NSW Election Avalanche of complaints against Electoral Commission that people were denied right to vote

Reports are coming in thick on NSW talk back radio with many people ringing in an complaint that they have lived at the same address for years and they were denied the right to vote.

Colin Barry, Victoria's past Electoral Commissioner came under fire in an interview on NSW Talk back radio. Mr Barry's Track record in conducting public elections is not the best. Mr Barry was Chief Commissioner in Victoria when the VEC introduced electronic counting of ballot papers. He was created at the time for not ensuring that the system that was put in place was subject to proper scrutiny.

Mr Barry refused to provide scrutineers copies of the preference data files used to determine the results of the election. Without access to this information it was impossible to verify the results of the electronic count. Mr Barry fallaciously claimed that the computer system used by the VEC could not produce copies of the preference data files.

It was only following a complaint to the State Parliament that the software in use by the VEC did not meet industry standards that Mr Barry all of a sudden realised that the software did in fact provide a means to extract this information. Copies of the preference data could be copied on to a diskette and take approximately 2 mins to copy.

There were a number of other issues of concern related to the Victorian electronic count system that was left wanting not the least the time and resources to undertake a computerised count of a single member electorate was significantly greater and less open and transparent then if the election was counted manually. Raising the question why were computers used to count the election results. Answer Boys with new toys.

Mr Barry resigned from Victoria and took up a position in the NSW State Government as NSW Electoral Commissioner.

State election Under Review The Parliament has just announced its review of the 2006 State Election

The Victorian State Government has just announced that it has set up joint house inquiry into the Victorian State Election.

The committee will be calling for written submissions next week and is expected to conclude its enquiry and report back to the State Parliament after June 30, 2007

There are many issues that we have identified in relation to the conduct of the State election not the least issues related to the VEC failure to publish copies of detailed results of the election (Including polling place results for the Victorian Legislative Council - The media will come in for a bit of a serve here).

In addition issues of serious concern in relation to
1) the lack of full certification of software used in the conduct of the election
2) members of the VEC accessing the results of the e-voting centre polling places prior to the close of the poll on Saturday November 25, 2006 in the absence of scrutineers
3) VEC handling of FOI requests
4) review of the Victorian Ombudsman Act in order to ensure that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the Victorian Electoral Commission and other issues.

The Parliament is expected to advertise the hearings next week.

Written submission can be forwarded to Mark Roberts, Executive Officer, Electoral Matters Committee, Parliament House, Spring Street East Melbourne.

No email address have been provided by copies of any submission could be also forward to the Speaker and President of the Parliament House.


More information

CEO High Roller David Pitchford receives salary pakage greater then John Howard

Melbourne City Council CEO David Pitchford is listed as one of the big rollers pocketing over $350,000 plus benefits paid for by the City ratepayers and money collected by corrupt traffic officers. More then John Howard and Steve Bracks. Is he worth it?

David Pitchford was paid a bonus on top of his salary last year even though the Ombudsman found the City Council under Pitchfords stewardship, with the assistance of ex-City Council legal adviser Allison Lyons, tried to thwart the Ombudsman investigation last year in an attempted cover-up of the crime of ripping off motorists. Maybe this is why he received a bonus.


The Herald Sun reports:


Councils spend big
Peter Rolfe Sunday Herald-Sun March 25, 2007 12:00am

BIG-SPENDING local councils are paying senior staff more than the Prime Minister receives.

Flush with funds as property owners pay record rates and charges, at least three Melbourne councils are rewarding chief executives with pay packages that eclipse John Howard's.
At least 12 are paying chief executives more than Victoria's Premier, Steve Bracks.

Melbourne City Council chief executive David Pitchford leads the list of high earners, pocketing a package worth more than $354,000 a year.

Apart from a cash salary of $241,553, Mr Pitchford is also entitled to a 25 per cent performance bonus plus superannuation, a car and expenses.

Mr Howard's total annual package for running the country is just over $309,000.

Mr Bracks is on $235,000 a year.

