Snedden Smeared Council avoids accountability and responsibility in providing free booze to Councillors

Melbourne City Council have indicated that Cr Snedden is under notice following recent events of unacceptable social behavior and drunkenness whilst performing duties as a Councillor Councillor - The Age March 10 - Snedden on Notice


No accountability and no responsibility.

WHOEVER The Council continues to deny and avoid accountability and responsibility for the provision of supplying Councillors and senior Staff Free booze.

We have written to to the Council on many occasions seeking publication of details of internal catering costs including the costs associated with the free supply of alcohol but the Council continue to go to extra-ordinary efforts to avoid disclosure of the full costs estimated to be over one million dollars a year.

There is no justification or need for the Council to provide free alcoholic drinks funded by ratepayers for Councillors and senior administration and it is about time Council put a stop to this activity.


- Extract from the Age newspaper March 10. -

MELBOURNE city councillor Fiona Snedden could be stripped of her role as a committee chair if she repeats this week's drunken behaviour at the Town Hall.

But she is unlikely to be ousted as a councillor, as local government legislation does not refer to alcohol or drug use.

Cr Snedden, daughter of former federal Liberal Party leader Sir Billy Snedden, is under pressure after Tuesday's business committee meeting, which she attempted to chair when drunk. She has since apologised and said her conduct was out of character.

Municipal Association of Victoria president Geoff Lake said yesterday that councillor conduct codes and the Local Government Act should not have to deal with alcohol use among councillors.

"It is a no-brainer. It is common sense that you should not be intoxicated when you are performing official duties," Cr Lake said. "This is the only time I can recall … where (a councillor's) public duties have been impeded because of intoxication."

He said Cr Snedden's apology and the community's response proved it was unacceptable behaviour.

The Age believes other Melbourne councillors will raise the issue with Cr Snedden when they meet before Tuesday's full council meeting. They will not push for her to resign at this stage. But one councillor told The Age yesterday that she would be removed as a committee chair if there was a repeat performance.

Other media reported yesterday that Cr Snedden was suffering from depression and taking medication. But she refused to discuss the issue further when contacted by The Age yesterday.

Collins Street precinct association president Don Parsons yesterday sent a letter of complaint to the council about Cr Snedden's behaviour. Privately, some councillors expressed disbelief over Cr Snedden's comments that the incident was a one-off.

Cr Snedden next month will face the Melbourne Magistrates Court for refusing a breath test. If found guilty, she could lose her driving licence for two years.

The Local Government Act says a councillor can only be disqualified for reasons including bankruptcy, being of unsound mind, having certain serious criminal convictions, or if they are otherwise incapable of becoming or continuing to be a councillor under the act.

In 15 months as a councillor, Cr Snedden has incurred $23,400 in expenses, more than any other councillor except the Lord Mayor ($28,000) and Deputy Lord Mayor ($42,400).

Her claims included $1200 for conferences and functions, $9180 for overseas travel and $6800 for child care. Cr Carl Jetter claimed $18,200, Cr Catherine Ng $7900, Cr Peter Clarke $5400, Cr David Wilson $3400 and Cr Fraser Brindley $2500.

Drunk on duty Melbourne City Council Free alcohol under review

Guilty of chairing a public meeting whilst drunk.

Call to put an end to free piss ups and free booze for Councillors and Staff and adopt a "No drinking whilst on the job" policy.

Reports in the Age Newspaper and Herald Sun March 9, 2006 about Councilllor Snedden being too drink to chair a meeting comes as no surprise and confirm our concern and need for the City of Melbourne to review its free booze policy. This situation confronts all Councillors and senior staff who have access to the booze cabinet.

Melbourne City Councillors this month are more concerned about the fun and freebies in the lead-up to the Commonwealth Games then they are with issues of governance and administration.

Councillor Snedd0n was not the first and sadly will not be the last as long as the Council continue to provide free booze top senior staff and Councillors.

Whilst Cr Fiona Snedden must accept responsibility for he own actions the City Council must also share some responsibility for the situation that Cr Snedden found herself in after last Tuesday's Council meeting. There are questions as to the Council's overall legal liability and duty of care.

The City of Melbourne continue to provide free on tap booze to councillors who often find themselves in the situation where they drink too much free booze. Te cost of this free booze fountain is all paid for by the ratepayer.

