November depaNews

For more than two decades, we’ve dealt with councillors behaving badly at a range of councils and at Parramatta, twice. We’ve had members place bans on councillors who have abused or criticised them in public or attempted to bully them and even had disputes in the IRC protecting the well-being of our members.

 How councillors behave is regulated by the Code of Conduct and the Procedures associated with it, but it all comes down to common sense, respect and being civil.

As simple as that may seem, there are occasions when councillors don’t do that, and when they don’t do that it, it falls to the GM to manage it and fix it. We’re happy to remind the GM of their responsibilities and to act if the GM fails to manage it.

Sutherland Shire Council has 15 councillors - seven Liberals and seven Labor with one independent, now the Mayor. It’s a bit like the Cold War with the two sides facing off but on this occasion it’s the Libs with the behavioural problems. Well, one Lib in particular.

In 2017 that councillor felt obliged to vent to a Manager who was a member of ours about his dissatisfaction - three f***ing, one sh*t and one I’m pissed off. A complaint was made, and within 24 hours the GM at the time had pulled the councillor in, had him recognise what he had done was unacceptable, had a meeting with the councillor and the employee concerned, the councillor apologised, the apology was accepted and hands shaken. No role for HR, fixed within a day. Well handled, Scott. Everyone at Sutherland misses you.

But on 4 June this year, the same councillor felt obliged to again vent to a supervisor under the already abused manager. This time, two f***ings, one sh*t and one pissed off. A new GM, not as focused or assiduous in the protection of staff as the predecessor, let it simmer. We wrote on 27 July, almost 2 months later, and on being ignored by the GM filed a dispute two days later.

The GM, or CEO as Sutherland prefer, wanted it all to be confidential as a Code of Conduct complaint investigation, even though we’d not made a complaint under the Code. This compromised the ability of the IRC to manage the real issue, the Council not prepared to say anything useful when we were involved in proceedings, preferring to speak privately to the Commissioner and finally, an investigation by a conduct reviewer was established.

 At no stage of this process did the CEO Manjeet Grewal tell us what was being investigated, whether there were multiple allegations, if there were what they were, whether they had paraphrased our requests into a code of conduct complaint (where we would have been the complainant, and would have had some rights about the process) or someone else was. Nor would she disclose who was being investigated until pressure from the IRC squeezed out that none of our members were being investigated or at risk.

The investigator spoke to employees and concluded that in a range of potential allegations (none of which we had made) that the councillor’s behaviour was indicative of a breach of 3.1(g) of the Code of Conduct prohibiting “harassment or bullying behaviour” but was insufficiently serious to warrant a further investigation. If our allegations had been formalised into specific complaints for investigation we would have been consulted on how to resolve it. We weren’t. We were told:

The CEO had determined to resolve this matter by way of explanation and informal discussion. This action has now been completed. No further action will be taken. Therefore Mr (name deleted but the supervisor) will not be provided with a written acknowledgement from (councillor’s name). Council has undertaken a process to satisfactorily resolve this issue to ensure that the appropriate standards of behaviour are abided to”. (sic)

That’s easy to say, isn’t it. No apology from the potty-mouthed councillor, and no acknowledgement at all from the councillor that their behaviour had been in anyway unacceptable. This is completely unacceptable, any employee harassed or bullied by a Councillor needs that councillor to have the unacceptable behaviour acknowledged to them and an apology extended. Ordinarily, the Council would be advised of what was going on and kept in the loop on the investigation and any penalties.

How hard is it to apologise, to clear the air and let everyone get on with it? We all try to teach that to our kids as a core value but it’s not a fundamental or valued approach at Sutherland. The CEO might claim it’s “satisfactorily resolved” but no one else has any confidence that it has been.

Clearly the CEO wasn’t going to help, so on 22 October we wrote to all the councillors outlining what had happened in 2017 and 4 June (without the polite asterisks we’ve chosen to use for fear of offending) and asked the councillors to make this commitment:

I agree that employees need to be treated with respect consistent with the Code of Conduct and give my undertaking to not only comply with the Code of Conduct, but in particular, to speak in a civil and professional way with staff and never use a raised voice nor unacceptable language.

We specifically used those expressions to identify what was wrong with the bullying and harassing councillor’s language and tone. The councillors themselves were not aware of the dispute, or the abuse, bullying and harassment leading to it other than by accident or misadventure. The CEO had decided that no one needed to know, there was nothing to see here. And they’re still not aware beyond what we told them in our letter.

Seven of the councillors have responded with a common commitment which avoids the specific behaviour we wanted addressed (it would seem because of an anxiety about litigation) but which nevertheless committed them, the seven ALP Councillors, to this:

I write to assure you and your members that I fully support the principle that all Council employees should be treated in a courteous manner with dignity and respect, not only in compliance with the Code of Conduct, but in order to ensure a safe, professional and non-discriminatory workplace. I regard this as a fundamental obligation for all Councillors when communicating with Council staff.

We have high hopes that the Mayor, an independent but also a Councillor well-known and lauded for his concern for staff and good governance, will join with Labor and we will have a majority of the councillors committing individually to better behaviour. But what about the rest?

Is there a reason why Liberal councillors would be less courteous, less capable of treating staff with dignity and respect and less committed to a safe, professional and non-discriminatory workplace? Why would the solidarity of the political party prevent even the most basic commitment to appropriate behaviour?

And how do employees respond now knowing that the seven Liberals won’t commit to proper behaviour? We will keep you in the loop.

