Waiting game begins

Council has responded saying it acknowledges and accepts the reasons for the order, the suggested actions to improve performance, and the appointment of a temporary advisor.

But it is not known when or if the minister’s decision on whether to implement the actions will be known.

The cost on council is also unknown, which formed some of the debate when councillors met to discuss their response on Tuesday.

Councillors also debated whether they should accept the offer of an adviser, as there is only one councillor workshop and one public council meeting remaining before council goes into caretaker mode ahead of the elections in September.

Councillors Pat Fogarty and Harold Clapham were particularly concerned at making decisions that would impact on the incoming council, but others felt the presence of an adviser would only benefit any newcomers and returning councillors to prevent similar dysfunction from impacting the next term.

During the debate, councillors were reminded several times that regardless of their concerns, they may not have a choice in the matter.

Acting chief executive officer Mark Dalzell said council is committed to working together towards improving performance.

“The councillors have met and discussed at length the issues raised, agreed the actions for improvement and are ready to work with a temporary advisor to implement these actions if required.”

The minister will consider the council’s submission when making a final decision whether or not to issue the Performance Improvement Order.

Under the Local Government Act, the Minister for Local Government (or his delegate) has powers to intervene in councils when they are dysfunctional or failing to meet their legal obligations.

This may include the issuing of a Performance Improvement Order to encourage councils to drive their own improvement.

Such action is aimed at preventing the need for more serious intervention such as a public inquiry that could result in the dismissal of all councillors.

When issuing his notice of intention, Mr Hoenig listed six key reasons for his intervention.

They were:

• There is evidence that ERC’s meeting procedures are not complying with the Meeting Code of Practice and there is a lack of appropriate respect and formality.

• There is evidence to suggest that ERC is not complying with its work health and safety obligations as a result of the behaviours of some councillors.

• There is evidence of hostility and acrimony between councillors that, if unaddressed, is likely to lead to dysfunction and reputational damage;.

• There are behaviours that indicate that some councillors may not understand their obligations under the code of conduct when dealing with the staff of council.

• There are behaviours that indicate that some councillors may not understand their obligations under the code of conduct when dealing with each other.

• There are behaviours that indicate that some councillors may not understand their obligations under the code of meeting practice.

Mr Hoenig said if his order is not complied with, he may issue another or temporarily suspend the council.

In its formal submission, council agreed that while it had attempted to reinforce code of conduct and code of meeting practice standards, it agrees that further work and support would be beneficial.

The Office of Local Government confirmed this week that this action comes in response to “multiple instances of poor conduct from councillors at Edward River over a period of more than 12 months, and the council’s failure to properly respond to the issues raised.”

“The minister will consider any submission from the council before a final decision is made about whether to proceed with the PIO,” and OLG spokesperson said.

Detailed information about the process is contained within the Office of Local Government Performance and Suspension Orders Procedural Framework, available on the Office of Local Government website.