Report of the Inquiry Into the City of Canning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE CITY OF CANNING Authorised Inquiry under Part 8 Division 1 Local Government Act 1995 November 2012 Report of the Inquiry into the City of Canning Authorised Inquiry under Part 8 Division 1 Local Government Act 1995 November 2012 Prepared by: Department of Local Government Gordon Stephenson House 140 William Street PERTH 6000 GPO Box R1250 PERTH WA 6844 Tel: (08) 6552 1500 Fax: (08) 6552 1555 Freecall: 1800 620 511 (Country Only) Email: [email protected] Web: www.dlg.wa.gov.au Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) - Tel: 13 14 50 © Crown Copyright 2012 No part of this Report of the Inquiry into the City of Canning may be reproduced in any manner without the prior written approval of the Director General, Department of Local Government. Division 3 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth) recognises that limited further use of this material can occur for the purposes of ‘fair dealing’, for example, study, research or criticism, etc. Should you wish to make use of this material other than as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, please write to the postal address below. This report and further information about the Department of Local Government can be found on the Department’s website at www.dlg.wa.gov.au TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Administration Part 1: Allegations and Complaints Relevant Terms of Reference 1:1 Chapter 1: Allegations & Complaints 1:2 Chapter 2: Investigation of the Mayor’s Allegations 1:8 Chapter 3: Allegations and Complaints from CEO, Staff, Community and Others 1:52 Part 2: Complaints about Council decisions Relevant Terms of Reference 2:1 Chapter 4: Questionable Decisions 2:2 Chapter 5: Nicholson Road/Bannister Road Project 2:5 Chapter 6: Centenary Avenue/Manning Road Project 2:19 Chapter 7: Willetton Child Care Centre 2:31 Chapter 8: The Willetton Sports Club 2:60 Chapter 9: Council’s dealing with the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council 2:85 Chapter 10: Refuse Truck Purchase 2:113 Chapter 11: Council decisions related to Regulatory Services 2:120 Chapter 12: Legal Services Tender 2:125 Part 3: Council’s Relationship and Management of the CEO, Mark Dacombe Relevant Terms of Reference 3:1 Chapter 13: Council’s relationship with the CEO 3:2 Chapter 14: CEO Performance Appraisals 3:24 Chapter 15: The CEO separates from the City 3:46 Part 4: Allegations of improper or undue influence Relevant Terms of Reference 4:1 Chapter 16: Improper or Undue Influence 4:2 Chapter 17: Engineering Consultancy Services Tender 4:4 Chapter 18: ‘Sevenoaks’ Engineering Contract September 2011 4:22 Chapter 19: Recruitment, Executive Engineering and Technical Services, November 2011 4:27 Chapter 20: Recruitment, Executive Engineering and Technical Services, second attempt April 2012 4:52 Chapter 21: Conclusion 4:67 Part 5: Governance – Adequacy of the City’s procedures Relevant Terms of Reference 5:1 Chapter 22: Governance 5:2 Chapter 23: Public Question Time 5:4 Chapter 24: Additional issues with questions raised at Council meetings 5:24 Chapter 25: Minutes and Agendas 5:30 Chapter 26: Standing Orders – access to information 5:33 Chapter 27: ‘Secret Votes’ 5:35 Chapter 28: Council interference in tender evaluation 5:39 Chapter 29: Governance, Summary and Findings 5:43 Part 6: Overall conclusions Relevant Terms of Reference 6:1 Chapter 30: Conclusion and Recommendations 6:2 Annexures Annexure I: Transcript, ordinary Council meeting 22 May 2012, deliberation on Executive Engineering and Technical Services recruitment Annexure II: Exhibit list EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART 1: ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS Chapter 1: Allegations and Complaints – Mayor’s allegations After receiving representations from the City of Canning’s Mayor Delle Donne and other sources, on 9 February 2012, the Minister for Local Government, Hon John Castrilli MLA, in accordance with section 8.3(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 directed Ms Jennifer Mathews, Director General of the Department of Local Government to commence an Authorised Inquiry into the City of Canning. Consequently, on 23 February 2012, Ms Mathews authorised this Inquiry, pursuant to section 8.3(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, to inquire into and report on matters identified in the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. The representations made by the Mayor to the Minister expressed concerns about the operations and affairs of the City, the performance of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr Dacombe, the appointment of Executive staff, contracts for supply of goods and services and possible conflicts of interest. The Mayor also advised he had submitted complaints to the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) and anticipated more matters being brought to the attention of that investigative agency. Chapter 2: Investigation of the Mayor’s Allegations It became apparent during examination of the Mayor’s