There was a great turn out at the Special Elector’s Meeting on Monday night the 5th of December. Over 150 angry residents from all over the City of Stirling, came to raise their concerns about the City’s Planning and Approvals departments.
See article this article in the Stirling Times – City of Stirling residents put forward no confidence motion against chief executive, by Kate Leaver.
Also see this WAToday article – Angry Stirling residents threaten mass defection to Cambridge, by Emma Young.
This minutes should be up on the City of Stirling website (scroll down the page) on Friday. We will post them over the weekend. Some very interesting questions from residents!
So why did I raise the vote of no confidence in the CEO?
I have been observing the way the City of Stirling operates for a few years now and my concerns are not limited to how the planning department operates, I believe the issues are more systemic and many relate to the central criticism around a lack of transparency and obfuscation by management, as outlined in last night’s meeting. I believe that CEOs are ultimately responsible for the culture of an organisation and the performance of all staff and departments.
Firstly, I would like to point out that these criticisms are not aimed the City’s many friendly, hard working and conscientious staff, who do go out of their way to assist ratepayers and residents and score well in ‘Independent Mystery Shopping Surveys’.
We saw at the Special Elector’s Meeting on Monday night, that many ratepayers have some serious concerns about the Planning and Approvals departments, which I see as an attitude by senior staff in these departments to appease the WAPC and developers (their “clients”), rather than fully utilising the City’s Local Planning Scheme to fight for the best possible outcomes for their local ratepayers and the community’s amenity.
More and more items are being deemed ‘confidential’, when they do not pertain to contract, staff or legal matters, which are the only matters which are supposed to require confidentiality? Matters are being hidden from the public and decided on behind closed doors without good reason and often with objection from Councillors and ratepayers at Council meetings
I also believe Councillors are kept in the dark by officers on far too many issues these days. Many of the reports that staff prepare for them contain errors and lack important details and are often received by Councillors just before meetings without giving them adequate time for consideration. Too many issues are now decided by the CEO under ‘delegated authority’, sometimes in consultation with only the Mayor, when they should go to Council for proper scrutiny. Councillors are overly restricted in their ability to talk to the City’s expert staff in the various departments, requests for information are filtered through department Directors. Councillors are also hampered in their use of social media and in their freedom to talk to the press, compared to other Councils. Councillors also live in constant fear of being sued for anything they may say or do, while officers have comparatively little accountability. All of these repressive and unnecessary obstacles and barriers make it very difficult for City of Stirling Councillors to make quality decisions and from properly representing ratepayers and residents needs in their extremely large wards.
According to the Local Government Act, the CEO’s role is to “ensure that advice and information is available to the council so that informed decisions can be made”. In my opinion Mr Jardine is not doing an adequate job in this area and this is having a direct impact on the quality of decision that are made by the Council, on rates, moral of staff and is causing unnecessary frustration for Councillors (some more than others) and for residents and ratepayers.
Why wasn’t the Director of Finance required by the CEO to be present at the recent Annual General Elector’s Meeting, when the main focus on the meeting is on the annual report? Perhaps he was ill or unavoidably detained? But no excuse or apology was made on his behalf at the meeting? It is not uncommon for some department managers not to be present at Council Meetings when issues involving their portfolios are being discussed? In addition, far too many questions at Council Meetings from residents and ratepayers are not answered when they could be and they are held on notice to be responded to in writing. This makes extra unnecessary work for staff and the responses does not go on the public record in the meeting minutes or responses are woefully inadequate or not relevant to the questions.
Although the City of Stirling congratulates itself on its performance, I believe the performance indicators laid out in the annual report are set too low and are too generic, therefore lacking in any meaningful analysis of performance. I asked a question about these performance indicators at the Annual General Electors meeting on the 21st of November, the CEOs response (in the minutes) included, “I can’t directly comment on the question ‘is the management doing a good job or not” and that “the Annual Report of the City of Stirling, for several years now, is closely vetted by an organisation (I can’t remember the name of this national organisation off the top of my head). Every year, the City submits its Annual Report to this team of experts who compare us with the private sector, etc. That is then audited.” I would be interested to see how this response would have gone down at a share holder annual meeting?
The CEO also boasts the lowest rate increases in WA. But I would argue that given the strong financial position of the City with over $138M sitting in the bank, that rates should not have increased at all, especially given the serious economic downturn and hardship being experienced by many families. With all of the extra rate revenue flowing in, the risk of financial complacency and waste is increased.
The CEO was appointed in 2007 and his reappointed was endorsed by Council for another four year term back in April this year, with the new term recommencing in July next year.
This motion of no confidence will now go to a future Council meeting, possibly the first for next year on the 7th of February, with all of the other motions from the Elector’s meeting, for a decision by Council. The Council have the power to vote on having the CEO replaced. I hope they will carefully consider all of these concerns.
by Leisha Jack
