Two more councillors have quit the Huon Valley Council citing deficiencies in the General Managers recruitment process for their resignations.
Whilst the Mayor and the council have endlessly apologised to ratepayers for what seems to have been honest and genuine mistakes, the General Manager appears to have been silent.
Even if the General Manager is considered the best person for the job, why has he allowed himself to be the centre of a conflict of interest at the expense of the Huon Valley and its ratepayers?
The General Manager is professionally trained and more qualified and experienced than most in corporate governance, probably more so than any of the Valley’s councillors and employees.
Why has the General Manager not followed the well-established duty of corporate governance which is to take all reasonable steps to avoid a conflict of interest, whether ‘real’ or ‘apparent’?
In other words, even if there is no ‘actual‘ conflict of interest, the ‘perception‘ of a conflict should be avoided too, and surely the candidate for the position ought to have been well aware of that.
Blind Freddy could have foreseen that the recruitment process for the General Manager whilst there was a ‘real’ or ‘apparent’ conflict of interest was simply not on and did not pass the pub test.
Tasmania’s auditor-general in his report dated 12 October 2021 notes that on 10 June 2021 the consultant engaged by the Huon Valley Council “interviewed her partner to determine his suitability” [for the job].
Surely, the candidate for the position at the outset should have reached the same conclusion as the auditor-general did that the process ‘lacked integrity’ – after all, his own integrity was at stake too.
Amongst his many other positions, the candidate was past president of Tasmania’s CPA Australia and ought to have been well-versed in the need to avoid, and be seen to avoid, a conflict of interest.
The candidate for the position of General Manager should have immediately disqualified himself from participating in what was supposed to be an independent process but seems to have done nothing.
Regardless of whether or not the council and those on the recruitment panel wished to continue the process after becoming aware of the conflict, the candidate for the position should have known better and done the right thing by the council and its ratepayers and not allowed himself to be involved.
The Minister for Local Government should have done likewise at the earliest opportunity by saying: “Hey, this is not on, this is not right for the Huon Valley, this is not right for the state government, and is clearly inconsistent with well-established principles of good corporate/government governance.”
Instead, the Huon Valley Council, its volunteer councillors, and its ratepayers are now paying the price for something that could have so easily been “nipped in the bud” by the candidate disqualifying himself from the process whilst the conflict (real or apparent) existed, as professional standards dictate.
To make matters worse, the Huon Valley Council has snubbed its nose at ratepayers by making the appointment permanent.
Even if the General Manager is the best person for the job, what confidence can ratepayers have in the decision-making process when basic conflicts are allowed to occur?
This begs the question as to whether the state government has a secret agenda in sitting back and watching the Huon Valley Council continue to make mistake after mistake. Is the plan to sit back, do nothing, and let ratepayers and councillors build their own case in favour of an amalgamation?
It is perfectly understandable that volunteer councillors, all Huon Valley ratepayers, are not trained professionals in corporate governance and, realistically, they are not in office long enough to warrant going to the expense of any extensive training, but the General Manager is a trained professional.
Prior to signing-off on his five-year employment contract, did anyone ask the question of the General Manager as to why he allowed himself, his employer, and ratepayers to become embroiled in what was clearly a flawed and, in hindsight, very expensive recruitment process for Huon ratepayers?
The auditor-general noted that “the Council appointed the consultant’s partner as General Manager despite knowing the process used to arrive at the decision was flawed”. But surely the candidate knew that too, or ought to have known that from his qualifications and his many years of experience.
If the General Manager allows himself to be recruited in a process which the auditor-general describes as “lacking in integrity” then surely that should be a concern to all Huon Valley ratepayers even if the candidate’s qualifications and experience are otherwise exemplary (and that is not in dispute).
Whilst ratepayers leading the charge against the Council in the flawed recruitment process have been seen by others to be ‘trouble-makers’ with nothing better to do than ‘whinge’ their argument is valid, legitimate, and well-supported by the Auditor General’s report of 12 October 2021.
Neither the council, nor its councillors, employees and ratepayers deserve to have been subjected to this flawed recruitment process and the weeks that have followed.
The General Manager has been an active and willing participant from start to finish and needs to explain himself to ratepayers.
Do ratepayers of the Huon Valley sit back, do nothing, and turn a blind eye to this lack of integrity or should the General Manager be asked to explain why he allowed himself to be recruited in a process he too ought to have seen as lacking in integrity?
The Minister for Local Government should not turn a blind eye either by simply saying “we will instigate better procedures for next time”.
If the process was in fact ‘lacking in integrity’ then why has the Minister for Local Government not yet asked the General Manager to explain to Huon Valley ratepayers why he allowed himself to be the centre of a conflict of interest, and why he allowed the council to continue with the flawed process.
