City of Melbourne CEO Dr Kathy Alexander resigns

Tuesday, 22 July 2014 

After more than six years as CEO of the City of Melbourne, Dr Kathy Alexander has resigned from the role to pursue new opportunities and spend more time with her family.

Dr Alexander yesterday informed Lord Mayor Robert Doyle of her decision and said the time felt right to move on.

In announcing her decision, she recognised the important role that local government plays in shaping and responding to the economic, social and environmental challenges facing cities globally.

“Without a doubt Melbourne is one of the best places in the world to live, work and visit,” she said. “And a good part of that is a result of City Of Melbourne’s focus on the public realm and the environmental solutions we have put in place.  We are sending a strong message to federal and state governments that Australia’s capital cities can help solve some of our biggest national problems.

“I have always felt privileged to work at the City Of Melbourne with such an innovative group of staff and three very committed elected councils.

“After more than six years on the job, and with the organisation’s financial position strong, I believe now is the time to pass the baton. It is also a good time for me to take a new direction in my life and career, pursue opportunities as a non-executive director and, importantly, spend more time with my family,” Dr Alexander said. 

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle expressed regret at Dr Alexander’s announcement but said he completely understood and fully supported the reasons for her decision.

“Kathy Alexander has been an outstanding leader at the City of Melbourne and should feel proud of the contribution she has made to the world’s most liveable city.

“On a personal note, I will miss Kathy’s passion, good humour and even the occasional argument!

“She’s an exemplary leader and a strong role model for young women aspiring to CEO positions,” he said.
Melbourne is Australia’s fastest growing city and the City of Melbourne employs more than 1,300 staff, 25 businesses and has an annual budget of $374 million in services and $100 million in capital works. 

Since joining the City of Melbourne in 2008, Dr Alexander has led several major capital works projects, including the Swanston Street redevelopment and the construction of major community infrastructure, including Boyd in Southbank, Carlton Community Centre and the new Docklands Library.  She has been instrumental in driving what will be Council’s largest investment in its history, the renewal of the Queen Victoria Market.

She has led the introduction of a major productivity program based on Toyota’s Lean Thinking management system – a first for local government in Australia – as well as embedding a culture of community engagement across the organisation.

Dr Alexander will remain in the role of CEO until 3 December 2014 while the organisation undertakes a recruitment program. The date marks Dr Alexander’s 60th birthday, a milestone which she believes is a fitting time to move on from managing the world’s most liveable city. 

CEO contract up for renewal next year

In what has become Melbourne's worst kept secret - rumours are abound that Kathy Alexander will not be reappointed CEO next year when her contract expires in 2013.  It is well known that Robert Doyle and his team are not happy with Alexander's performance.

Sources in the Council's Governance Department have long been expressing the view that Robert Doyle does not support Kathy Alexander, with reports of ongoing conflict between the CEO and the Office of the Lord Mayor. 

The City Council under Kathy Alexander has been criticised for its lack of openness and transparency with more and more decisions of Council being made behind closed doors and without public accountability. A situation which could leave the City Council open to allegations of corruption and loss of public confidence.

There is no register or public record of decisions made under delegation.

Melbourne's new CEO Not John's first choice could be a good sign

Melbourne City Council has a new CEO.

The Age Newspaper reports that Kathy Alexander, former head of Victoria's Women's and Children's Health has secured one of Australia's Highest paid public service jobs.

The Age reports that Kathy Alexander was not John So's first choice with claims that John preferred to have appointed insider "Jobs for the boys" Geoff Lawler. Information provided via the City Elf (hidden way in the Council Governance department) tells a different story. It appears that Garry Singer was driving the show and that John So's comments were a way of passing the buck in order to ease Mr Lawler's pain and pride. Personally we think it is good that the Council has looked outside the City Council for its leadership. The CEO needs to remain at a distance and not get too cosy in propping up the "design me a job" senior management team. Mr Lawler would have been the least of our considerations for the top job, his handling of Melbourne's strategic development plan was one of the worst in Melbourne's history not to mention many of the policies he has pursued.

Melbourne needs a hard headed business person to drive the council, reduce costs and improve the City Council's efficiency.

It is way to early to make a judgement on the chosen candidate but hopefully she will not be a social development of the designer job set. There is a lot that needs to be done to restore the City Council to the top of the tree. The City Council is way too small and inbred. Ideally the new CEO should be looking at expanding the City boundaries and establishing a greater City of Melbourne.

The other issue that needs review is the Council's representative mandate.

