to the north of Yamba Road is identified as Lot 7053 DP 1114190 and the landward portion of Lot 164 in DP 751395. The RMS objective is to construct a two storey operations facility to cater for up to fifteen staff from the three agencies. According to RMS the parcel of land would give the three on-water compliance agencies easy access to the water via the adjacent launching ramp and the RMS marina facility.

One of these lots is covered by Native Title and the other is the subject of an Aboriginal Land Claim.

It is a popular little park used by both locals and visitors and is part of the Yamba Road streetscape.

Council in the Chamber wisely decided against turning it into a state government agency office building:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 15.010/17

Williamson/Clancy

That Council not support the transfer of Lot 7053 DP 1114190 and part Lot 164 DP 751395 for the reasons

outlined in this report.

Voting recorded as follows:

For: Simmons, Kingsley, Clancy, Ellem, Novak, Williamson, Toms

Against: Baker

Hopefully Clarence Valley towns and villages will be able to defend all their green spaces as this set of Clarence Valley councillors scramble to find money to meet the $1.2 million project shortfall resulting from a badly planned remediation of the former Grafton depot site – costing to date an est. $6,976,72. Which represents an est. $2.5 million blowout of the remediation budget.

A problem created by the foolish former council initially agreeing to proceed based on a concept level plan only and despite the lack of sufficient information concerning potential costs associated with the Grafton Depot Rationalisation Project.

Not forgetting the need to make up additional $4.13 million cash flow shortfalls these councillors inherited and, in small part have helped exacerbate since their election.