Councillors “out to get GM” says Toms

from page 1

By Tim Howard

Clarence Valley Council has doubled down on its decision to award its general manager, Laura Black, a 2% pay rise, despite a State Government-legislated freeze on political and senior executive salaries.

And a veteran councillor said the motion was evidence of a group of councillors “out to get” the council’s general manager Laura Black.

A rescission motion brought to the first ordinary council meeting of the year last week, failed in its bid to overturn the original decision, which added around $7200 a year to the general manager’s pay packet.

Ms Black had declared an interest in this item and left the council chamber while it was debated.

The motion, moved by Cr Bill Day, was also signed by former mayor Cr Ian Tiley, former deputy mayor, Cr Greg Clancy and current deputy mayor Jeff Smith.

The original decision, made at an extraordinary meeting of council just two weeks earlier and passed 5-4, was controversial.

In a broader sense it side-stepped a NSW Government decision ruling to freeze politicians and senior executive salaries.

And closer to home it has become a touchstone for the two factions that have emerged among the councillors.

While the decision was not unexpected the spiteful nature of the debate was a low point for council that does not look interested in mending an obvious split.

In one exchange Cr

Karen Toms was warned twice in a couple of minutes drawing rulings from mayor Peter Johnstone.

Cr Clancy was clearly becoming exasperated with his colleague’s failure to follow protocol.

“Point of disorder”, he called out the first of a number of times.

It began a heated exchange.

Cr Johnstone: Can I just check that? Do you consider you called Cr Clancy a liar?

Cr Toms: Probably.

Cr Johnstone: Okay. In that case, Cr Toms, you must apologise and withdraw the remarks.

Cr Toms: Okay. I unreservedly apologise for calling you a liar, Cr Clancy.

Cr Clancy: Thank you. Apology accepted.

Cr Johnstone: Cr Toms.

Cr Toms: Thank you. So this might upset him too.

In the rest of her address Cr Toms alleged the rescission motion was “retribution for the findings of the code of conduct that Cr Day mentioned earlier.”

She revealed she had requested a GIPA finding so she could make public the findings of a Code of Conduct investigation of Cr Clancy.

Cr Toms said these findings were different to those released to councillors.

The mayor ordered Cr Toms to stop this line of argument several times and she finally agreed, but her dissatisfaction was evident as she criticised the council’s processes.

“Okay. I’ll try and behave. Okay, so here we are. It is a kangaroo court,” she said.

But Cr Toms was not finished, alleging the motive behind the rescission motion was a plot “out to get” the general manager.

“You know, there was there’s actually a plot here,” she said.

“And I think we can all read between lines. There’s a plot here and the fact that there’s a rescission motion when it was a clear five four vote.

“And then Cr Clancy on the radio again says ‘oh, there’s a few days might be able to someone might change their mind’.

“She’s doing a good job. She’s saved this council hundreds of thousands of dollars, saved them.

“And yet we’ve got four councillors here who spent their whole bloody term out to get her. It’s a vendetta.”

Cr Toms’ suggestion of a plot against the general manager adds significance to the manoeuvres which led to the performance review and pay rise coming in a mayoral minute to an extraordinary council meeting on February 15.

Initially the four councillors who signed the rescission motion called an extraordinary meeting to deal with what they described as an issue with senior staff.

But on the morning of the meeting, they decided to withdraw their request when other councillors, including Cr Toms, called for an extraordinary meeting the same day to deal with the mayoral minute.

Cr Day, who moved the rescission motion, argued the pay rise was out of step with community expectations during difficult financial times and the performance review process was flawed.

“The performance review report outlines many positive achievements of Clarence Valley Council and I do believe in all honesty, that this council does many things quite well, very well something but it would be truly tragic If an organisation which employs nearly 500 staff could not achieve anything,” Cr Day said.

“However, this report, the performance review report, totally ignores the negatives and therefore it has no balance.

“And believe me, there are a number of substantial negatives for experienced councillors to acknowledge….

“Some of the negatives include problems with community engagement that includes the Brooms Head management plan that’s on the agenda today. Quite tragic.

“Treelands Drive Community Precinct project in Yamba, defamation actions process”. that have occurred, councillors being denied information, Grafton Aquatic Centre Project, a recent Code of Conduct against a councillor, various staffing issues.”

He came under attack for his stance and the fallout from it.

He also dismissed the notion of a plot against the general manager.

“We’ve been told that we’re some sort of organised, get-thegeneral-manager group and I take offence at that,” he said.

“We’ve all got our own views. I’ve always had a concern about the process of the general manager’s review panel.

Cr Day said councillors needed to acknowledge these issues too.

“You already know about most of these matters,” he said, “The councillors certainly know about them, and many of you choose to ignore them.”

Other councillors defended the original resolution and said council needed to get over this decision and move on.

Cr Steve Pickering said, while not knowing a lot about the performance review process, accepted its finding, which showed the general manager performing above expectations.

He pointed out the review process had been set up with former mayor, Cr Ian Tiley, who was one of the councillors now questioning the process.

“This is the way that the system has to work within nominated councillors to be on this review panel to work to analyse the performance of the general manager and report back to council so that the other councillors not on the panel would know how the hell the general manager’s performing,” he said.

Cr Pickering said the performance review panel has met twice and given the general manager an above average rating both times and he was prepared to accept that.

Cr Clancy, who had been on the first performance review panel, said he had walked away from it because he was “unhappy with the

“I’ve always had that problem because as Cr Day pointed out, it doesn’t drill down in certain areas when there are problems.”

Cr Debrah Novak, who sat on both performance review panels, said it had become concerning how many different stories were emerging from the one event.

“Elected councillors are the boss of the general manager,” she said. “We must act with dignity. We must act with probity, and we must act with professionalism.

“Otherwise as elected councillors we can be exposed to be sued.”

She said “spreading rumours” and “throwing petrol on the fire” demeaned the processes council must employ and demeaned the office of general manager.

“I’m all about the position of GM that that is upheld and it is honoured because that person is in charge of the 500 employees,” she said.

She “Is in charge of delivering what our community has asked her to deliver and been voted on to deliver through council resolutions through our community strategic plans.

This sideshow that’s going on makes us look like clowns.”

Cr Smith said Cr Novak had given him some valuable advice to get in contact with the Office of Local Government to learn about process.

“I’m so glad I did, like I can speak about how process is so important.

“And in that respect, I’ve been so glad to be able to sit here with a with a clear mind listening to the debate on this subject. Thank you.”

Cr Smith voted in support of the rescission motion.