Hopefully we will not see a repeat of this sort of behaviour and the Councillors will not need to undergo a breathalyzer test before taking to the stage or handed the gavel.

The City Council must put an end to the free bar tab and restrict the supply of alcohol to staff and councillors.

Sustaining Dinners City of Melbourne asked to fund migrating dinner at $45,000

Geoff Lawler, City of Melbourne Sustainability (sic) Director, is proposing that the City of Melbourne spend $45,000 on a dinner for up to 500 Migration conference delegates, to be held in October 2007,and if that is too steep then an alternative proposal suggest the Council spend $18,000 for a piss-up cocktail drinks night.

There is no wonder the City of Melbourne does not want to publish the costs of its internal catering bill. The conference according to Joe Groher, Manager Financial Services, will be funded via normal budget processes. (Which 2007/8 budget Item in would that be Joe?)

The conference is consistent with Council’s policy aims expressed in City Plan 2010 for the
City of Melbourne to be an inclusive, engaging, innovative and connected city and society. (I guess just about any event would be deemed consistent the aims of City Plan 2010)

The cost of any piss-up or state dinner should be paid for by the Event organisers or if it is considered necessary by the State or Federal Government who are also sponsoring this event.

Mind you the City of Melbourne appears not taken into consideration that some of the delegates may be from Islamic Countries or other cultures that don't drink alcohol.

The City of Melbourne if anything should put on a BBQ sizzle/Meat-pie spread and something light for vegetarians (budget $2-3,000) and stop wasting ratepayers money picking up the tab for every circus or event that comes to town. (The cost to the environment for this event approx 5,000 trees worth of Co2 emissions).

The $45,000 proposed expenditure could be better spent on more sustainable events and needs.

UPDATE:

Pigs with snouts in the trough. Ratepayers money to burn

Melbourne City Council without debate appoved $45,000 direct subsidy for a conference dinner. This sets a precidnets wheer every circus that comes to town and every event ofanisier can excpect Coucnil to fork out up to $90 a head for a free meal. We will have great insterest in reminding the community of theextent of Council's generousity when it comes to requests for assistance and subsidies.

Up until now Cr Clarke had a reasonable record of spending Council's funds wisely. Shame Council Shame.

5.4. International Metropolis Conference, Melbourne, 8-12 October 2007

The purpose of this report was to recommend that Council agree to sponsor a dinner reception for delegates to the International Metropolis 2007 Conference, to be held in Melbourne from 8-12 October 2007.

Resolved:

That the Community and Culture Committee recommend to Council that it resolve to sponsor a dinner reception for delegates to the International Metropolis 2007 Conference, to be held in Melbourne from 8-12 October 2007.

Moved: Cr Clarke
Seconded: Deputy Lord Mayor, Gary Singer
Carried unanimously

Free Booze, Food and no expense City Council refuses to disclose cost of Council's wining and dining at ratepayers' expense

Melbourne City Council on Tuesday, February 7, failed to consider a report calling on the City council to provide a financial breakdown of departmental costs for in-house catering (food, beverages and free alcohol) which is believed to cost ratepayers' around one million dollars.

City of Melbourne private club - free food and booze paid for by the ratepayer. No acountability required.

The City of Melbourne provides Councillor's and Senior Staff with a fully-stocked top shelf bar, free snacks and regular 3 course meals. Whilst some Councillors regular report on the poor quality and standard of food served by the City Council's caterers the costs for this service are not cheap but remain hidden.

Censorship and ongoing avoidance of disclosure


The City Council is so keen to protect their fringe benefits that they refused to consider or even make copies of the report available for public scrutiny. The report was listed for consideration on Tuesday's Finance and Corporate Performance (sic) meeting, chaired by Labor Councilor Brian Shanahan. The report called on the City Council to publish a break down of the financial cost of in-house catering and the provision of alcohol as well as the costs asscoiated with the Lord Maypr and Deputy Lord Mayor's Council funded Limousine.

Ignorance is bliss

In previous years this information was readily available and published in the monthly financial statements. The Council no longer provides this information. It is understood that not even the elected Council are aware of the full extent of costs of in-house catering and the cost of the Limousines.

