❓ Question seeks details on evidence supporting a Show Cause Notice issued to the Town of Cambridge regarding councillor interference with staff. The answer refers to a report finding undue pressure on employees and cites specific examples, but avoids direct answers, deferring to other documents.
AnsweredQoN 6480Legislative 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 b) employees of the Town have reported that pressure has been placed on employees not to discuss potential or current applications for planning approval with proponents;”, 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)(b) 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)(b) 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 Finding 2 of the Report of the Inquiry into the Town of Cambridge and paragraphs 54, 56, 59 and 64.
Finding 02: The Town’s employees’ have been unable to properly perform their functions because of undue pressure and fear of consequences.
54. The Town's employees have expressed fear about providing frank advice to the Town, and in particular the Mayor around planning matters.
56. On 13 February 2020, Councillor Rod Bradley attended the Town’s offices and asked CEO John Giorgi how to ‘get rid of’ the two of the Town's employees that attended the JDAP meeting.
59. The Town’s employees paint a different picture, alleging that one particular employee ‘ was called into John’s office and she was walked out that night’ because she had provided advice to the Mayor that she was not happy with.
64. In summary, they gave the following evidence:
a. The Mayor requires staff to keep a log of contact between planning staff and developers, then uses that log to criticise staff and accuse staff of collusion if they discuss proposals with developers
b. The Mayor and Councillor Timmermanis criticise staff members in public and are always trying to find fault with staff members.
c. Council gets involved in tender matters, such as changing tender criteria and directing staff to contact particular contractors, hindering staff from following appropriate processes.
d. Legal advice obtained by the Mayor is not always provided to other elected members.
e. The working environment has negatively affected the ability of the Town to recruit staff and backfill acting positions.
(b) No.
(c-d) No
(d)(i-ii) Not applicable
(e) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 6477
Finding 02: The Town’s employees’ have been unable to properly perform their functions because of undue pressure and fear of consequences.
54. The Town's employees have expressed fear about providing frank advice to the Town, and in particular the Mayor around planning matters.
56. On 13 February 2020, Councillor Rod Bradley attended the Town’s offices and asked CEO John Giorgi how to ‘get rid of’ the two of the Town's employees that attended the JDAP meeting.
59. The Town’s employees paint a different picture, alleging that one particular employee ‘ was called into John’s office and she was walked out that night’ because she had provided advice to the Mayor that she was not happy with.
64. In summary, they gave the following evidence:
a. The Mayor requires staff to keep a log of contact between planning staff and developers, then uses that log to criticise staff and accuse staff of collusion if they discuss proposals with developers
b. The Mayor and Councillor Timmermanis criticise staff members in public and are always trying to find fault with staff members.
c. Council gets involved in tender matters, such as changing tender criteria and directing staff to contact particular contractors, hindering staff from following appropriate processes.
d. Legal advice obtained by the Mayor is not always provided to other elected members.
e. The working environment has negatively affected the ability of the Town to recruit staff and backfill acting positions.
(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.