Monash Council chief David Conran has an annual package of $315,750, including a salary of $250,000.

Boroondara boss Peter Johnstone earns more than $337,500 to administer the suburbs of Hawthorn, Camberwell, Canterbury and Kew with a 25 per cent bonus on top of his $232,371 base salary plus a car and superannuation.

And Whitehorse chief Noeline Duff earns more than $292,700.

Ratepayers Victoria president Jack Davis said council spending was out of control.

"People will be shocked to find out how much these people are being paid," he said.

New York Apple Pie John So and Council propose expenditure of 26,000 for 3 day junket

New York, New York, what a wonderful town at 26,000 for two to visit the big apple


Melbourne City Council's "Can not say no to proposed expenditure" John So is planning a 3 day visit to America's "big apple" New York. The Load Mayor and Geoff Lawless are proposing to spend up big whilst visiting the big apple at an estimated cost of $13,000 each for three days. 'Ouch' there goes the budget. Most people can live for a year on $26,000.

Those ratepayers that are struggling to pay off the second mortgage or those who are homeless might like to reflect more on the excess of the Lord Mayors Office. (this is just the tip of the ice berg)


The advertised cost of a business class ticket from Qantas is listed at $12,820 (Flight Centre lists from $5,670) Qantas economy class listed at $2,307).



Assuming the Council can secure a competitive air fare that means the Lord Mayor and Jeff Lawless will be spending around $3,000 a day on a rate-payer funded New York luxury holiday no expenses spared.

Travel on.


The Large Cities Climate Leadership Group (who is organising this junket) is a group of cities committed to teh reduction of Green House Gas Emmissions and adopting to climate change. Questions not asked by teh City Council Travel club members include: Could the aims and aobjkects of this conference have been ahchieved by organising a e-conference and internet link up as opposed to proping up the business travel tourist sector?

Carbon Emission Sustainability consumption (Missing from report)

The proposed New York Travel will generate in excess of 7.5 tons of Co2 gas based on calculation for an economy air fare ticket. (Four times gas generated more for Business Class).

Note to Fraser Brindely: If the City Council is serious about a Green Environment then it should as a matter of course list down the estaimated carbon emmision form all interstate and international council funded travel. CVr Brindly should seek amendemnet to teh City Couchnils travel guidelines to ensure that this information is readily available and noted on all applications for travel.

Junket Committee resurrected Melbourne City Council proposes re-establishing junket committee to boost Councillors prospects of Travel benefits

The Melbourne City Council has proposed the re-establishment of a special Travel Committee to decide who and when Councillors can seek to take holidays at ratepayers expenses.

Melbourne's most travelled Councillor, Liberal Party member - Fiona Sneden, has proposed that the Council removes delegated authority for approval of Councillor Travel from the Lord Mayor and transfers that responsibility back to a special committee titled "Council International Connections Committee" (CICC).

This committee is a waste of time and resources and should be rejected as it currently is proposed..

Whilst there is merit in removing delegated authority from the Lord Mayor the resurrection of the disgraced Travel Committee is not necessary. There already is a committee in place that can and should consider Council travel issues. It is called the Finance and Governance Committee.

Council staff have already strategically removed the right of the Finance and Governance Committee to consider and decide on issues related to governance.

The establishment of another Special Travel committee be it under a "new name" is necessary and a waste of limited resources. All that the proposal by Cr Sneden serves is to avoid public awareness and the right of the public to monitor and review the Council and the larks and perks that Councillors continue to seek to regard themselves for being good councillors.

All Council's International and Interstate Travel should be included and attached to the Finance Committee without the need and expense associated with the cost of establishing another useless inappropriate committee that meets behind closed doors away from the public eye.

It never ceases to amuse that the Council staff, in this case Linda Weatherson, falsely states in her report " There are no direct financial implications relating to the adoption of the recommendations contained in this report".


It appears that the City Council is more concerned about councilor benefits and travel then about good governance and representation.


.

.

City retail in decline Myers scales down Lonsdale Street retail outlet

Myers Melbourne to scale down City outlet amidst concern that City retail is in serious decline.