The community is crying out for effective represetation and falsely placing the blame on lack of local representation on the current representative model. The problem is not so much the syructiure of the elected Council but more the issue of related to the direct election Lord Mayor and the policies, or more to the point lack of policies and the ability of the current City Councillors.

The City Council has virtually wasted the last three years and achieved very little under the stewardship of the former CEO, David Pitchford and John so. The Council needs to open up its committee structure and invite experts and local representatives to sit on the Council's statutory advisory committees. The current situation where all committees have Councilors only on them MUST be addressed.

Melbourne has not had an effective CEO since Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend vacated the Council chambers.

Time will tell whether the City Council has made the right choice and if they new appointment is worth the high salary and generous bonuses paid.

let the Hunt begin Friday's closing date for head design me a job City

Last Friday was the closing date for applications of Melbourne CEO Designer me a job City.

It is understood the a few "want to be" In-house applicants have put their name in the hat hoping that their name will be the one chosen to feather the bed of their colleagues.

Current acting CEO Geoff Lawler would have to be one of the most unsuccessful choices to make, his approach to adopting Melbourne's Strategic Plan, a con game of pin the tail on the strategy, would have to be remembered as one of the most stupid ill-considered and poorly executed exercises in strategic planning ever on record.

Lawless's idea of Strategic goal setting was to ask selected participants to place up to five issues they considered important on a white board and from the placement and content pin together a Strategic plan that misrepresented the true facts and concerns raised, but he got away with it. Lawless may have a chance as he has been the compliant force behind Melbourne's ill-fated push for a car-less city. Something small retail business in Melbourne dread. Large Retails stores have already deserted the city center in favour of the car frinedly suburban shopping centers. Lawless stagegy at work.

Another in-house applicant is Scott Chapman. Scott is the most travelled of the City Directors he was the one that come up with the idea of a world shopping Spree tour for Council staff to check out the competition. Whilst Scott comes with numerous appraisals the question is can he stand alone and say no to the "design me a better job" senior staff who are hungry for a better life style paid for by the ratepayers of Melbourne.

It is understood that Linda "It's not accounted until it is acquitted " Weatherston is looking for a new job. She has the unfortunate position in that she is the only non male gender in the senior management design team. But she is no Elizabeth Proust and rumour has it she is looking for a job in with one of the international NGO aid agencies. Best of luck, Melbourne will be the better for the change of career.

Rob Adams is another name that has been mooted around but again Rob's credibility took a major blow back in the 1990's when Bamboo Rob compromised his integrity and bowed down under pressure and supported the disastrous ill-considered relocation of Melbourne's Museum from the City Centre to the outskirts. Like Denton Cork and Marshal Robs tenure needs serious review. It is time Melbourne adopted a new design guru and someone that has not been compromised to the extent Rob has. The other factor that rules Rob out is that he really does not have the commercial business skills required for the top job so he not a real contender.

The City Council is best once again looking outside of the City, finding someone that is not tainted by the in-house "design me a job crowd" someone that can provide professional guidance and management of a major capital city.

Melbourne has not had much luck in appointing the best of the best since Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend vacated the job. The rot set in under former Geelong CEO Michael Malouf. The Council lost all integrity and professionalism, staff numbers went thorough the roof as the council embarked on empire building and the sought of corruption and lack of professionalism that creeps in when staff begin to lose perspective and professional standards decline. Without any doubt Malouf's reign of terror was the seed of destruction and decline of Melbourne golden age of administrators. It has been all down hill since then.

Will John So get it right the second time around.

John is once again looking to find a replacement CEO for the City. Dissapointed Applicants for the top job can always rely on the fact that the process of head hunting will inevitably involve a breach of confidentiality as information on the selection process and applicants is widely discussed around the corridors and coffee spots where staff so often spend most of their time chatting was opposed to doing their job. Any disappointed applicant can rest assured that they can take legal action against the City Council who will inevitably settle out of court for an undisclosed sum of money as opposed to face a possible court ruling against the City Council and the need to payout even more in compensation. (Roumours have ot that a concerened applcant recioved a hefty sum of monye in compendation for the Council's head hunting skills or lack there of)

The problem with the Council's selection process is that staff are required to provide secretarial support for the selection committee and inevitable those staff will report back to their boss the outcomes of deliberations. After all it is in the interest of the secretarial staff to keep their boss happy and accustomed to the designer job life style they are use to.

A more professional approach would be to contract out the secretarial support to the head hunting agency thus placing all responsibility for confidentiality out of reach of the City administration.

Christmas is renowned for the time when administration make the worst of the worst decisions.

