Sacked Palmerston Council aldermen claim political witch hunt

SACKED Palmerston Council members have accused the Territory Government of behaving like “backyard bullies” to get rid of them

Sacked Palmerston Council members have accused the Territory Government of behaving like “backyard bullies” to get rid of them

SACKED Palmerston Council members have accused the Territory Government of behaving like “backyard bullies” to get rid of them.

They said the Government had engaged in a seven month charade, investigating council to come up with a finding they had already admitted to.

Housing and Community Development Minister Gerry McCarthy on Tuesday announced the dismissal of Palmerston Council and that elections to replace them would be held on March 17.

ANALYSIS: TIME TO GET ON WITH THE JOB OF LOOKING AFTER PALMERSTON RATEPAYERS

RELATED: AXE FALLS ON PALMERSTON COUNCIL FOR GOOD

“The residents of Palmerston will have the opportunity to elect a council that they can have confidence in,” he said.

Mr McCarthy said the Palmerston Council, which has been suspended since June 2017, was subjected to an investigation following concerns of poor governance.

Council members, including former mayor Ian Abbott, on Tuesday acknowledged the governance problems, but said the sacking was more about a political agenda than concern for the people of Palmerston.

However, Mr McCarthy said an investigation into Palmerston Council identified a number of shortcomings including poor financial processes, noncompliance with legislation and council policies, poor community consultation and internal conflict.

Key events outlined in the report included council signing a $13.5 million contract to develop a carpark without the funds to pay for it and with no ‘subject to finance’ clause.

The development was also without proper planning, risk assessment or community consultation. It also cited the absence of aldermen and the chief executive from crucial council meetings.

“Under the Local Government Act, all elected members share a collective responsibility for overseeing the actions and operation of council,” Mr McCarthy said.

“As a whole, they must make informed and responsible decisions in the best interest of their constituency. Therefore, I have acted on the investigators recommendation to dismiss the City of Palmerston Council.”

Sacked alderman Paul Bunker said the investigation was a political witch hunt.

“The minister and his department have behaved like backyard bullies to get rid of us,” Mr Bunker said. “They threatened to sack us because they didn’t want us to go ahead with the carpark.

“The report ignored all we did right to make this work for Palmerston ratepayers.”

Former alderman Andrew Byrne echoed Mr Bunker’s sentiments, and called on Mr McCarthy to explain why the investigator’s report left out legal advice provided to council upon which it based decisions.

“We acted in good faith at all times, and while the ‘subject to finance’ clause was missing from the carpark contract, we could have resolved that,” he said.

Mr Abbott said putting a carpark in was about economic development.

“As far as I can see, the government of the day is not interested in economic development in Palmerston,” Mr Abbott said. “Yes there were clear issues that we had signed a contract without government’s approval for a loan. That was a clear error.

“Previous drafts of the contract had a subject to finance clause and the final one didn’t.

“We were asked to seek legal advice by Gerry McCarthy’s office. Our legal advice came back and said the subject finance clause was of no issue.”

KEY POINTS

● Investigators found that due diligence and good governance has not been carried out by the Council’s aldermen and chief executive officer as they failed to appropriately review the multi-million dollar carpark contract and notice it was missing a ‘subject to finance’ clause

● There has been a failure to adhere to legislation and Council’s policies

● The Council’s application to borrow was accompanied by a letter from the Palmerson Mayor asking for approval to borrow $14.5 million but the business case contained a request to borrow $13.38 million with no explanation for the different figure

● Aldermen failed to consider a comprehensive financial plan with a risk assessment (as required by Council’s investment policy) prior to entering into the contract to purchase the multi-storey carpark

● No senior staff position was made responsible as the project manager for the multi-storey carpark

● Aldermen were negligent in their duties regarding overseeing the actions of the chief executive officer and consequently the operations of council

● Poor internal governance practices which the CEO was responsible for were identified

● Relationships between senior staff and council were often strained

● The frequent absence of the CEO required Directors to officially act in the position of CEO to provide advice and responses to Council