In Tasmania’s north-west, council management of two resource-shared councils (Latrobe Council and Kentish Council) are facing pressure from councillors wanting to know more about their organisation, after attempts by one councillor to access workplace surveys completed in 2022 were refused by the General Manager.

At the Latrobe Council December meeting, tensions about meeting processes boiled over between Mayor Peter Freshney and Councillor Sommer Metske, when Cr Metske requested to move a motion without notice to release council staff surveys directly to all councillors.

Motion without notice, Accepted after initial rejection.

Initially the mayor attempted to reject the motion because notice was not provided to allow council to obtain ‘professional advice’. Under the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, a councillor is permitted to move a motion without notice, which Cr Metske stated for the benefit of the mayor and General Manager.

Latrobe General Manager, Gerald Monson, stated that “it’s unusual.”

The mayor claimed that “we can’t discuss things without professional advice; therefore I am rejecting your motion.”

Cr Metske stood firm, highlighting that “I can actually move a motion without notice, and the only reason that you can’t accept my motion is if it is offensive, unlawful, or contains offensive language.”

The mayor suggested that “There are other issues involved. Discussions on an agenda, all items have to be subject to or provided with professional advice.”

Mayor Freshney conceded that Cr Metske was correct in affirming that under the regulations councillors can move a motion without notice. Monson also acknowledged that notices without motion are accepted and added that “if councillors need further information, one option is to refer it back to the next meeting with the appropriate information.”

Motion to release Workplace Survey details

Cr Metske’s motion was that “The following results be provided to councillors in their entirety:

  1. Latrobe and Kentish Council’s Engagement Survey (May 2022), Summary and Text Comments

  2. Latrobe and Kentish Council’s Poll Survey (2023) Summary and Text Comments

  3. Subject to the following conditions

    1. Individual councillors must keep the information confidential

    2. Text comments are de-identified from names or specific information

    3. Information is provided directly to councillors to remove conflicts of interest from the leadership and staff”

Monson stated that the initial decision not to release the surveys was discussed and made by councillors in a closed meeting of council, and it was later revealed following a question from Cr Claudia Baldock that this was in August 2022. Cr Metske and five other current serving councillors were also councillors at this time prior to the October 2022 elections.

“The original decision was to not circulate that information to councillors on the basis that some of the comments could be identified. There has been discussion between myself and Cr Metske, and I have taken legal advice. Council will have to overturn the previous decision. Councillors may wish to see the information I have from council’s solicitor before they make a decision,” Monson stated.

It should be noted that Mayor Freshney stated that his initial attempt to reject the motion without notice was because council hadn’t had the opportunity to seek professional advice, yet a few moments later, Monson informs councillors that he has taken legal advice relating to a motion without notice attempting to reverse a past decision.

It should also be noted that in the meeting live stream it can be observed that Advocate reporter, Jess Flint, was observing the meeting through the digital Microsoft Teams link. Despite the newsworthy council debate, the local daily newspaper (The Advocate) has yet to provide a story through its publication.

Cr Metske statement in full:

“I’ve been following due process to request the information that I believe are require in order to confidently fulfil my role and as responsibilities as a councillor for the municipality as outlined in section 28 of the Local Government Act. I’ve been advised by the General Manager and his legal advice that providing the information would be beyond his powers and therefore I would have to move a motion to have that decision overturned.

A councillor in writing may request the general manager to make available any information or document or a copy of any information or document in the possession of the council that may be required for the purpose of performing any of the councillor’s functions. Section 28.2 of the (Local Government) Act states that councillors of a council collectively have the following functions to determine and monitor the application of policies plans and programs for the fair and equitable treatment of employees of the council.

The initial purpose of the 2022 staff survey was for councillors to ensure that they were able to meet the above mentioned obligations under the act.

This was instigated by public concerns over internal bullying and a toxic work culture which were brought forward by the media union and ex-employees.

I’m not satisfied that the recommended priorities outlined in the report released to the public on the initial survey have been actioned accordingly therefore on the information provided to councillors thus far, I’m not assured that the staff survey program is adequately ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of employees.

In order to understand the reasoning behind the selected priorities and actions undertaken by the leadership team I require the text comments of the original survey to inform me of any other relevant input into this decision to better understand the adequacy of the actions undertaken thus far I require the text comments of the subsequent poll survey to maintain council’s responsibilities under the Privacy Act I’ve requested the text comments be de-identified as councillors are not involved in the Performance Management of individual staff.”

