❓ Question on Notice regarding a Show Cause Notice delivered to the Town of Cambridge concerning councillor interference with council staff. The answer refers to findings of an inquiry and provides details of email correspondence and staff statements, but does not directly answer the specific questions about witness numbers or notification.
AnsweredQoN 6479Legislative Assembly
Asked
15 October 2020
Member
Portfolio
Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Show Cause Notice delivered to the Town of Cambridge on 26 May 2020, in which you write “2. I suspect that the Council has failed to ensure that the working environment and relationship between Council, the CEO and the employees of the Town enables the CEO and employees to carry out their functions without inappropriate involvement or interference by councillors. In particular: a) employees of the Town have reported that the volume of requests for information from Council members to the Town’s employees has impeded the capacity of those employees to properly perform their functions;”, and I ask: (a) Without disclosing the author of any evidence you received, how many witnesses provided evidence to you, and on what date(s), in relation to: (i) (2)(a) above; (b) Was any evidence received which was provided on behalf of an organisation(s)? If yes, what organisation and on what dates(s) in relation to: (i) (2)(a) above; (c) Prior to issuing the Show Cause Notice on 26 May 2020, did you notify the Town of Cambridge Council that you had received this evidence, and if yes, when did you notify them; (d) Prior to issuing the Show Cause Notice on 26 May 2020, did you provide an opportunity for the Mayor and/or Councillors of the Town of Cambridge to respond to the evidence you received: (i) If yes, who did you receive responses from and on what date(s); and (ii) If you are unable to provide names for (i) above, how many Councillors did you receive a response from which directly related to the evidence you received; and (e) If no to (d), how was procedural fairness provided to the Mayor and Council of the Town of Cambridge to respond to the evidence you received?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
19 November 2020
Responded by
Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts
Response time
12 days
(a) I refer to the Report of the Inquiry into the Town of Cambridge Findings 10 and 11 and paragraphs 131 – 134, 137 and 141.
Finding 10: By not consistently following the Town’s policy for Elected Member Requests and communicating directly with employees, the Mayor has impeded the CEO from effectively managing the day to day operations of the local government.
Finding 11: By emailing administration staff directly without including the CEO and requiring the employee to act, the Mayor has failed to comply with Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Code of Conduct) Regulations 2007 .
131. The Town calculated the number of emails sent to the EMR mailbox which showed between July 2018 and June 2019, 937 emails were received by the EMR mailbox, and 560 (58%) of those emails were from the Mayor. This number does not take into account the emails sent by Mayor Shannon to staff that did not include the EMR email address.
132. The remaining 377 emails were somewhat evenly split between the other eight elected members. 133. Between July 2019 and mid-March 2020, 300 emails were received by the EMR mailbox, and 153 of those emails were from the Mayor. The remaining 147 emails were split between the eight other elected members. This number again does not take into account the emails sent by Mayor Shannon to staff that did not include the EMR email address.
134. The content of the emails sent by Mayor Shannon to administrative staff shows Mayor Shannon directly requests information from, and asks for tasks to be undertaken by, administration staff without advising the CEO (through the EMR) of matters raised.
137. Mayor Shannon unilaterally directs administration staff to undertake tasks without following the above process and informing the CEO of her requests.
141. Statements made by the staff included:
a. So we live in this world where we can't really function. I can't really do my job.
b. And you'll see from that the level of pressure. Even regardless of what the content of all her correspondence is. Without even opening it, you will see the level of pressure that she puts on everyone, because of the amount of emails.
c. So we get all this ad hoc piecemeal work that we've not scheduled for, and we could spend days running about doing stuff.
d. We're basically running about for the Mayor. We're not doing what we're supposed to do.
e. It's the fear that if you say no – John has already said "She's a strong character, so you just say yes to her. You don't say no."
f. It really is a toxic environment. It’s absolutely – it’s a horrible place to work...
(b) No
(c-d) No
(d)(i-ii) Not applicable
(e) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 6477
Finding 10: By not consistently following the Town’s policy for Elected Member Requests and communicating directly with employees, the Mayor has impeded the CEO from effectively managing the day to day operations of the local government.
Finding 11: By emailing administration staff directly without including the CEO and requiring the employee to act, the Mayor has failed to comply with Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Code of Conduct) Regulations 2007 .
131. The Town calculated the number of emails sent to the EMR mailbox which showed between July 2018 and June 2019, 937 emails were received by the EMR mailbox, and 560 (58%) of those emails were from the Mayor. This number does not take into account the emails sent by Mayor Shannon to staff that did not include the EMR email address.
132. The remaining 377 emails were somewhat evenly split between the other eight elected members. 133. Between July 2019 and mid-March 2020, 300 emails were received by the EMR mailbox, and 153 of those emails were from the Mayor. The remaining 147 emails were split between the eight other elected members. This number again does not take into account the emails sent by Mayor Shannon to staff that did not include the EMR email address.
134. The content of the emails sent by Mayor Shannon to administrative staff shows Mayor Shannon directly requests information from, and asks for tasks to be undertaken by, administration staff without advising the CEO (through the EMR) of matters raised.
137. Mayor Shannon unilaterally directs administration staff to undertake tasks without following the above process and informing the CEO of her requests.
141. Statements made by the staff included:
a. So we live in this world where we can't really function. I can't really do my job.
b. And you'll see from that the level of pressure. Even regardless of what the content of all her correspondence is. Without even opening it, you will see the level of pressure that she puts on everyone, because of the amount of emails.
c. So we get all this ad hoc piecemeal work that we've not scheduled for, and we could spend days running about doing stuff.
d. We're basically running about for the Mayor. We're not doing what we're supposed to do.
e. It's the fear that if you say no – John has already said "She's a strong character, so you just say yes to her. You don't say no."
f. It really is a toxic environment. It’s absolutely – it’s a horrible place to work...
(b) No
(c-d) No
(d)(i-ii) Not applicable
(e) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 6477
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.