News realised today indicates that Myers, Melbourne's iconic retail outlet has decided to close down its Lonsdale Street outlet with hundreds of jobs set to vacate the city center. Myers decision comes as no surprised as suburb outlets and problems associated with traffic access and parking in the city centre undermining the viability of Myers premier store.

Questions are being asked as to what action plan the City Council has to fill the void that will be left standing as yet another major city site faces the prospect of remianing vacant.

teh scaling down of Myers will also have a flow on effect to other city business who rely on passing trade and custom from Myers workers.

We can soon expect more announcements of City retail outlets calling it a day and vacating the City Center.

Pitchford offered only two more years question raised about legality of re-appointment

Melbourne City Council has offered incumbent CEO, David Pitchford only two more years in what is normally a three to five year contract.

The decision of Council was to agree to a limited extension indicating that David Pitchford has effectively been put on notice that he should seek alternative employment. A similar provision was adopted for Michael Malouf whose contract was effectively terminated early with the City Council cutting the term of the contract from five years to three.

There a a number of question of legality still outstanding.

It is understood that David Pithford's current contract expires on September 30 2007. If this is correct then the contract is outside the six months statutory period in which the Council can resolve to extend the contract.

The City Council has not advertised its intention to re-appoint the CEO for a further two years nor has the position been advertised. Given that the decision of the Council is outside the six month period prior to date of expiry of the current contract there is serious concern that the contract may be void under section 94 (7) of the local Government Act.

Melbourne City Councillors have been reassured by Councils in-house legal advisers that the reappointment does comply with the terms of the Local Government Act.

The City Council is due to finalise the arrangements at its meeting scheduled for March 27, 2007 which is still outside the six month statutory period.


Section 94 clause (4) of the Local Government Act requires that the City Council must provide 14 days public notice of its intention to renew the CEO's contract if the decision is made within 6 months of the CEO contract expiring. The council was advised by the Council's in-house legal officers that they did not have to provide public notice as the decision to re-appoint the CEO was outside the six months statutory period.

However

Section 94 clause (7) of the Local Government Act states that

A contract of employment as Chief Executive Officer between a Council and a person is void if it is made—

(a) in circumstances that are contrary to this section; or

(b) while a current contract of employment as Chief Executive Officer with the person exists and that current contract is not due to expire for at least another 6 months (regardless of whether or not the Chief Executive Officer's position has been readvertised);

David Pitchford and the City Council could be on very thin ice indeed.


UPDATE: We have just been informed that David Pitchfords current contract expires on 22nd September, not Septemeber 30 as we previously thought, in which case the comments about compliance with the Local Government Act do not apply.
However The fact that David Pitcford's contract has been limited to only two years is still an indication of Mr Pitchford's standing in the Council.

David Pitchford has presided over a corrupt administration which resulted in the City Council being investigated by the State Ombudsman whose report found that the Council had acted inappropriately in the management of its traffic services.

The Melbourne City Council's governance department acting on advice on advice by Alison Lyons had actively sought to cover-up and avid the investigation by the Ombudsman Department/ This was not the first time the City of Melbourne Governance department and the Traffic management department have acted in a corrupt questionable manner. (Prior to David Pitchford's appointment)

We continue to ask on what basis has Melbourne's CEO been offered bonus payments given the extent of allegations and the cover-up following the Ombudsman's review.

Tully's Tally does not Tally Review Campaign to restore public confidence in our public elections

Andrew Landeryou has taken up the issue of the Victorian Electoral Commission charging $5,000 in a questionable act of good faith for copies of Polling place detailed election results.

It is fundamental for public elections to be open and transparent. Steve Tully, Chief Commissioner's refusal to make the details of the State election continues to bring Victoria's public elections in to disrepute.

A number of issues of concern have been identified in relation to the Commissions conduct of the state election including:

1. Reports that the Victorian Electoral Commission had accessed the results of the electronic voting kiosk data files prior to the close of the ballot on 26 November 2006 without notifying or in the presence of scrutineers.
   