allegations that the matters he had referred to the CCC had been investigated and that the entities investigating had not identified any misconduct. It was therefore considered by this Inquiry that it was unnecessary and questionable that the Mayor had identified these same matters to support his allegations of misconduct at the City. Other issues raised by the Mayor fell into a pattern of concerns about operational matters that generally related to some perceived or actual flaw in the City’s operational or Executive Summary 1 management practices. The operational problems identified in the Mayor’s allegations were found to have been caused directly by Council’s refusal to accept relevant information or advice from its administrative staff. The Inquiry’s investigation of the Mayor’s allegations against the CEO revealed that these allegations had no reasonable basis. It was considered highly significant that the Mayor first formally made allegations against Mr Dacombe around the time when the relationship between the Mayor and the CEO had broken down and disagreement had arisen between the CEO and the Mayor over the recruitment process for the Executive Engineering and Technical Services position. The Inquiry considered that the allegations were made to justify the suspension of the CEO. Chapter 3: Allegations and Complaints from CEO, Staff, Community and Others. Prior to the commencement of this Inquiry and during the investigation of the City, a number of other complaints were received from a broad range of individuals, groups and organisations. It became apparent that, contrary to the Mayor’s view that the problems lay exclusively with the CEO and administrative staff, the majority of these complaints concerned the behaviour of elected members and the quality of Council decision making. It was considered significant by this Inquiry that the complainants included City officers, neighbouring local governments, a Regional Council and established community organisations. This showed there was diverse and wide reaching dissatisfaction with the City of Canning. PART 2: COMPLAINTS ABOUT COUNCIL DECISIONS Chapter 4: Questionable Decisions. Elected members are well placed to weigh up the political and policy implications of matters before Council. This is due in no small part to the direct contact they have with their constituents, and the diverse backgrounds and experience each elected member can Executive Summary 2 bring to their role. In some circumstances this will result in decisions being made that are significantly different from the recommendations provided by the City’s Officers. If there are appropriate grounds, and it is clearly in the interests of the local government, elected members may change or alter the Officer’s recommendations. However, elected members generally do not have the qualifications or expertise needed to make informed decisions on technical issues. For this reason, in order to act in the best interests of the local government and provide good government to the persons in the district, elected members must take into account the technical and/or professional advice that is provided to them by the City’s employees when making decisions. Council’s manner of decision making came under criticism in relation to a number of matters that were seen as high profile issues at the time. Part 2 of this Report examines in detail the circumstances surrounding a number of Council decisions that appeared at odds with any expected reasonable and rational outcome. Chapter 5: Nicholson Road/Bannister Road Project As early as 2006, the City had been liaising with the City of Gosnells on a jointly funded $2.2 Million project to carry out upgrade works to the intersection of Nicholson Road and Bannister Road in Canning Vale. This intersection is located in an area where the boundaries between the two local governments run through the middle of the project area. The City planned to use its own construction workforce for the project. At the same time, the City of Gosnells was preparing to carry out its own project in close vicinity, to upgrade the intersection of Garden Street, Yale Road and Nicholson Road in Canning Vale. However, as it was still preparing its application for State Government funding, Gosnells had possibly two years before it could progress its project. At 13 September 2011 Ordinary Council Meeting it was reported to Council that purchasing a new traffic signal array was a prerequisite before the broader project of redeveloping the Executive Summary 3 intersection could proceed. The Officer’s report recommended Council accept the tender for the new traffic signals which would allow the project to proceed without delay. During debate Council became fixated on whether the City of Gosnells Yale Road/Garden Street project should be carried out at the same time as the City’s project. As a result of this debate no decision on the tender was made, with the Council deciding to hold the matter over until discussions with Gosnells and Main Roads WA could be arranged. This was an unnecessary delay and resulted in the City of Gosnells writing to the City with its concerns.