Stingy City Hall shouldn’t claw back councillors’ cash
I CAN count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have defended councillors over the past 10 years.
Yesterday’s front page of the Addy was about how City Hall was sending in debt collectors to chase sacked councillors’ cash, an action that struck me as being mean spirited, small minded and quite simply wrong.
To me, it smacks of parsimony, perhaps not an unusual sentiment when expressing thoughts on City Hall.
I was not in favour of sacking the council. At the time I considered the sackings to be 100 per cent political.
Had Keith Fagg still been Mayor it would not have happened; Keith was never in danger of offending anyone, let alone the State Government.
The arrival of Darryn Lyons as Mayor changed the whole dynamics of CoGG-Labor government relationships. The outcome of that tense clash of ideals and confrontational style politics sounded the death knell for democratic rule in the short term.
Lacking any intestinal fortitude to sack just the Mayor or any other councillors not named or shamed in the various reports, Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins got rid of the whole council.
Councillors are paid an allowance, not a salary, which is normally paid at quarterly intervals in advance. We are not talking huge sums of money here; about $9000 per quarter.
Whatever we thought of this particular bunch of councillors, by and large they worked long hours — if they also had a full-time job then they were very long hours.
Apart from the unprecedented personal attack on Lyons in the commissioners’ report the other councillors barely rated a mention.
So if I ask the question: “What was the specific reason for Kylie Fisher or Peter Murrihy being sacked?”.
I rather suspect there would be a considerable amount of debate with no conclusion being reached.
Peter Murrihy, in particular, had only been in council for a nanosecond so it’s unlikely he could have been accused of anything apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If the Kylie Fisher example is anything to go by, the sums involved are minimal. According to the Addy: “In her last act as councillor, Ms Fisher donated her advanced allowance of $1300 to the not-for-profit initiative in Corio, which offers a friendly and social atmosphere for local residents.” Probably not a wise move Kylie, as it rather smacks of populist grandstanding arrived at after spitting the dummy when sacked.
Still as far as I’m concerned no councillor should be required to pay anything back.
These councillors were elected by the ratepayers on the expectation they would serve for the full four-year term.
Whatever their lives were beforehand, they had to rearrange and make adjustments to fit in with their new responsibilities. Despite it being a modest annual stipend, make no mistake: they earned every dollar.
Despite us electing them, councillors are appointed at the pleasure of the government of the time.
Natalie Hutchins obviously decided that it was no longer a pleasure and summarily dismissed them.
In any other line of employment we expect people to be treated fairly. We expect the employer to abide by the various regulations designed to protect individual rights and compliance with the commonly expected norms.
I’m not sure how the Fair Work Commission would view the way these councillors were dismissed had they have been normal employees.
I can say if they were, then the arbitrary sackings would have ended up in front of the commission under the action of unfair dismissal.
We know that some councillors were not guilty of anything, some were about as guilty as many officers and other council workers (who, of course, weren’t sacked) and a couple probably could or may have been sacked for their part in bullying allegations.
Kylie Fisher believes there is no policy or legal basis for dismissed councillors to repay funds.
I hope you’re right, Kylie.