A time when the community's attention span is at its lowest. Having made a decision the administration will inevitably either try and forget it or will dutifully implement the resolution on their return in the new year when hopefully Melbourne will make the right choice and fid someone worthy of the $300.000 plus bonuses salary.

Happy Christmas

Send in the Clowns David Pitchford calls for ministerial inquiry into breach of confidentiality

Melbourne City Council Chief Executive Officer, David Pitchford, has called for a ministerial inquiry into what he alleges is a branch of confidentiality under the provisions of the Victorian local Government act.

Earlier the Melbourne City Council had received a $300,000 efficiency report from experts Earnst and Young consultants.

In order to prevent the details of the report becoming public the City Council's CEO had declared the report confidential thus preventing ratepayer's right to know the details of the recommendations. It is understood that the report has recommended up to 10 million dollars in savings, including the reorganisation and reduction in Council Staff, can be made to the Council's recurrent budget.

Reports in the media, earier this month, have given rise for concern by the David Pitchford, Melbourne's CEO, that Council's right to confidentiality had been breached.

David Pitchford in his report to Tuesday's Council meeting, which was brought forward one week in order to discuss issues related to Council finances, had expressed concern that:-

An article on the front page of The Age newspaper on 9 May 2007 (See insert), there are a number of quotes and assertions made by the journalist which could imply that one or more Councillors had possibly breached Section 77 (1) of the Act.

The article states:

• ‘However, one councillor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, has described the report as “a bombshell” ’.
• ‘A second councillor told The Age the Ernst & Young consultants had “identified
  some very serious inadequacies within certain departments” ‘.


• ‘”It implies what a lot of us have been wanting: a shrinkage of directors,” the councillor said.’

Mr Pitchford is apparently of the belief that such benign words constitutes a possible breach of the local government act that also imposed sever penalties including dismissal of Councillors should they be found guilty of breaching the provision of the local governement act.

Guilty of what? Discussing the issues confronting Councils budget and finances in general terms in the course of public debate.

The report to Council made no mention of the fact that the Lord Mayor, John So had just yesterday made mention of details of information contained in the report that Council want hidden, leaving the question is the CEO being a tad bias and overreacting by seeking to intimidate the Council for passing general comment on a document that is in the public interest and should be made public.

Transcript 3AW Morining Radio: Neil Mitchell (8:35AM 23 May 2007)

The following is a transcript of John So on Melbourne Radio 3AW. I leave iot upt to you to read and decide. Does John So really know anything about budgets and fiscal policy?


NEIL MITCHELL: So you're not going to cut $4.2 million?
JOHN SO: This is not cutting. This is a saving…
NEIL MITCHELL: How are you going to save $4.2 million?
JOHN SO: It's very… I mean that's like any business. I run business. As a business operator, I definitely can identify ways, ways to do things more effectively, more efficiently and every budget you factor into 10 per cent increases in like, you get the budget now. I mean the Family Needs funding has increased by 10 per cent and these…
NEIL MITCHELL: Okay, but are you going to cut any spending at all?
JOHN SO: No, no. We have significantly increased the services right through the city.
NEIL MITCHELL: How much are you going to pick up by productivity improvements?
JOHN SO: $4.2 million.
NEIL MITCHELL: So you are going to save $4.2 million somehow, but you're not going to cut it. So you want to say save, rather than cut, right?
JOHN SO: Oh yeah, absolutely.
NEIL MITCHELL: Okay, are you going to save any jobs? Are you going to cut any jobs? Are you going to reduce staff anywhere? Oh for God's sake.
JOHN SO: [indistinct] administration where we'll drop into the overall [indistinct] organisation and how, you know, where they can identify productivity gains…
NEIL MITCHELL: But what does that mean? Are you going to cut staff or not? Are you going to cut staff or not?
JOHN SO: We - there are some - yes, there is places that will be new, that staff can be relocated to it elsewhere. But this is - the report hasn't come in…
NEIL MITCHELL: Well, then, come on, are you going to cut staff or not? Relocate, where to? Within the same organisation? Are we playing games here, $4.2 million or are we…
JOHN SO: That $4.2 million as I say, we identify as a core, and we will, and the positivities are core savings but this something that neither have been factored in. it's a year process. At the moment, I can't give you the figures.
NEIL MITCHELL: No I don't want figures. I want a principle. Are you going to cut staff? Hello.
JOHN SO: Yes, we get some staff redundants. Yes of course.
NEIL MITCHELL: Can you tell me how much the budget is on marketing and public relations?
JOHN SO: I haven't got the figure in front of me. Have you?
NEIL MITCHELL: Do you know how much it's increased since 2001?
JOHN SO: In that area, that's what we will be [indistinct]. You can find something but I think that we will do it, yes.
NEIL MITCHELL: Yeah, I know but has it increased significantly since 2001?
JOHN SO: Oh yes. It has…
NEIL MITCHELL: What percentage, roughly?
JOHN SO: There has been significant increase in many areas but not just the marketing, but in the events and that the events is based on the number of activities in the city centre.
NEIL MITCHELL: Okay, thank you very much for your time.
JOHN SO: Okay, nice talking to you Neil.
NEIL MITCHELL: Councillor John So, the Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne. Look, there's not just a language barrier there. I mean John So's a little hard to understand but his English is pretty good. It's not just a language barrier there, it's a political barrier. I don't know what the hell he's talking about. But I do know the City Councils is headed for the red. Deficit. I suspect I know why.

