Expenditure and culture reviews to be kept quiet, for now

SPENDING on projects and organisational culture at the City of Ballarat came to the fore last council meeting as the event got bogged down in the early results of two different reviews.

As revealed during Interim CEO Janet Dore’s regular reporting, the first document looked at issues around the Gate Keeper’s Cottage, the Botanical Gardens Fernery, and a chandelier at town hall.

Completed by audit and accountancy firm Pitcher Partners, it won’t be fully released until after the municipal election, and is now on its way to the Local Government Inspectorate.

What we do know is that is both the Cottage and Fernery seemed to lack a clear business case and there were issues around spending and processes on the projects.

Meanwhile a second investigation, run by Susan Halliday’s into culture inside town hall, has revealed issues including “bullying, assault, sexual harassment, improper procurement… and there have been two investigations as a result of what Ms Halliday has found,” according to Ms Dore.

 

So what was the Pitcher Partners report?

Following a formal motion moved by Cr Mark Harris to review capital works projects like the Gatekeeper’s Cottage and the Botanic Gardens’ Fernery, as well as the procurement of a chandelier, the accountancy firm undertook an independent review of councillor expenses and related projects.

However, Ms Dore said she would not reveal the complete findings of the report until council’s next term.

“I have discussed the report being tabled at tonight’s meeting and [a City of Ballarat] director has strongly urged me to provide it to the [Local Government] Inspectorate as a risk management strategy for both council, myself and other staff,” she said.

“The key points from the report are the need to improve internal systems relating to procurement …. which are clearly not serving councillors as well as they should.

“I certainly intend to be able to report back to the next council after I refer the report to the local government municipal inspectorate.”

A recommendation by Ms Dore said the City “assess and where possible strengthen various policies that relate to councillor activities and expenditures as well as addressing the procurement policy and procedure followed by management when dealing with Councillor requests and expenditures.”

 

Why wasn’t the review made public?

Cr Harris said while he recognised the relevant processes necessary for such a report, he was disheartened to find out that the current council were not to receive the details.

“I’m disappointed we didn’t get a report back to this council,” he said. “Particularly at the time of electoral cleansing, it seems the perfect time to have that sunlight.”

Cr Amy Johnson also expressed a desire to have further information put in the public record ahead of next month’s election.

“This is exactly the right time for it to be released so that residents have access to information to make an informed decision about who they have represent them on council,” she said.

With October’s vote looming, Ms Dore said the findings of the report could be used in election campaigning in a damaging way.

“There is potential for misuse which is exactly why I’m referring it to the inspectorate,” she said.

“Because of staff, and a councillor, that is involved, that’s certainly where it relates to internal matters in the organisation that should not be published and I am really seeking guidance from the inspectorate.

“It is not appropriate to show the full report until the inspectorate has looked at it.”

Although withholding the report could damaging to at least one sitting councillor, several others spoke against the move, in part to protect their public perceptions.

“Not being privy to the report or its contents … the inference is then we could all be construed or perceived to be part of the culture behaviour and actions,” Cr Hudson said.

“I would certainly like going into the period of the next few weeks to stand on merit and saying integrity is the foundation of my running for office.

“This cloud will hang over the final weeks of this council.”

 

Who was the councillor in question?

Although Mr Dore made no mention of specific council officers or councillors, she described the issues identified by the review as “low level of transgression of policy” and “a simple local government matter.”

“The kinds of things that occurred that might have been of concern such as business planning and project approvals, as well as some reasonable minor purchases were not well developed by the administration,” she said.

While no councillor was named specifically in the review’s excerpts, after the meeting Cr Hudson said, “people are probably able to make their own conclusions from the references made in the report.

“Should there be a level of protection because there was an election process, I don’t think so.

“Individuals have to own their own behaviour … [but] people are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise.”

Cr Samantha Mcintosh has been a strong advocate for the Gatekeeper’s Cottage and Fernery projects and was mentioned indirectly in May’s State Ombudsman’s report in regard to what’s described as a “Flemish chandelier” for town hall.

Also speaking after the meeting, and in context of the CEO’s decision to refer the information to the inspectorate, Cr Tillet said it was grossly improper to discuss the contents of the review.

“At best, the information we are talking about at the moment is heresy,” he said.

“All of the operational issues, buying a chandelier if one had been bought or approving money for the Gatekeeper’s Cottage out of some slush fund … can only have been done by officers, it cannot be done by councillors even the mayor.

“People are taking advantage of this to the determent of the good name of Samantha McIntosh which is a disgrace.”

Cr McIntosh was given several opportunities to comment as part of this report but did not.

 

What does this mean?

With unease in the air on the eve on an election, Ms Dore reassured councillors that these findings are at no fault of the council.

“There is no inference on the council of decisions that have been made,” she said. “We are rectifying issues, and it’s being handled in the accordance to good practice.”

Before voting on Ms Dore’s report, mayor Cr Ben Taylor reminded the council that inappropriate behaviour of any sort should not be accepted in any organisation.

“We’ve got to learn from this, not just this council, but any council following around what’s acceptable behaviour,” he said.

While majority of the council were staunch in their opposition of being denied a viewing of the report, the motion passed with the amendment that the CEO was to refer the report to the inspectorate.

 

So what’s the deal with the Halliday report?

Mixed in with the Pitcher Partners report machinations were early detailed of a second report, known as Susan Halliday’s culture review of the municipality.

Although not yet public, Ms Dore revealed some of the findings of Ms Halliday’s report following a question from deputy-mayor Cr Belinda Coates.

Ms Dore said that the report found a lot of poor practice, which wasn’t at all surprising considering the State Ombudsman’s earlier report.

“It’s a great pity that these issues weren’t covered substantially in that report and they have had to be raised again in the public arena,” she said.

“They are staffing matters, they include bullying, assault, sexual harassment, improper procurement … and there have been two investigations as a result of what Ms Halliday has found.

“The themes coming out of the report are very worrying … but we’re already starting to see some real improvements.”

The allegations in relation to the City’s organisational culture, seemed to come as a surprise to councillors and sparked debate about public perceptions.

A majority expressed worry that their current positions would be tarnished by the findings of this report, even though they operate externally to the council officers.

“To have a group of people who are now held accountable … by the owners of the city, the people, for misdemeanours that we could’ve done nothing about to me is very wrong,” Cr Tillet said.

“We are being blamed now and we will be blamed from tomorrow on for the misdemeanours that have been uncovered by Ms Halliday … without knowing the details.”