Due process behind trio’s call to meet with sacked CEO

THE three City of Ballarat councillors who didn’t support summarily dismissing former CEO Justine Linley off the back of a damaging State Ombudsman’s report are speaking out on their decision.

Crs Grant Tillett, Samantha McIntosh and Jim Rinaldi all say at the heart of their unwillingness to terminate the CEO’s contract during a special meeting of council last week lies a desire, as they see it, for due process and natural justice.

Rather than what has been characterised as an ‘investigation’, the trio say councillors should have been able to hear from Ms Linley before making decision on her future with the municipality.

“Proper process is the point,” Cr Tillett said. “We were sitting in judgement over someone who was accused of acting improperly as far as process was concerned and we did it ourselves.

“The lie that’s in it is we three were seeking a further investigation, that is not correct. We simply wanted an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting before actually voting to dismiss.

“The CEO was investigated, and some problems were found. It was obvious to the councillors that due process then called for her to be dismissed, that didn’t give us the right to march her out into the yard and shoot her. A condemned man is entitled to a last meal.”

Cr Rinaldi agreed the ideas around process were at the heart of his decision and he also acknowledged there was a person behind the findings in the Ombudsman’s report.

“It’s due process and natural justice for all people involved,” he said. “The main thing is to have a caring attitude for those who have been named in this.

“It’s understanding the hurt, uncertainty and challenges that lay ahead of us… and we didn’t go down that path.”

Cr McIntosh was emphatic that she and Crs Tillett and Rinaldi did not call for another investigation.

“We’ve seen a lot of conversations put out there in the community that are absolutely incorrect suggesting that we called for another investigation,” she said.

“We did not do that. Our absolute goal is good governance and we believe absolutely that’s what the Ombudsman’s report was about.”

In exercising the termination clause in Ms Linley’s contract, which triggered a payout equal to six months salary or $160,000 to $164,500, all three councillors say the same lack of process the CEO was found to have engaged in is now resting heavily on council.

“Considering the Ombudsman’s comments and considering the focus on good governance and process we felt it very important to follow the highest level of good governance,” Cr McIntosh said.

“We believe in doing that by ensuring the CEO had an opportunity to speak with us as part of that process. It didn’t need to take any longer in time, it might have taken a extra few days.”

The Ombudsman’s report found that elements of Ms Linley’s involvement in the hiring and promotion of two current directors, as well as other human resources processes was “unwise at best and may have been improper.”

The report also found at times Ms Linley’s conduct went towards creating perceptions of conflicts of interests.

“The Ombudsman’s report highlighted significant behaviours that needs to be addressed within our council,” Cr McIntosh said. “None of us are questioning the Ombudsman’s report.

“The Ombudsman does very clearly state that there was no criminal nor corrupt activity, however there was a perception of the lowest form of bad behaviour.”

The decision to terminate Ms Linley’s contract clearly weighs heavily on Cr Rinaldi. He said the move flies in the face of the municipality’s compassionate city charter.

“I didn’t sleep,” he said. “I came home Monday night and I was disgusted in how that decision was made without care and compassion for the person that we had employed for four years.

“We weren’t giving her an opportunity for her closure. There is no compassion in the decision that was made.”

With the vote on the motion during the meeting to dismiss Ms Linley going six to three, Crs Tillett, Rinaldi and McIntosh all conceded on some level that even if councillors had an opportunity to hear from the former CEO, the outcome probably wouldn’t have changed.

“The outcome could have been the same,” Cr McIntosh said. “The information in the Ombudsman’s report and the fact it had already been tabled in parliament had created significant public concern.

“Knowing that there was such concern being cast as a result of perception, we really did have to act very quickly. I think we all agree on that.”

Cr Tillett conceded that the outcome might not have materially changed had Ms Linley been given a chance to speak to councillors.

“[Would it have changed?] Probably not,” he said, “But that’s not the point. The point is we were investigating an issue in relation to proper process, we did not provide proper process in dealing with that question.

Similarly, Cr Rinaldi acknowledged things might not have been different, suggesting if that was the case, why not give Ms Linley a chance to speak.

“The decision may have still been the same, that’s the stupid part about not giving her the opportunity,” Cr Rinaldi said. “But to be judge and jury without hearing from Justine is wrong.”