General Manager Appointment

The Huon Valley Council commissioned an independent review of the recruitment process due to concerns raised about the robustness of the GM recruitment process.

The review has been completed. After considering privacy and confidentiality issues, Council agreed at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 29 September to release a redacted version of the key findings of the Review of the Recruitment Process for the New General Manager Appointment Report.

Due to confidentiality and privacy obligations, as well as potential defamation, Council is unable to release the full report.

The review found there were no breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct, the Local Government Act or the Huon Valley Council Governance Framework, and equally as important, no evidence the recruitment was tainted by actual bias.

However, the review did find Council’s management of the recruitment process fell below expected standards for the management of conflicts.

The Council has agreed to the report’s recommendations that it implement a guideline or supporting document to the Code of Conduct as a best practice approach to managing conflicts of interest in recruitment, and further, that Councillors undertake training in relation to managing conflicts of interest.

Council has already started the process by seeking a proposal to meet their commitment to signing off on the recommendations.

Once established the new guidelines will be used as a tool for recruitment and other situations particularly where panels or committees are used for decision making on behalf of Council.

Councillors also agreed to undertake training in relation to the set up and best use of panels and committees to maximise efficient and effective decision making. Key areas of focus will be:

1. the function and scope of a panel or committee and when it is appropriate to report back to the full Council for further guidance including how to progress in circumstances where a consensus is unable to be reached;
2. how to engage in robust but respectful discussion;
3. the importance of note taking as well as discretion throughout the conduct of the process; and
4. how to give adequate reasons in making decisions.

The following is the redacted version of the Key Findings of the Review of the Recruitment Process for the New General Manager Appointment Report:

1. That Council being aware of public interest in the circumstances of the appointment of its new General Manager and having taken the step of commissioning a thorough independent review of the appointment process, considers that it is appropriate in the interests of informing the public as to the outcome of that review that it formally accept and adopts the following summary of the key findings of that review. Namely that:
   • On 6 May 2021, a potential conflict of interest came into existence.
   • Ideally, the recruitment agency engaged by the Council (‘the recruitment agency’) should have disclosed the potential conflict to Council’s Recruitment Panel.
   • On 24 May 2021, there was an actual conflict.
   • The failure to disclose the conflict (to the Council) until 4 July 2021 was not a disclosure ‘as soon as practicable’ and in breach of the Conflict of Interest Policy of the recruitment agency.
   • The recruitment agency in good faith disclosed the conflict as soon as (it) considered it appropriate to do so.
   • The responsibility to appropriately manage the conflict ultimately lies with Council and not Ms Inches the recruitment agency.
   • The recruitment agency assiduously restricted her involvement in the recruitment process to follow the control measures (proposed by the recruitment agency). In the circumstances there was no actual bias or undue influence in the recruitment process as a consequence of the late disclosure.
   • Council’s appointment of the recruitment agency, a reputable and highly credentialed executive recruitment agency in Tasmania, was appropriate in the circumstances.
   • Council’s Recruitment Panel should have referred the conflict back to the full Council to resolve how to manage it when meeting on 5 July 2021 to, among other things, discuss the conflict which was notified to them on 4 July 2021. The late disclosure by the recruitment agency would have made it undesirable to remove the recruitment agency from the process at a late stage. The Recruitment Panel was confident in being able to select for themselves a short list but was unaware as to how to properly manage such a conflict.
   • The full Council did not properly consider the adequacy of the management of the conflict of interest until its ordinary meeting on 25 August 2021 where the focus is on resolving to decide the preferred candidate and a coterminous independent review of the recruitment process as to the conflict of interest. The late notification of the conflict of interest by Council’s Recruitment Panel disadvantaged the full Council in managing the conflict and, like the Panel, the full Council lacked an adequate understanding of the conflict of interest issue.
   • The restriction of the recruitment agency not being involved in any decision as to the relevant candidate’s suitability to manage the conflict of interest did not adequately address the perceived bias.
   • The appropriate management strategy was to remove the recruitment agency from the recruitment process. This would have entirely removed the perceived conflict of interest or any potential conflict of interest.
   • There was no actual bias in Council’s resolution of the relevant candidate as the preferred candidate. Each of the Councillors selected their preferred candidate following the process recommended by the recruitment agency and free from any influence or bias created by the recruitment agency. The Panel members selected their preferred 6 candidates, and then their top 3 following interviews to present to Council, and then their individually preferred candidate following a full Council interview. They did so using an Assessment Matrix where they scored candidates. The remaining 5 Councillors did the same in selecting their individually preferred candidate from the 3 candidates presented to full Council.
   • The Council’s management of the conflict of interest in the General Manager recruitment process did not breach the Code of Conduct, LG Act or Framework.
   • The conduct engaged in by the Council in managing the conflict falls below expected standards of managing conflicts, particularly having regard to the need for public confidence in the recruitment process of its General Manager.
2. Notes the finding of the Independent Review that there was no actual bias in the appointment process but resolves to have regard to the findings of the Independent Review in all future appointment processes.

