He said what?
- Details
- Published: Monday, 12 February 2024 13:10
The December “Worst HR in Local Government” issue gets around. Even to councillors at MidCoast. Our reporting on the alarming collapse in the morale of staff at Mid Coast since 2018, and a report to the Consultative Committee last year identifying 300 resignations in 12 months, attracted the attention of one councillor. Yes, only one councillor out of 11, and considering that section 8 The Council’s Charter of the Local Government Act provides amongst other things that the Council be “a responsible employer,” that seems an indictment of the rest. What do they think constitutes being a responsible employer?
Councillor Peter Epov’s concerns were reported in the Daily Telegraph Newslocal last week after he had placed questions on notice to the GM to answer at the Council meeting on 7 February. According to the news report he was concerned because he understood “it costs approximately $20,000 to replace just one staff member so when you get hundreds resigning in one year this equates to many millions of dollars in lost productivity. And this converts to a failure to deliver services” he said.
He asked “can the GM confirm that depa, for the second year in succession, conferred the Golden Turd Award” to Mid Coast Council for ‘the worst HR in local government’”. And whether the claims were correct that “MidCoast Council has had 300 resignations in the past 12 months, as stated in the last report to the Consultative Committee” and “Almost 500 of Council’s USU (United Services Union) members meeting and rejected the proposal to the salary system proposed by MCC with not one person supporting them?”
Those three reasonable questions were clear and unequivocal and could all be answered with a yes or no. Because they were true, they should have been answered with yes. But while the questions might be reasonable, the GM’s response wasn’t. He said the matter was confidential due to “personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors)”, even though the questions sought whether the allegations were factual, and made no reference to any individual or any personal matters.
What does “personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors)” actually mean? A reluctance to answer the question, or to fob off the questioner, or some unwritten rule to protect the guilty?
There needs to be some proper explanation of how a Council can lose more than 30% of its staff in a 12 month period, so we will ask for one, and clarify in our next issue.