Saving Money the Hard Way $250,000 in consultants fees to tell Melbourne's $400,000 CEO how the City could save money

Melbourne $400,000 dollars man spends $250,000.00 seeking advice on how to manage the City. (I thought that was why we were paying him such a hugh salary)

Clay Lucas of The Age exposes the extravagant waste of money consumed by Melbourne's highest paid public servant.

David Pitchford's contract was recently renewed by the City Council who whilst voting to extend his contract cut-back the term of his appointment which is normally for five years to just over two years.

Information and talk around the Town Hall is that David Pitsford is actively looking around for alternative employment but like that of his predecessor, Michael Malouf, he options are limited along with his management skills.

David Pitchford was also implicated in the Parking Fine affair that resulted in the State Ombudsman raiding the Council Offices in order to secure information on the cover-up of corruption in the Council's administration. The City Council rewarded David Pitchford for his efforts by paying him a substantial performance (sic) bonus.


Council CEO forks out to save
Clay Lucas The Age April 25, 2007

VICTORIA'S highest-paid council officer has spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on management consultants — to tell him how to save money.

Melbourne City Council chief executive David Pitchford, who last month was reappointed on a salary of up to $396,000 a year for almost three years, has overseen a $300,000 cost-cutting report by consultants Ernst & Young.

Councillors said yesterday that cutting spending on child care was likely to be an area of focus for the consultants, who will release their report next week. Retrenching some of the council's 1131 staff may also be considered in the wide-ranging cost review.

Councillors asked why so much had been spent on consultants and the time of the council's senior directors (at least six of whom are on $200,000-plus salaries) to do a review for which the chief executive should have taken responsibility.

"He does not like to take tough decisions," said Cr Peter Clarke. "He likes to have a report by someone else to fall back on."

Mr Pitchford, rehired unanimously by the city's nine councillors in March on a salary of $332,000 and an annual bonus of up to $66,000, wants Ernst & Young to find where savings can be made within council.

Their brief requires them to find savings in council spending, assess the "value for money" of council services and find ways of reducing labour costs.

The firm is also the council's internal auditor, a contract worth $580,000 over three years.

The management experts are the latest in a string hired by Mr Pitchford to instruct him since he was manoeuvred into his position by Lord Mayor John So in September 2003.

In 2004, the council paid $45,000 for consultants to tell staff they should work according to a new acronym: ERIC, which stood for excellence, respect, integrity and courage.

The following year, Mr Pitchford paid Royce Public Relations $52,000 to recommend the council hire a new PR boss; they got media manager Hayden Cock for $220,000 a year.

During his own rehiring process in March, Mr Pitchford oversaw spending of $4000 on human resources consultants Mercer.

They came back with a report recommending that his annual salary should rise as high as $492,000, but that $410,000 was an acceptable midpoint. The council settled on $332,000.

Mr Pitchford was on leave yesterday, but council finance spokesman Brian Shanahan defended Mr Pitchford's decision to commission the cost-cutting review.

"The common practice is to get independent reviews done to assist decision making," he said.

But councillors would resist reducing spending on child care, regardless of the report's findings. "There is no way we should pull back on our commitment to child care."

If Ernst & Young does recommend reducing spending on child care, it could be a case of life imitating art: in the 2001 ABC TV show Grass Roots, the fictional chief executive of Arcadia Waters Council called for a consultant's report to justify privatising child care.

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.

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.

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.

Pitchford pitches for renewal of his contract Council to decide tonight CEO's future

Melbourne City Council's beleaguered lack-luster CEO , David Pitchford, will tonight put0foward his application to have his contract renewed. Under the p[revisions of the local Government Act the Council must decide whether to renew Pitchford's contract or call for fresh applications. if the later option is chosen Pitchford would have to put his name forward to consideration with any other applicants.