The Report of the Auditor-General No. 2 of 2021-22: Council general manager recruitment, appointment and performance assessment was tabled in Parliament on 12 October 2021.

The objective of this audit was to form a reasonable assurance conclusion on whether recruitment and appointment of general managers by local government councils was conducted in accordance with the principles of merit, equity and transparency and whether performance assessments followed the principles of fairness, integrity and impartiality and were aligned with councils’ strategic objectives.

The audit examined and analysed general manager recruitment, selection and appointment and performance assessment information for the following councils:

Recruitment, selection and appointment

• Brighton
• Burnie City
• Clarence
• George Town
• Meander Valley
• West Coast.

Performance assessment

• Circular Head
• Central Highlands
• Huon Valley
• Launceston City
• Northern Midlands
• Sorell.

Councils were selected based on their size and location in addition to time the general manager had been in the position.

Addendum – Huon Valley Council general manager recruitment process:

The objective of this review was to form a limited assurance conclusion on the effectiveness of the Huon Valley Council in managing conflicts of interest during the process to recruit a general manager.

This review covered Council’s management of conflicts of interest in the recruitment process, which ran from 31 March 2021 to 15 September 2021.

The suitability of the applicant selected for interview and subsequently appointed was not within the scope of the review.

The full report can be viewed here.

A motion was carried at the Closed Council Meeting on 31 March 2021 to confirm a budget amount of $50,000 for the General Manager recruitment process (this would include the cost of engaging an external consultant to conduct the recruitment process and obtaining legal advice as required).

An announcement of this information was made during public question time of the Open Council Meeting on 26 October 2021. As noted in the 26 October Minutes a total of $18,293 (inc GST) was paid to Edge Legal for an independent review of the recruitment process and a total of $7,273.20 (inc GST) was paid to Simmons Wolfhagen for further legal advice regarding assertions that there was a breach of the Criminal Code Act 1924. Simmons Wolfhagen considered the potential risks to Council which may arise under defamation law, contract law and privacy principles through the release of the Edge Legal report. In addition to this, legal advice regarding assertions that there was a breach of the Criminal Code Act was obtained.

Details of a public meeting about the process undertaken by Huon Valley Council for recruiting and appointing the new General Manager are as follows.

Time and Date of Public Meeting

Friday 4 February, 2022, 6pm. The meeting is expected to go until 8pm however the meeting time may be extended to complete motions under consideration at that time.

Former member of the Legislative Council Sue Smith will facilitate the meeting.

Location of Public Meeting

The Palais Theatre Franklin, 3388 Huon Highway Franklin.

Should numbers significantly exceed capacity of the Palais, the PCYC in Huonville may be considered as an alternate venue for the meeting. Any changes to the location will be provided on this website and through the Council’s social media channels.

Pre-meeting – Submissions (now closed, see below for submissions)

Any person can lodge a submission in relation to the subject matter. The submission can be any length.

