GIVEN the high level of concern within the Ballarat community over the issues of performance by, and governance of, the Ballarat City Council and its senior officers, council’s notice (The Courier July 18, pages 57-58) regarding reappointment of the incumbent chief executive officer ought be viewed with real concern by the citizens of our city.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
First, is it not a simple fact that at least seven years have passed since this position was last advertised and, if so, are not the interests of this city and its citizens at least worth the effort of finding out who else Australia may have to offer?
Further, and if the incumbent is of the right mettle and ability for the task, why do our councillors not simply say, “It’s in the best interests of our city that your job be advertised.
You are free to apply and it would be disappointing if you did not, but our first duty is to those whom we represent and who rely upon us and we must fulfill our trusteeship by advertising the position, which at this time is the right and proper thing.”
Secondly, between now and August 5 all concerned must consider the operation of Local Government Act 1989 Part IA (the Local Government Charter) and to the principles, purposes and objectives set out therein or which are present by implication. The following expressions appear:
“Ensure transparency and accountability in council decision making;”
“Advocating and promoting proposals which are in the best interests of”…the municipality;
“Ensure… resources are used efficiently and effectively…to best meet”…local needs;
“Promote the…viability and sustainability of the” municipality. “The long-term and cumulative effects of decisions”; and
“Best outcomes for the local community.”
In each of these expressions it is not the interests of individuals but of the community at large which is primary and paramount.
Thirdly, and in relation to the resolution to be put at the meeting on August 5, people are entitled to ask in the meantime questions as to the source of and the facts and matters of which account has been taken by councillors and responsible officers in deciding to pursue this course.
Leaving aside the obvious question as to why the position of CEO should not be advertised, why is it that the public should not be allowed to witness council’s deliberations over this vital issue which will deal not only with the advertising question but also with the incumbent’s reappointment for a further term, presumably of years?
And, why is it that our councillors seem content to pursue a course which, at this stage, seems guaranteed to produce further rods for their collective backs? Again, complexity seems to be preferred to the genius of simplicity.
Council has a discretion concerning the exclusion of the public from its meetings. Such discretion must be exercised on proper grounds. If not, decisions flowing from the faulty discretionary process are liable to be overturned in subsequent legal process.