The City Council is said to not be overall impressed with David Pitchford's performance.

To make matters worst for Melbourne's incumbent CEO Scott Chapman, is an insider that is busy campaigning away to have a chance at ousting the CEO and taking his job. Melbourne CEO receives a $300,000 remuneration package plus additional benefits.

There has been rumors floating around the town hall for some time now that David Pitchford has been casting his net to see if there are any other opening around.

Mean while the numbers are being converted in what could be an upset to John So.

It could be that the City Council resolves to renew Pitchford's contract one year to allow it more time to finalize arrangements. A similar arrangement was made with Micheal Malouf to allow Malouf to be seen to have exited on his own terms. Mr Malouf eventually found a position with the Carlton Football Club but as it turns out his tenure there is not looking good and there is talk that he too will be looking at an early retirement.

All will become clearer hopefully later tonight.

Traffic congestion hits City Council John So pays CEO huge inducement bonus for a bad job done

The Age newspaper today reports that the City of Melbourne is facing a traffic jam in processing thousands of complaints related to City Parking fines. Melbourne City Council and John So and his cohorts spend up big and continue to show no sign of fiscal restraint or responsibility. John So just can not say NO!

Meanwhile Melbourne's CEO, David Pitchford, was paid a bonus of $43,000.00 on top of his already high $300,000 per year salary. For what? Melbourne City Council was earlier this year raided by the State Ombudsman department who's investigation found that the City Council's administration was corrupt and that the Council was using traffic fines as a means of revenue fund raising and not as a deterrent for illegal parting. Council's Grey Ghosts had a quota 'bounty' system going on and Melbourne's motorists where the target of this corrupt practice which the CEO David Pitchford was ultimately responsible. Ratepayers will surely be happy to know that the CEO has received such a huge bonus when the City Council's administration continues to bring the City into disrepute.

The City Council's Governance department acting on advise and instruction of the former City Council Legal Officer, Alison Lyons, challenged, in attempt of avoiding accountability, the legal right of the Ombudsman to review Council's records. Ms Lyons reigned from the City Council prior to the Ombudsman report which was highly critical of the Council's administration.

The problems facing the City Council for so great that the State Government had to step in and legislate to put a stop to the ongoing abuse and corruption with the City Council.

Given the poor performance of the City Council over the last year one has to ask why was the CEO paid $43,000 bonus on top of his already excessive salary?

Reports in from our spies in the Governance Department at town hall tell us that John So, in a highly questionable move, tried to awarded himself and his deputy two votes for each elected city councilor's one vote, tipping the scale in favor of the Lord Mayor and controversial Deputy Lord Mayor Garry Singer. Gary Singer was found by his peers earlier this year to have acted improper in relation to staff salaries and financial mismanagement of various trust accounts under his care in his role as a trust manager and legal officer of the courts.

Our City Councilors having balked at the notion of the Lord Mayor and his Deputy being given two votes to their one thought they did well by cutting the Lord Mayor and his deputy down to one and a half votes each. (We still think that is way too much and fail to see why the Lord Mayor should receive more votes then any other elected City Councillor. One vote one value. There are questions as to the legality of this move) This "weighting" of the votes gives the Lord Mayor and his Deputy much more say in the pending CEO's review which is due early next year. Stacking the review in his favour.



Council may lose thousands in parking fines
Clay Lucas,
City Reporter
December 4, 2006

Source: The Age
HUNDREDS of people are escaping parking fines from the Melbourne City Council because its employees are buckling under the weight of thousands of objections to tickets.

Disgruntled staff within the council's parking and traffic branch say there are as many as 15,000 outstanding objections to tickets. Under State Government laws introduced on July 1, the council has 90 days to prove a fine is valid if a motorist objects.

In 941 cases the council has already run out of time and could end up writing off as much as $51,000 in parking fines.

In April, the council was stung by a State Ombudsman's report that raised allegations of incompetence and bullying in its parking and traffic branch. The Ombudsman is still investigating claims that a whistleblower within the branch has been treated badly by the council because of the report.

The council denies there are 15,000 outstanding parking fine objections, although it concedes there are at least 4500 letters of objection, and that it was taking about 65 days to process each objection letter.

"This is well within the 90-day limit," said acting chief executive, Linda Weatherson.

But staff inside the council branch, who did not want to be named for fear they would be sacked, said this was untrue.

Anyone objecting to a parking ticket could get off because the council had so many objections to work through, they said.

Lord Mayor John So said the council was working hard to lower the time it took to respond to objections.

"No one is going to get away from paying," he said.