2. The failure of the Victorian Electoral Commission to provide daily statistical information the number of postal and pre-poll ballot papers issued and received in the lead-up to the 26 November 2006 State Election.
   
3. The failure of the Victorian Electoral Commission to publish detailed polling place result for the Legislative Council (Polling place results were published by the Electoral Commission in relation to the Victorian Legislative Assembly but not the Legislative Council) In past elections polling place results were published for both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council
   
4. The certification of software used to calculate the results of the State election.
   
5. The number of serious mistakes made in the counting of the Victorian Legislative Council election.
   
6. The refusal of the Victorian Electoral Commission to provide detailed copies of information requested in a timely fashion so as to enable independent public analysis and review.
   
7. The need for legislation and regulations to recognise the Internet as a means of providing public information and details of election results.
   
8. The need to review the Victorian State Ombudsman Act to remove the exclusion of the Victorian Electoral Commission from review by the Office of the Victorian State Ombudsman.
   

Additional information is available on the Internet site http://melbcity.topcities.com

A letter has been sent to ALL members of the State Parliament and the State Ombudsman requesting a review of the Victorian Election Commission.


Saturday, 10 March 2007

VOTE COUNTING: Election Savant Battles Electoral Commission // $5000 Charge For Polling Place Data Shock

Election expert Anthony van der Craats has declared war on the cardigan wearers at the Victorian Electoral Commission over their failure to fully disclose crucial count-information from the last Victorian election.

CONTROVERSIAL COMPUTER COUNTS

The VEC's controversial decision to spend millions of dollars on vote-counting software for local government and proportional representation state ballots continues to cause the state agency problems.

Critics - like van der Craats - say that the software does not comply with legislative requirements of disclosure and transparency.

Anthony on his website says that:

Information obtained under FOI indicates that the software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been fully certified and that there is insufficient checks and balances in the system to ensure that the results of the computerised count are accurate and correct.

He asks (in relation to the Mooney Valley Counsil by-election) why the VEC are using a computerised count in elections where it is clearly inefficient to do so?:

The election is expected to take 24 data-entry operators two hours to count., That's 48 man hours. A manual count would take four people approximately 4-5 hours to count a net savings of 28 man hours. So where is the benefit of a computerised count, and at what costs..

He also claims that a computerised count is impossible to correctly scrutinise, a point well understood by any politico who has attempted to do so. Dozens of data enterers quickly key in the ballots and it's practically impossible to scrutinise the count in the way that is normally the case in Australian elections. The Commission seems to regard count scrutineers as their natural enemy and they appear to be using these computerised counts as a weapon against the "inconvenience" they cause.

What they don't get is that scrutiny of vote-counting and a faith in the integrity of the election process itself is at the heart of why - unlike some societies - we accept the legitimacy of governments that are elected, regardless of how much we might individually disagree with them. Electoral Commissions are the custodians of that faith and I suspect may not fully comprehend its importance.

POLLING PLACE DATA COSTS $5000!
Van der Craats does get it though and is like a dog with a bone on these issues, thankfully.

His latest battle with the VEC centres on their refusal to publish Legislative Council results by polling place, something they routinely had done in the past.

After van der Craats requested this data under the Freedom of Information Act, they reluctantly agreed to comply but only if he paid some $5000 for them to compile it. Some might call that the most expensive piece of free information ever sought.

This position is unsustainable. Polling place breakdowns of the upper house voting information ought be published by the Commission as a matter of course, in the unlikely event they don't have the resources to do so then the Government must ensure they do.

Game on.

Posted by Andrew Landeryou at 11:45 AM

Gary Singer exposed Melbourne City Deputy Lord Mayor caught out telling Grand Prix porkies in the year of the pig

Melbourne City Councillor and Deputy Lord Mayor has been exposed in an article published in the Age newspaper claiming that he was not properly informed and never told about the proposed 100km/hour Grand Prix horn ride down Lygon Street Carlton. Reports in the Age newspaper indicate that the City Council had been discussion the proposed 100km/hr promotional joy ride extensively over the last three month. Questions have been raised about the truthfulness of the Deputy Lord Mayor's statements and claims that he was not properly informed.