It’s one thing to be disappointed about Sutherland when the curtains were pulled, the blinds were drawn and the screen of confidentiality was erected by the CEO so that no one knew anything about what was going on, what complaints had been made and by whom (not even in the IRC) when there was already a transparent and quick solution available, but what do other councils do?

In May a member of ours was abused on the Facebook page of the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser by a councillor. No stranger to Code of Conduct complaints, which he regarded as a badge of honour, but at Wagga Wagga a proactive GM, supportive of the staff and good governance acted immediately to have the councillor delete the posting and then, after complaints from depa, the employee concerned and others, to immediately contract a conduct reviewer to conduct the Code of Conduct investigation.

The Code itself requires a degree of confidentiality about investigations to ensure an investigator can have confidence that there has not been collusion between witnesses but at Wagga Wagga we were not only advised by the GM that the investigation process had begun, but were contacted in writing by the conduct reviewer who kept us advised of the process, within those confidential guidelines, so that we knew it was being properly managed and the complaint would not simply disappear or be ignored.

And when it was concluded, we received a letter from the conduct reviewer identifying the recommendations, which included a censure of the councillor and reference of the complaint to the Office of Local Government, so we understood the process had been conducted and its result. The councillor was censured by the Council consistent with the recommendation of the conduct reviewer and the entire complaint has been forwarded to the Office of Local Government for further action.

Wow, what a significantly different approach to Sutherland - one where employees can be comfortable and confident about the process because of the transparency. Confidentiality is important in an investigation but the Code of Conduct should not be managed by a Council behind closed doors. Not at Wagga Wagga do they do the “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”, thing.

There is more confidence in a process that is transparent.

If you Google transparent versus confidential you’ll see much information about the delicate line between the two and where it should be drawn. Confidentiality is not meant to be an excuse to hide the process.

We’ve been fascinated with Lyall Dix since the 1980s when, as an officer in the Department of Local Government, he was the prime mover setting up opportunities for councils in the old Local Government Act to contract work out. And then to generally start developing proposals for private certification.

Lyall has had more penalties imposed by the BPB than any other certifier, sufficient that he’ll never practise again, and he still holds the record for the biggest fine - $50,000 in 2012. But he continues to operate in a business called the Dix Gardner Group that does regularly find itself in the news for the sorts of things that had the BPB stripping Lyall of his accreditation.

On 18 October the Land and Environment Court ruled that a half-built luxury house at Seaforth on the Middle Harbour hadn’t been constructed according to its development consents, was encroaching on a neighbour’s property and was in need of emergency works to make it structurally stable. And as the Herald observes,

”To top it off, a sandstone block wall was erected on foreshore land that belonged to Transport for NSW, the court found”.

“Council told the court that there were two unauthorised balconies and an unauthorised staircase, a lift shaft in the wrong location and openings in the master bedroom and ground floor that were never approved.

Excavation and geotechnical piles were being installed under the house that were never included in the plans, the Council said. Those activities gave neighbours the impression an illegal third story was being built.

Council found the awning, staircase, terrace and pool were all encroaching onto a neighbour’s property and there was a question as to “how lawful access to the front door will be gained”.

The unlawful works were carried out under the watch of notorious private certifier Stanly Spyrou of the Dix Gardner Group, who is currently serving a five-year ban for allowing people to move into to other buildings posing a “hazard” to occupants.”

The shocked owner now needs a new development application with Northern Beaches Council.

How much longer will the NSW Government allow people stripped of their accreditation by the BPB/Fair Trading to continue to work running a business employing others?

Back in February a flurry of media releases announced that the Building Commissioner would have a staff of 75. It was announced that NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler “is looking for architects, engineers, site managers, certifiers and other industry experts to help weed out bad practice in the apartment construction industry.” This is a picture taken after the Premier Gladys  Berejiklian had announced that unlike her own personal behaviour, she believed in builders and developers applying the rules assiduously. Clearly the Building Commissioner thought that hilarious and even the current Premier is in on the joke.

Further tight regulations were promised but it’s hard to find out what’s happened about the recruitment of the 60 - and anything else about the intended 75 members of staff.

If you go to the Building Commissioner’s site you can watch podcasts but the closest thing you can find to an employee is Reg, who has his own blog “What would Reg say”.

Reg is the Building Commissioner’s “Mascot and Oracle”.  https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/projects-and-initiatives/building-commissioner/what-would-reg-say .

Reg has quite a lot to say but he doesn’t say the most important lesson that every investigation into building standards has established - namely that if you want a reliable job done by someone not paid for by the developer, you go to a Council. Even though he says “Don’t associate with risky players. Consider the company you keep. We’ll be using powerful matching technologies”, as advice to certifiers, at some stage the Building Commissioner needs to come to grips with the fact that the only certifiers without a conflict of interest are those employed by councils.

And if you happen to know anyone who’s taken a job with the Building Commissioner, please let us know.

Speaking of building, the proposed Design and Building Practitioners Regulation 2020 is now out for consultation.

Here is a communications package for those of you who are interested.

Our December issue and our prestigious awards are enthusiastically anticipated by the industry (and sometimes dreaded by those responsible for unacceptable HR practices) and the December issue will, as usual, publish the 2020 Awards.

And our usual end of year good wishes, the last family pic with Santa (that’s a relief) and news about our closure over Xmas/New Year.

It will also provide a proper farewell to Margaret Bayliss who has been our highly compatible and effective Office Manager now for close to seven years. Margaret has decided to retire at the end of the year. And we can introduce you to our new Office Manager.