Many other inner-city councils are struggling to meet the 90-day limit, but the sheer volume of objections to parking tickets that Melbourne City Council gets is pushing its 12-person objections team to their limit.

Ms Weatherson said one parking objection officer was working through 1443 objections. In the three months to October 1, the council handed out 114,000 parking fines and received 10,500 written objections.

It collected $26 million from parking fines last financial year.

The news comes on top of council figures showing that income from parking fines plummeted by $1.2 million in the past three months, compared with last year.

The council said petrol prices meant fewer cars coming to the CBD. But the fall in parking fines coincides with parking officers having been forced to drop a daily quota of 30 tickets, exposed by the Ombudsman's report in April.

Chief executive David Pitchford is under pressure to fix the troubled branch of the council, after the report painted a shambolic picture, citing "morale problems, absenteeism and complaints of bullying and harassment".

Mr Pitchford was last week awarded a $43,000 performance bonus on top of his $300,000 annual salary.

Heads begin to roll But CEO and Lord Mayor not held accountable

The Melbourne City Council has began to swing the axe following the recent Ombudsman investigation and report into corruption in the Council administration earlier this year.

Alison Lyon, Council's former legal and Governance (sic) officer, had escaped review by her early resignation of her position with the City Council, thus avoiding the possibility of being dismissed.

The City Council acting on false legal advise, tried to thwart and hinder the Ombudsman's investigation. Thankfully the Ombudsman's department was not going to be intimidated by such tactics and continued with its investigation.

The City Council is renowned for misusing and abusing the legal system to avoid accountability.

The Ombudsman investigation found that the Council administration had acted inappropriately in a corrupt manner bordering on outright deceit. The Council administration when caught-out began a excise of cover-up, lies and denial of the Council's knowledge and involvement in serious mis-management.

Whilst we welcome the decision of the Council to begin to address the issue of corruption the fact remains that the CEO also should be held accountable for the problems identified. He must be held accountable along with the Council's Governance department. They can not and should not escape responsibility.

It is incumbent on the Lord Mayor to act independently and call for the resignation of the Council's CEO and head of Council's Governance and Finance departments. Failure to do so will only reflect poorly on the elected Council who will continue to be seen to be implicated in the in-house cover-up and attempt to avoid accountability. They are only seen to act when they are caught out.

If the Lord Mayor does not act then the elected Council must take action by holding a open and transparent and open investigation in to the management of the Council.

It is not satisfactory to just just hold secret behind closed door meetings in the hope that the issue will go away. Anything short of an open investigation will only continue to bring the City Council into ongoing disrepute undermining further public confidence in the City of Melbourne.



The Age newspaper reports...






City council removes traffic boss
Rachel Kleinman
August 16, 2006

Branch manager Noel Reid has been removed in favour of troubleshooter Steven Nagle, council chief executive David Pitchford announced yesterday. Mr Nagle will start today.

Mr Reid will be moved to the facilities management branch for the remainder of his contract. He and his deputy each received an official warning.

They had shown poor judgement and were reprimanded for clearly unacceptable behaviour, Mr Pitchford said.

He said the action, in response to a scathing State Ombudsman's report, would reform the council's management of parking and traffic.

The Ombudsman's report in April revealed that a dysfunctional team of parking officers had illegally issued parking fines worth $50,000 between 2002 and last year.

Two new assistant managers will join Mr Nagle, who has worked for the State Government, RMIT University and the Victorian Taxi Directorate.

Australian Services Union industrial officer Leanne Sumpter said morale in the parking and traffic branch was low.

The union has yet to be briefed on the changes.

"At this point I don't know much," Ms Sumpter said. "(But) some officers feel attacked from both inside and outside the organisation. Some feel they have been made scapegoats."

Mr Pitchford said all 160 staff members would have performance reviews and further casualties could not be ruled out.

"There have been problems within this branch for 15 years," Mr Pitchford said.

"This is an entirely new team and will bring a fresh approach to the way the branch operates."

The branch would shift its focus from enforcement and fines to customer service.

Mr Pitchford admitted the council might lose revenue through the change.

"I am happy to wear that if it means that we are issuing parking infringement notices for bona fide offences," he said.

He said these changes were part of a 46-point plan aimed at fixing problems highlighted in Ombudsman George Brouwer's report.

Two Melbourne councillors, who refused to be named, told The Age last month they doubted Mr Pitchford's competence in handling the affair.

Their attack came after Mr Brouwer launched a second investigation into allegations that the whistleblowers who triggered the original probe were later intimidated and bullied by senior council staff.

Under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, it is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in jail to take revenge on or threaten reprisals against a whistleblower.