Cr Singer is quoted as saying "'I had no understanding as to what the speed was going to be' The deputy Lord Mayor admitted he may have received the note but not read it."

Cr Singer ,who has been the subject of controversy, was the subject of an inquiry last year by the Law Institute for breaches of professional ethics in relation to his private legal practice. Cr Singer was de-registered from practicing law in Tasmania following a damming report from the legal professions watchdog to the State Parliament. In 2005 Cr singer was also the subject of a review by the Victorian Law Society were he was found guilty of professional misconduct for withholding funds and payments held in trust.



Councillor 'not told' of Ferrari limit
Source: The Age
Clay Lucas
March 3, 2007

DESPITE receiving a detailed briefing note last month saying the original plan for today's Ferrari Festival on Lygon Street was to run a formula one car down Lygon Street at speeds of up to 100 km/h, Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer says he was never told about the plan.

Today, an F1 car will drive down Lygon Street at 60 km/h an hour, despite the initial plans.

Melbourne City Council had for three months talked with the Grand Prix Corporation about the 100 km/h speed limit but the council and the corporation dropped the plans after pressure from Tourism Minister Tim Holding, who did not want to be seen to be promoting hooning.

"I had no understanding as to what the speed was going to be," said Cr Singer, who admitted he may have received the note but not read it.

"I doubt I saw it — I get two inches of paper a day (from Melbourne City Council)," he said. "I was briefed on the day."

Cr Singer said that the launch of today's event had not been handled well, but that it would still be a wonderful day.

"It couldve been handled better but that's life," he said.

On January 20, when the council was still planning to run the Ferrari at 100km/h, local chef 27-year-old Damian Cooper was killed in an alleged hit-run collision.

His father, Mark, has campaigned hard against running the F1 car over Lygon Street's 50 km/h speed limit, and wants the street's speed limit reduced permanently to 40 km/h.

Accompanying the F1 Ferrari being driven at 60 km/h will be a parade of 60 vintage Ferraris celebrating the 60th anniversary of the car company.

VEC refuses to publish submission critical of its handling of the State election Steve Tully brings the Local Government Review into disrepute

The Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to publish submissions made to the various Local Government Electoral Representation Reviews. The submission is critical of the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission's administration of the 2006 State Elections and its management of the Local Government review.

A statement made by Ms Sue Lang, representing Steve Tully - Victoria's Chief Electoral Commissioner, indicated that the VEC would not be publishing the submission.

The Victorian Electoral Commission's refusal to publish the submission has once again brought the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Victorian Local Government review into disrepute.

The submissions are similar to previous submissions that have been published by the Victorian Electoral Commission except that the current submission includes a section that is critical of the Victorian Electoral Commission's administration and management of the 2006 Victorian State Election. Information that is relevant to the Local Government Electoral Representation Reviews.

Information obtained under Freedom of Information legislation has indicated that the software currently used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in determining the results of the election has not been fully certified.

The City of Melbourne in 2004 had paid the Victorian Electoral Commission over $100,000 for software development. Presumably similar amounts have been paid by other Local Council's and the State Government in what is a very expensive software development project. The fact that the software has not been fully certified and there are a number of short falls in it's design and implementation raises concerns in relation to exactly what has the Victorian Electoral Commission spent the money on.

The conduct of the November 2006 Victorian Legislative Council election had identified a number of serious errors in the administration and counting of the ballot indicating that the system put in place by the Victorian Electoral Commission were not fully tested and does not meet industry standards. Problems associated with the conduct of the State election was further compounded by the refusal of the Victorian Electoral Commissioner to publish detailed results of the State Election (including the number of postal and pre-polling votes issued and returned prior to November 25, recorded below-the-line preference data and the Commission's refusal to published the detailed polling place results of the Victorian Legislative Council).

The software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in the conduct of the State Election is the same software used for Local Council elections.

The Local Government Minister has yet to respond to the complaint.