Monson highlighted that if he had provided information to Cr Metske, he would have been overriding a decision of council, as his reasoning for providing the information, and advised Cr Metske the original decision needed to be overturned.

Mayor Freshney emphasised that “what would be required quite clearly would be a motion that council overturn a previous motion council that would require a majority of council support that motion. Your motion doesn’t go to overturning the previous decision.”

In response, Cr Metske made the point that “I don’t believe the previous decision would be overturning to allow the comments to be released to council staff and public, I don’t agree with that at this stage so that’s why I’ve moved a different motion for it just to be released to councillors under a confidentiality undertaking.”

The General Manager and mayor invited other councillors to make a point of order or an amendment to the motion to defer the motion until further information is provided.

None of the councillors moved an amendment.

Following a series of conversations about the nature of staff surveys, and their intent, the vote was put, and councillors voted 7-2 in favour of Cr Metske’s motion to release the information requested to all councillors.

After the vote was called, Monson interjected to clarify that councillors knew what they were voting on. The mayor then clarified the votes in favour of the motion and for a second time, seven councillors voted in favour of the motion with Deputy Mayor Vonette Mead and Mayor Freshney the two who voted against.

The following questions must be asked before the special closed meeting next week on 20th December is held, a meeting which may be slated to overturn Cr Metske’s motion that was successfully carried at the December meeting:

Do the mayor and deputy mayor want to keep this secret? When the mayor has since November 2021 stated no less than three times on the record he would bring these survey results to open council meeting.

In past council meetings, assurances have been provided on record that survey results would be brought to open council meeting; will the public also be made aware of workplace culture?

Is the General Manager trying to avoid scrutiny of council workplace culture by councillors?

Why was the original decision made to not show councillors this information in 2022?

Does the union have any comments to make on this issue?

With the hunt for a new General Manager following Monson’s announcement to retire part way through 2024, councillors must be informed on how council staff feel and if the council workplace is a healthy environment in order to fulfil their duties as overseers of the council. The mayor and councillors were elected to do this on behalf of the community. To be kept in the dark will reduce the trust the community has in councillors to properly and adequately manage council affairs. Will councillors act if provided with the requested information, or will there be just another layer of secrecy applied to prevent the public from being aware of the problems?

Other Council Issues

During the meeting, Cr Metske asked a question regarding ongoing legal expenses to the Latrobe Council. Acting Manager of Corporate and Business Services, Jan Febey, confirmed that the council’s Financial Report was declaring legal fees in the material expenses column this month of $41,000.00.

These legal fees relate to ongoing legal matters, and according to the report had cost council a yet to be disclosed figure as proceedings were still underway, with information supplied to Tasmanian Times indicating that these legal costs will be ongoing and projected to grow significantly over the next year.

To recap the meeting, please follow the link to council’s YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHsgZVfwnwk

Review into Toxic Council Cultures

It is not the first time that the Latrobe workplace culture has been pinpointed, with reports by the Australian Services Union (ASU) in 2021 outlining ongoing issues: https://www.themercury.com.au/news/north-west-coast/union-survey-finds-bullying-rife-at-two-councils-that-share-workforce/news-story/d43fee5cc4f85e13db6355ff5eaac795

Other local councils have had past workplace issues with past reports, including Waratah-Wynyard Council in 2013, which also was subject to an independent review. This is in relation to concerns about current workplace culture and if improvements have been made since, or if problems still persist.

Tasmanian Times can confirm that there is follow up on that report which was also not released to councillors or the public. Right to Information requests have been submitted and rejected by the Waratah-Wynyard Council, following a number of initial public questions during open council meeting.

The Ombudsman has since been engaged, and is now undertaking an external review of the decision by council to reject the Right to Information. There is a backlog in requests that the office of the Ombudsman, so whether information will be released in a timely fashion (if at all) is uncertain.

There are some suggestions that the Ombudsman as the gatekeeper also makes determinations that do not reflect the principles of public interest disclosure. This could be politically motivated, or just utilising the Right to Information Act to the advantage of the public authorities, where secrecy is preferred to transparency.

With the recent review into the Future of Local Government by the Local Government Board, one would have hoped that workplace culture may have been part of the review process. However with the major focus on cost savings, council mergers and resource sharing efficiencies, deficient processes within council workplaces may actually serve to maintain toxic workplace cultures.