Lord Mayor John So said yesterday: "Following the Ombudsman's report, I demanded an assurance from the chief executive to act on the recommendations and address all the issues immediately. I'm happy that action has been taken."

But council sources have told The Age that, in private, Cr So's attitude towards Mr Pitchford has cooled in recent weeks and his contract may not be extended beyond September next year.

Pitchford's contact up for renewal It is time for a clean out and restoration of good governance

Melbourne has not had an effective CEO since the departure of Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend. The quality of Governance has been in serious decline ever since. the rot set in under Micheal Malouf and Melbourne's current CEO has done little to restore confidence in the Council administration. His contract and time is up.

It was not long ago we reported that the City of Melbourne was not happy with CEO David Pitchford's appointment. We also made mention of information provided to us by the a source in the Councils governance department that David Pitchford's time was up following the Melbourne Commonwealth Games. Well our sources have been proven right. Information published in the Age Newspaper highlight the concern and pressure David is facing. The focus of the article is based on Melbourne City Council's fraudulent activities exposed by the State Ombudsman. There is much more to David's demise then the Traffic Infringement issue. Basically Kevin Chamberlain was right when he expressed concern over David's appointment. He was not the man for the job. His inability to maintain an open and transparent Government has been of ongoing concern. The City Council is caught up in corruption and cover-up.



Earlier this year we saw former City of Melbourne's legal advisor, Alison Lyons, resign from the City of Council in the lead-up to the State Ombudsman's report. David Pitchford has refused to make details of Councillors travel, free booze and catering expenses public. He has gone out of his way to avoid accountability and disclosure. The report of the Ombudsman is damming and certainly justification in its own to deny Pitchford and renewal of his contract. The City Council needs more reform and clean out. The Council is internal cultural or ongoing avoidance and cover up. It is time that the City administration is brought to account. If the CEO is incapable of addressing community concerns then the Council must act to have him replaced along with the manager of Council's Governance department who should also be under review..



City chief under pressure of Ombudsman probe

By Rachel Kleinman
August 1, 2006

Pressure mounted on Melbourne City Council's chief executive yesterday as the State Ombudsman launched a fresh investigation into the council's traffic and parking branch.

Councillors will decide next month on the future of David Pitchford's $250,000-a-year contract.

One councillor, who did not wish to be named, told The Age yesterday that Mr Pitchford was under "significant pressure" as a result of State Ombudsman George Brouwer's new inquiry. "We are absolutely sick of being kept in the dark about the ramifications of these issues," the councillor said.

"Councillors are concerned that the CEO does not appear to be on top of this issue."

A colleague, who also refused to be named, said councillors received an email from Mr Pitchford's office yesterday morning, which announced that the Ombudsman would hold a fresh investigation into the parking and traffic branch, under the terms and conditions of the Whistleblowers Act. They were directed not to discuss the matter and were not told about the extent of the investigation.

Mr Brouwer's first investigation, concluded in April, found that the council had issued thousands of dollars worth of unauthorised parking tickets between 2002 and 2005.

His report pointed to morale problems, and complaints of bullying and harassment within the branch. That inquiry was triggered early last year by a whistleblower.

It found that senior staff had ignored warnings from lawyers about the unauthorised issuing of fines and prosecution of motorists who failed to pay.

Responding to Mr Brouwer's report in April, Mr Pitchford said: "It is most unfortunate the practices, albeit in good faith, were allowed to continue for such a long period."

The council has drawn up a 46-point plan to deal with the State Ombudsman's concerns, and says most of them are already being implemented.

But the new development has put Mr Pitchford's performance back in the spotlight. His existing contract expires in September 2007, but councillors could extend it until September 2009. They must decide by next month, or begin a search for a new chief executive.

Speaking off the record to The Age this year, several councillors have consistently refused to back the performance of Mr Pitchford since his 2003 appointment.

A spokeswoman for Mr Pitchford yesterday refused to comment about the new investigation.

City taken to the Cleaners Melbourne City Council CEO fails to negoiate cost of clean-up after the games. Ratpayers left to pick up the tab

Melbourne City Council CEO, David Pitchford, failed to negoiate the cost of clean-up following the Commonwealth Games leaving ratepayers to foot the bill for the clean-up costs.

Herald-Sun

The City of Melbourne has spent at least 32 Million dollars on Commonweath Games related expenditure including $170,000 in cost of free tickets to events for Councillors , staff, guests and hangers-on.

Normally clean-up costs of major events are paid for by organsiers of Major events but this time Melbourne City Council's CEO and Council Officers failed to ensure that the Games organisers made provision for the clean-up adding further to the costs to the City for this extravagent two weeks jock fest event.