Addendum notation

The Victorian Local Government Election Regulations clause 110 (4) states “Before calculating the result, the returning officer must reconcile the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of ballot-papers received".

This is something that was clearly missing from the November 2006 Victorian State Election and not accounted for in the software used to determine the re4ulst of the State Election.

Had the VEC reconciled the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of ballot-papers received the significant number of errors in the conduct of the election count would not have occurred. A complete lack of due diligence on behalf of the Victorian Electoral Commission

Boys with Toys VEC once again seeks to use computers to limit public scrutiny of election count

Reports coming in from scrutineers and candidates indicates that the Victorian Electoral Commission is once again proposing to use a computerised counting system for the Mooney Valley City Council By-election scheduled to be counted this weekend.

Under dispute is the need to conduct a computerised count for the election of a single member when a manual count would be quicker and require less resources and more important would be more open and transparent.

The use of a computerised count in a single member constituency can not be justified. The time and resources required to undertake a computerised count is much more then it would be if the election was manually counted. Any time saved is only at the expense the public scrutiny by cutting corners reducing the overall quality of the count.

Computerised counting was not used to count the results of the Victorian Legislative Assembly (Lower-house) election in November.

The Victorian Electoral Commissions conduct of the Victorian Legislative Council (Upper-house) election in November 2006 demonstrates that VEC's computerised counting system has some major problems. Information obtained under FOI indicates that the software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been fully certified and that there is insufficient checks and balances in the system to ensure that the results of the computerised count are accurate and correct.

The Victorian Local Government Act Schedule 3, Part 3 subclause 10 (c) (ii) requires that the VEC undertake a preliminary sort of ballot papers into parcels based on the allocated first preference vote.

The VEC claim that they are exempt from this provision of the act where the election is conducted by post and a computerised counting system is used.

The election is expected to take 24 data-entry operators two hours to count., That's 48 man hours. A manual count would take four people approximately 4-5 hours to count a net savings of 28 man hours. So where is the benefit of a computerised count, and at what costs,. A computerised count is virtually impossible to effectively scrutinise.

The tally of the 2006 Victorian Legislative Council also required that the Victorian Electoral Commission presort ballot papers into parcels based on the first preference allocation.

This is an important part of the scrutiny of the ballot. Without this provision scrutineers are limited in their ability to undertake a proper scrutiny of the counting of the election. Ballot paper preferences are keyed in a random fashion and scrutineers are unable to focus on a particular candidates preferences.

The VEC electronic shell game

There is further concern that the Electoral Commission refuses to provide copies of the recorded preference data file for independent analysis and review, further denying the opportunities and ability to undertake a proper scrutiny of the count.

This is akin to the con-mans game of three shells and a pea where the returning officer declares the results of the game by lifting up one shell showing that the pea is not there but refuses to show what's underneath the other two shells.

Use of computerised counting of single member constituencies should be prevented until such time as full and comprehensive review of the electronic voting systems has been undertaken,

A Manual count would facilitate an open and transparent scrutiny of the ballot and would be preferable then the proposed computerised count,

The Victorian Electoral Commission is more interested in playing with its latest toy then it is about public accountability and the maintenance of open and transparent electoral system.

Given the experience of recent past events the VEC management of the electronic count can not be trusted.

The fact that the VEC is prepared to misrepresent the facts in respect to the legislative requirements in order to cut corners is further evidence for a major review of the functions and operation of the Victorian Electoral Commission.

What’s also interesting

In reading the Victorian Local Government Election regulations clause 110 (4) states “Before calculating the result, the returning officer must reconcile the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of ballot-papers received".

This is something that was clearly missing from the November 2006 Victorian State Election.

Had the VEC reconciled the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of ballot-papers received the significant number of errors in the conduct of the election count would not have occurred. A complete lack of due diligence on behalf of the Victorian Electoral Commission

The total number of ballot papers recorded in the final Western Metropolitan count had up to 470 ballot papers missing from the previous count.