Allegations of toxic workplace culture or concerns about issues within the authority have been made against a number of councils and state departments in recent years, including the following:

Northern Midlands Council (2023)

Australian Antarctic Division (2023)

Office of the Tasmanian Attorney General (2023)

Waratah-Wynyard Council (2023 & 2013)

Burnie City Council (2023)

Tasmanian Fire Service (2023)

Hobart City Council (2022)

Tasmanian Parliament (2022)

Clarence City Council (2022)

Huon Valley Council (2022 & 2016)

West Tamar Council (2022)

Latrobe & Kentish Council (2021)

West Coast Council (2021)

Ambulance Tasmania (2021)

Tasmanian Prison Service (2020)

Heritage Tasmania (2020)

Glamorgan – Spring Bay Council (2019)

Derwent Valley Council (2018+)

Tasmanian Health Service (2017)

Glenorchy City Council (2017)

When will our public authorities improve internal management?

How many more public authorities have below standard environments for public servants and council staff?

Is there something wrong with the structure of councils that creates workplace cultural issues?

Are there solutions to these re-emerging issues, and if so, what are they and when will they be implemented?

Are reports into councils going to be used as the rationale to amalgamate those councils, even though assurances have been made by the State Government that there will be no forced council mergers?

Is an early election in the pipeline for 2024, so that should the Liberals be re-elected, they can take the final Future of Local Government Review Report (due early 2024) and carry out pre-meditated and planned amalgamations?

As part of the Local Government reform process, there could be greater insight for representatives and communities if there is a public Commission of Inquiry into all Tasmanian councils before councils are relegated to the history books, and the same cultures are just transferred to the new councils.

A Commission of Inquiry could investigate all councils and issues that often stem from years of mismanagement, present findings, and propose recommendations into the structure of Local councils so that ‘toxic workplace culture’ fades from the news media landscape, at least for the Local Government sector. The recent Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings provided a focal point for all who had vital information to share, and now the Tasmanian Parliament has the evidence and recommendations required to implement systemic change in relevant public departments.

End Note:

In a 2021 Reddit thread, a user known as ‘XanthussMarduk’ summarised the list to date at the time:

Why is the Tasmanian public service so dysfunctional?

Toxic management seems to be running rampant through all levels of government in Tasmania and the various ‘independent’ government entities .

In the last few years, there have been major reports about mismanagement, abuse, management bullying, toxic culture or government interference at –

Office of Racing Integrity – Allegations of toxic work culture, lost nearly 20 staff in one year

DPIPWE – Report of ministerial pressure to drop investigations, allegations of toxic work culture

Biosecurity Tasmania – Allegations of toxic work culture, bullying

University of Tasmania – Allegations of toxic work culture, bullying, using NDAs to silence staff

Huon Valley Council – Toxic work culture, allegations of corruption in hiring practices, council dismissed, replaced, then 2 councilors and mayor resign

Clarence Council – Allegations of toxic work culture

West Tamar Council – Allegations of toxic work culture

Glenorchy Council – Allegations of toxic work culture

Kentish Council – Allegations of toxic work culture

Glamorgan-Spring Bay – Allegations of code of conduct breaches and misuse of funds by mayor

Latrobe Council – Allegations of toxic work culture

Ambulance Tasmania – Allegations of toxic work culture

Heritage Tasmania – Allegations of toxic work culture

The Environmental Protection Agency – Allegations of corruption and government interference

The Public Trustee – Allegations of corruption, abuse of power

Ashley Youth Detention Centre – Covered up abuse of inmates

Launceston General Hospital – Covered up abuse, medical malpractice, toxic work culture, failing to notify the coroner of suspicious deaths

The Department of Education – Covered up abuse of students

The Child Safety Service – Covered up abuse of children in its care

Macquarie Point Development Corporation – CEO accused of bullying, mismanagement of public funds

This isn’t even touching on the scandals at mostly-government funded but ‘independent’ organisations like RSPCA Tasmania, the Tourism Industry Council Tasmania and Cricket Tasmania.

According to a survey, 1 in 4 public sector employees experience bullying at work.

What the hell has gone so seriously wrong in all levels of our state governance?

https://www.reddit.com/r/tasmania/comments/uca2t6/why_is_the_tasmanian_public_service_so/?rdt=36496

James Redgrave and Codie Hutchison are keen observers of local government in north-west Tasmania.