The failure of the City Council to ensure that organisers meet any additional cost raises ongoing concern about the ability of David Pitchford to manage the affairs of the city and the ability of the Council to keep a watch on the performance and administration of the Council.

Our elected Councillors more interested in partying and social events then they are in administration and proper governance.

Meanwhile our Lord mayor, John So, makes unsubstanciated claims in statements to the Herald Sun that the City will reap dividends from the Games event. How? John So conveiniantly failed to outline extacly how and how much Melbourne will benefit. We doubt that Melbourne will see any real benefit from its 32 million dollar give away and that is not counting the one to two billion dollars that the State Government has spent overall on the games.

Any excuse and pretense to justfiy the unjustifiable.

John So, our City Councillors and staff are more then happy to spend up up big with no limit on costs as Melbourne is left to pick up the tab.

The Melbourne City Council continues to avoid responsibility and accountability by refusing to disclosу the full costs and alleged benefits.

Melbourne may never know the true cost of Ron Walker's folly, if at all, until after the November State election.

Hopefully this will be the last Commonwealth Games event held in Australia

Register AvoidanceCity Council Administration cover-up, contempt, lies, deceit and inefficiencies

The City of Melbourne administration continue their games of lies and deceit.

We are told, although we have not received any official confirmation or word from the Council, that the Council's Travel Register will be published today or tomorrow. Well its not published yet so it must be tomorrow. (It's often said that tomorrow never comes)

For the uninitiated it takes less then 5 minutes to publish the Register. That's right less then Five Minutes. [Alt-file-publish]. Job Done. So why the delay?

The Council's travel register is an electronic white board. There is no record id number and no way of knowing if the data has been altered or items removed. The Council auditors have previous expressed concern about the way the register is managed. They know the problems that exist and have made numerous recommendations that the Council administration continue to ignore . So why go to so much trouble and expense to hide and avoid disclosure. Well the Travel Register, in theory, details the full extent and cost of Staff and Councillor travel. It is required to be maintained by the Local Government regulations and made available for public scrutiny.

The reason they have not published it and don't want it published is that it holds them accountable.

The publication of the register is the responsibility of Linda Weatherspoon, head of the Council's Governance Department and underling Paul O'Brien who does all the data-entry work.

The reason the they want to publish the Travel Register only on a quarterly basis, instead of "as and when it is updated" is because they want to make sure that information they don't want disclosed is not accidently published and accessable to the public. It's a bit like creative accounting, which the council regularly perform, We discovered thousands of dollars of missing, undisclosed accounts last time it was published. The Council administration are not interested in honest, open, transparent goverance, if they were the Travel Register and other public documents would have been up and published by now, but they are not.

Less then five minutes it should take. Less then five minutes but it has taken Linda Weatherspoon and the David Pitchford, Melbourne's CEO, over 12 months at a cost of $10's of thousands of dollars and they are still reluctant and wanting to aviod publication of the Travel Register. Disgraceful , corrupt and a misuse of Council resources .

We will keep you informed. Once it's published we will push for it to be updated as and when it is modified, as opposed to the BS quarterly publication the administration have proposed. We will continue to advocate for the inclusion of an auditable sequential record ID, so as to be reassured that information has not gone missing.

For those who are concerned about at the cost of administration we estimate that the City Council has spent well over $100,000 dollars trying to avoid publication and find constant ways to avoid disclosure and alternative creative accounting methods. Most of it spent by Alison Lyon, Council's former Governance Legal Officer. We were hoping that things would improve now that she has moved on but we are not sure. The Council, sadly, will only change it's culture of deceit and avoidance dragged, kicking and screaming all the way.


Stay turned.

Christmas tales from clown hall

A Christmas elf from the Governance department sent us this email



To: <melbcity@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005

Hi. It was interesting reading your blog, it looks great and well written.It was funny that NG was unable to attend the last Council meeting for the year (as she was overseas, did you notice this in the minutes?)

At the Christmas BBQ on Thursday for CMT and support staff I must say that Pitchford was looking very ragged. Not happy and looking very stressed.

With Allison Lyon leaving and having to find a replacement, the ANZ bank threaterning to leave Melbourne and the Travel register having to be published adds to the pressure along with concern about his job in the future. It all seams to have dampened his Christmas sprits.

All the best for the season break

The chiristmas elf

In the meantime we are celebrating a small victory for the forces of common sense and open and transparent government - Seven years in the coming... We expect the administration will come up with some way of getting out of publishing it ... dampening our Christmas joy!!