There is little to wonder as to why the VEC does not want to publish the polling place details of the 2006 Legislative Council results as it prevents public review and independent analysis of the dodgy electronic election count.

Hopefully these errors in administration will not occur in the NSW State Election count and that copies of preference data-files and polling place results are readily available prior to the declaration of the poll.

Victorian Local Government Act 1989 (version 085)
Schedule 3, Part 3 clause 10 (c) ((ii)
Requires that the ballot papers must be sorted into parcels based on the allocated first preference

PART 3 RESULT WHERE ONLY ONE COUNCILLOR IS TO BE ELECTED

9. Only two candidates
If only 1 Councillor is to be elected and there are only
2 candidates the result is to be determined as follows
(a) the candidate who has received the greater number of
first preference votes is to be declared elected by the
returning officer;

(b) if the 2 candidates have received an equal number of
votes the result is to be determined by lot by the
returning officer.

10. More than two candidates

If only 1 Councillor is to be elected and there are more than
2 candidates the result is to be determined as follows
(a) the candidate who has received the greatest number of
first preference votes if that number constitutes an
absolute majority of votes is to be declared elected by
the returning officer;
(b) "Absolute majority of votes" means a number of
votes greater than one-half of the total number of
ballot-papers (excluding ballot-papers which are
rejected) and if necessary includes the vote by lot;
(c) if no candidate has received an absolute majority of
votes, the returning officer upon receipt of the several
sealed parcels from any authorised person and with
the assistance of any authorised persons and in the
presence and subject to the inspection of any
1 scrutineer, if present, appointed by each candidate
but of no other person, must
(i) open all the sealed parcels containing used
ballot-papers; and
(ii) arrange such ballot-papers together with the
allowed postal ballot-papers, if any, by placing
in a separate parcel all those on which a first
preference is indicated for the same candidate
and preference votes are also duly given for all
the remaining candidates, omitting ballot papers
which are rejected; and
(iii) declare the candidate who has received the
fewest first preference votes a defeated
candidate; and
(iv) distribute the ballot-papers counted to the
defeated candidate amongst the non-defeated
candidates next in order of the voters'
preference; and
(v) after the distribution again ascertain the total
number of votes given to each non-defeated
candidate;
(d) the candidate who has then received the greatest
number of votes if that number constitutes an absolute
majority of votes is to be declared elected by the
returning officer;
(e) if no candidate then has an absolute majority of votes
the process of declaring the candidate who has the
fewest votes a defeated candidate and distributing the
ballot-papers counted to the defeated candidate
amongst the non-defeated candidates next in order of
the voters' preference is to be repeated until
1 candidate has received an absolute majority of votes
and is declared elected by the returning officer;
(f) if on any count 2 or more candidates have an equal
number of votes and 1 of them has to be declared a
defeated candidate, the result is to be determined
(i) by declaring whichever of those candidates had
the fewest votes at the last count at which those
candidates had a different number of votes to be
defeated; or
(ii) if a result is still not obtained or there has been
no count, by lot by the returning officer;

CEO deliberations To advertise or not to advertise that is the question

While the City 0f Melbourne contemplates its CEO's contract and its deliberations it is worth noting the requirements under the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 (extract from version 85 dated July1, 2006. copy below)

Section 94 (3) of the Local Government Act places a obligation on the City of Council to advertise the position and consider considered all applications received by it .

There is a provision of an opt-out clause (sub section 4) stress being on op-out, where the Council can within 6 months of the CEO's contract date of expiry the Council give notice and resolve to extend the current CEO's contract without advertising the position but not before hand. The City of Melbourne's current CEO contract expires on September 30, 2007.

Clearly the obligation is for the Council in the first place to advertise the appointment of its CEO and consider all applicants, including the incumbents application for a renewal, on their merit.

The Council can resolve to extend the CEO contract for a maximum period of 12 months without having to re-advertise the position (sub section 4A).