The City of Melbourne maintain a multimillion dollar accounting system and we understand that a break-down of in-house catering and transport cost is readily available but the Council continue to go to extraordinary levels to prevent this information being made public. WHY? Councillors are unaware of the full extent of costs. (One Councilor was reported as saying they were not aware as to full the extent of costs associated with Council's staff overseas and interstate travel - over $400,000 in the last 12 months - having only just found out when the Council finally published its Travel Register last week)

Too Drunk to Govern

The Alcohol bill alone is in the 10's of thousands of dollars as Councillors and Senior staff help themselves to a free drink or two or more.

We fail to see why ratepayers' should be paying for Councillors and staff drink tab. It certainly is not part of their duties. Were not saying that the Council should not host the occasional Town Hall dinner/function where alcohol is served but Council certainly should not be providing a fee bar - all you can drink service during the working day. There are questions of responsibility, liability and legalities. There are numerous regular reports of Councillors being too drunk to fulfill their duties or even drive home as a result of a day at the office.

Our City Council should stop trying to avoid accountability and inform the public of the true cost of in-house catering and Council's alcohol expenses.

If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiotIf you drink, drive and are a politician or public servant then its time to resign

Melbourne City Councillor under the spotlight

The Age newspaper has rerun a story that broke last year pertaining to Cr Fiona Sneden and allegations made against her. Cr Sneden has been charged with refusing to take a breath test which if true results in two year suspension of licence.

Link to online story (The Age 25 Jan 2006)

The details and facts of this case are sketchy, Cr Sneden claims that she was not in charge of the vehicle at the time. If this is true and she was not the driver then there is no reason why she should be required to undertake a breath test and it is possible that the police have overstep their mark.

The matter is before the courts and we don't know the exact circumstances. We will have to wait and see what transpires.

Drink driving is a serious offence and one that can not be dismissed lightly. Our public officials, in particular, must stand up to scrutiny and meet community standards and expectations.

Former Victorian State Liberal MP Olexander clearly had breach that standard last year when he was caught well over the limit, he was reckless and stupid, and has paid the ultimate price. (If you ask me he got off lightly. )

As this is a serious offence and we will give Cr Sneden the benefit of doubt for the time being but if it proves otherwise she should reconsider her position.

The time has come for Victoria to consider a zero alcohol limit for all drivers helping drive the message home DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.

Whilst it is unknown, by us, if Councilor Sneden was returning from a Council function at the time of the incident, the timing is right for the City Council to review its policy of supplying free alcoholic beverages at Council functions.

The supplying of alcohol at Council functions leaves the Council open to liability in the event of any associated accident. Something that Alison Lyon, Council's legal officer failed to point out to the City Council. The cost of "Free"Alcohol is something that ratepayers should not have to pay for.

City Council closed sessions under review

There is growing concern that the Melbourne City Council have forgotten their responsibility and obligation to maintain Open and Transparent Governance of the City.

The City Council is not a private club for Councillors to do with what they want.

We have requested information related to the cost of Council's in-house-catering and in-bound missions (Interstate and overseas visitors who are guest of the city), the cost of the Lord Mayors limo and the Deputy Lord Mayor's car including cost of maintenance and petrol.

Information for some time has not been forthcoming.

This information is not confidential and there is no reason why this information is not readily available or presented to the Council on a regular basis in the Council's management reports.

There is a growing and worrying trend amongst Councillors and the Council staff that the public is being lock-out and denied right of access to information. Information that should be readily available is now only obtainable via application under the Freedom of Information Legislation.



This is contrary to the stated intentions and the directions of the State Attorney General, Rob Hulls, who is responsible for the administration of the FoI Act.

The recent decision of the City Council, as proposed and supported by Green Councillor Fraser Brindley "Shame Fraser Shame", to refer documents related to the financial cost and management of the Council to be considered in secret sessions "behind closed doors" is in breach of the Local Government Act Section 89 (extract of the Local Government Act below)

The questions we now ask are:

• What is the status of the "Council's Information Exchange Sessions?"
• Why are they secret closed meetings and not open to the public?
• Under what authority and provisions of the Local Government Act are these clandestine sessions held?
• Why is it that the reports presented to these meetings are not available to the public?