-- Extract of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 (version 85) --

94. The Chief Executive Officer
(1) A Council must appoint a natural person to be its
Chief Executive Officer.
(2) The Chief Executive Officer is a member of
Council staff.
(3) A Council may only appoint a person to be its
Chief Executive Officer after it has invited
applications for the position in a notice in a
newspaper circulating generally throughout
Victoria and has considered all applications
received by it that comply with the conditions
specified in the notice.
(4) Sub-section (3) does not apply if—
(a) in the 6 months immediately before the
person's contract as Chief Executive Officer
is due to expire, the Council passes a
resolution to reappoint that person as its
Chief Executive Officer; and
(b) at least 14 days before the resolution is
passed, public notice was given of the
intention to put the resolution; and
(c) the public notice contained—
(i) a statement that the passing of the
resolution would result in the
reappointment of the Chief Executive
Officer without the position being
advertised; and
(ii) any other details required by the
regulations.
(4A) Sub-section (3) also does not apply if a Council
appoints a person to act as its Chief Executive
Officer for a period of not more than 12 months.
(5) A Council must not remunerate in any way a
person who has filled the Chief Executive
Officer's position on an acting basis for 12 months
for anything the person does in respect of that
position after that 12 month period (unless the
person is appointed after the Council has complied
with sub-section (3)).
(6) If a Council passes a resolution to reappoint a
person as its Chief Executive Officer without
advertising the position, the Council must make
details of the person's proposed total remuneration
as Chief Executive Officer under the new contract
available for public inspection within 14 days
after the passing of the resolution.
(7) A contract of employment as Chief Executive
Officer between a Council and a person is void if
it is made—
(a) in circumstances that are contrary to this
section; or
(b) while a current contract of employment as
Chief Executive Officer with the person
exists and that current contract is not due to
expire for at least another 6 months
(regardless of whether or not the Chief
Executive Officer's position has been
readvertised); or
(c) before a general election for a term that
continues after the general election and the
contract of employment was entered into
following a variation made to the Chief
Executive Officer's then current contract of
employment that reduced its term.

95A. Employment of senior officers to be regulated by
contract3
(1) A senior officer may only be employed under a
contract.
(2) The contract must—
(a) specify performance criteria for the purpose
of reviews of the senior officer's
performance; and
(b) specify the date on which it expires, which
must be a date that is not more than 5 years
after the date it is signed; and
(c) include any other matter that is required by
the regulations.
(3) On the expiry of a senior officer's contract, the
senior officer may be invited to enter into a new
contract.
(4) Any contract of employment between—
(a) a Council and a Chief Executive Officer; or
(b) a Chief Executive Officer and a senior
officer—
that does not comply with sub-section (2) is void.
(5) This section does not apply to work performed by
a person filling a position on an acting basis for a
period of not more than 12 months.
(6) For the purposes of this section, if a contract
contains an option for renewal, the expiry date of
the contract is the date on which the last option
period ends.
95B. Powers of the Minister concerning the employment
of senior officers
(1) The Minister may, by notice published in the
Government Gazette, exempt a Council or a
Chief Executive Officer from complying with
section 95A.
(2) If the Minister does this, section 95A does not
apply to the Council or Chief Executive Officer
until the Minister revokes the notice by a further
notice published in the Government Gazette.
(3) The Minister may also, by notice published in the
Government Gazette, for a period specified in the
notice, forbid—
(a) a Council from employing a new Chief
Executive Officer, or entering into a new
contract with an existing Chief Executive
Officer, or entering into a contract with a
Chief Executive Officer that expires after a
specified period or date;
(b) a Chief Executive Officer from employing
new senior officers, or entering into new
contracts with existing senior officers, or
entering into any contracts with senior
officers that expire after a specified period or
date.
(4) A Council must comply with a notice under subsection
(3)(a).
(5) A Chief Executive Officer must comply with a
notice under sub-section (3)(b).
6) If a Council or Chief Executive Officer is
forbidden to fill a vacancy by a notice, it or she or
he may only employ a person on an acting basis to
perform the functions assigned to the vacant
position.
(7) Any contract entered into by a Council or Chief
Executive Officer in contravention of a notice
under sub-section (3) is void.