It is one thing to hold a pre-council get together to discuss items on the agenda informally but it's another issue when information and reports are presented to the Council in closed session gatherings and not released to the public.

It is the responsibility and professional duty of David Pitchford, CEO, and Linda Weatherston, Director Corporate Performance, to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the Council conforms with the law at all times.

Our City Councillors must think twice before they act to lock out the public.

Those Councillors that continue to operate in this fashion must and will be held to account.

If they are in breach of the Local Government Act then it is up to the State Government and the Victorian State Parliament to step in and restore confidence in the governance and administration of the Council by ensuring that Council complies with the provision of the provision of the Local Government Act and protect the right for public access to information.


89. Meetings to be open to the public

(1) Unless sub-section (2) applies, any meeting of a
Council or a special committee must be open to
members of the public.

(2) A Council or special committee may resolve that
the meeting be closed to members of the public if
the meeting is discussing any of the following—

(a) personnel matters;
(b) the personal hardship of any resident or
ratepayer;
(c) industrial matters;
(d) contractual matters;
(e) proposed developments;
(f) legal advice;
(g) matters affecting the security of Council
property;
(h) any other matter which the Council or
special committee considers would prejudice
the Council or any person;
(i) a resolution to close the meeting to members
of the public.

(3) If a Council or special committee resolves to close
a meeting to members of the public the reason
must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

(4) The Council must provide reasonable notice to the
public of meetings of the Council.

(5) The Chairperson of a special committee must
provide reasonable notice to the public of
meetings of the special committee.

Feasting on the ratepayer

The City of Melbourne is dining in at our expense estimated at to be anywhere from around $250,000 to $750,000 a year for in-house catering costs

The Lord mayor is said to spend up big holding regular State like functions wineing and dining the many visitors and guests to our city.

Councillors and senior staff enjoy a full course meal every meeting and staff regularly serve light meals, snacks and drinks at the numerous functions and seminars held within the town hall. It makes the State Parliament dinning room look like a tuck shop.

Senior Council staff also add to the bill by ordering takeaway, or dine-out at expensive restaurants when it suits, picking up the tab on the corporate credit card.

One staff member put on the Council credit card the cost of $100/person for a night out for the entire delegation on one of the Council's many overseas junkets. Because the cost was allocated to the staff members account the amount spent did not show up on the Councillors' expense statement. Cleaver creative accounting recipes in how to cook the books.

There are many Municipal Councils who would die to have access to half of the Council's catering bill - just to meet necessary community expenses let alone the luxury entertainment enjoyed by staff and councillors down at town hall.

Some Councillors have been reported as saying the quality of the in-house catering is not to their likening and the food just goes to waste left untouched on the plate until deposited in the bin

There are homeless people on the streets of Melbourne who go without a meal and are lucky if they can afford the cost of a Big Mac.

We have requested the Council provide detailed cost breakdown of the Council's in-house catering bill but to date have not received any response to our request.

Surely the Council maintains an account of this expenditure in its financial analysis, if not then why not, if yes then publish the details. Show us the bill and do not forget the tips and cost of alcohol.

It would appear that the only way to obtain information on the expenditure of the City Council is via Freedom of Information. This is a clear abuse of process as Council have an obligation to make this information available without the need to apply under FoI.

As s0on as we get a meaningful reply to our request we will publish it for all to see but don't hold back your appetite waiting... we expect it will be a long wait before it is served.

FoI: City of Melbourne In-house Catering Expenses

November 22, 2005

To the Freedom of Information Officer
City of Melbourne
Swanston Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000


Dear Sir/Madam


Pursuant to the Victorian Freedom of Information Act I wish to request the following information.

1. A detailed monthly summary report of all in-house catering expenses provided to staff and Councillors covering the period from December 1, 2004 to the current date.

This report where possible should provide a breakdown of expenses occurred by department for each calendar month and include the cost associated with the provision of alcohol and refreshments.

If available a breakdown of costs for each individual councillor

I note that in-house catering expenses are not included or listed in the published Councillor expense statements.

As the information requested is of public interest, I request that the Council waiver the application fee required.

Should you require further information I can be contacted via return email

Yours faithfully

Anthony van der Craats
melbcity@gmail.com

Web site: http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com/