• Submissions close at midnight, Friday 28 January, 2022.
• Submissions can be lodged addressed to the General Manager:
  • In person at the Customer Service Centre, 40 Main Street, Huonville
  • By email to hvc@huonvalley.tas.gov.au or
  • Post to PO Box 210, Huonville, 7109.

Submissions made are to be placed on the Council website as soon as practicable after the closing date. The submissions will include the name of the person making the submission however, personal, address and contact details and any potential defamatory imputations will be redacted.

Lodge a Motion to be tabled at the Public Meeting

Any motions sought to be presented to the Meeting must be given on notice to the General Manager at least seven (7) days before the Meeting to be considered.

Motions can be lodged in the same manner as submissions as described above.

Motions not given on notice will not be accepted at the meeting.

Attending the Meeting 

Due to Public Health directive, attendance limits will apply and registration will be required to attend the meeting. 126 tickets are being made available.

Tickets open 9am Thursday 27 January and close 5pm Tuesday 1 February 2022.

The meeting will be filmed and uploaded ASAP after the meeting (note, the meeting will not be livestreamed).

At the Meeting 

The meeting is to be chaired by an independent Chair and is desirably to be completed within two hours however the Chairperson may extend that time to deal with Motions that have not been dealt with and have not been refused under the rules for conduct of debate.

The Agenda for the meeting is to be as follows:

1. Present
2. Apologies
3. Chairpersons welcome and introduction
4. Noting of summary of submissions
5. Presentation by or on behalf of A Donley as lodger for the petition not more than 10 minutes
6. Discussion/Motions
7. Closure

The rules for conduct of debate are as follows:

1. Any motions sought to be presented to the Meeting must be given on notice at least seven (7) days before the Meeting to be considered. Motions not given on notice will not be accepted at the meeting.
2. Motions put forward from the lodger of the petition will take precedence over other motions received.
3. A motion must be moved and seconded.
4. The Chairperson may, at their discretion, refuse a motion where that motion would result in substantially the same outcome as a motion previously passed at the meeting.
5. The person moving a motion may speak for not more than three (3) minutes.
6. All other persons may speak for not more than two (2) minutes.
7. The Chairperson may at their discretion close debate on any motion where those speaking on a motion are substantially repeating what has been stated by any earlier speaker.
8. The person moving the motion has a right of reply of up to one (1) minute and must not introduce any new information in exercising that right.
9. The Chairperson is to determine the vote by a show of hands.
10. Procedural motions may only be made at the discretion of the Chairperson who must consider whether all those who wish to have an opportunity to speak have had that opportunity.
11. The Chairperson may receive amendments to a motion at the meeting, to be dealt with in the same manner as a motion for the purposes of debate.
12. A person may move a motion to amend a motion if that person has not moved or seconded the original motion.

Submissions

33 submissions were received during the advertising period 7 January 2022 to 28 January 2022 from 27 members of the public.

Two (2) submissions were received after the closing time citing lack of internet access available to lodge within the time. Both submissions have been included in this summary. Any further submissions received after this time have not been included in this document however, they will be placed onto the Council’s website.

Submissions lodged can be found here.

A Summary of Submissions can be found here.

A Summary of Events can be found here.

Combined Motions can be found here.

Post-Meeting 

The Minutes of the next ordinary meeting of the Council following the public meeting (23 February, 2022) will record a summary of any submissions received and any decision made at the public meeting.

One hundred and thirty-four people attended the public meeting at The Palais Theatre Franklin that discussed the process undertaken by the Huon Valley Council for recruiting and appointing the new General Manager.

Eighteen motions were put forward at the meeting and eighteen were carried. Prior to the meeting Council received 35 submissions from 27 members of the public. The submissions and motions are available here. The minutes of the meeting are available here.

Mayor Bec Enders said some members of the community raised very serious concerns and want definitive actions to take place.

“The Huon Valley is a very passionate and involved community who care about their community. This is why many people call the Huon Valley home.

“Underpinning all Council’s communications are values of honesty, openness and clarity and this is what was demonstrated through facilitating a public meeting and listening to the community’s views on the matter.

“We heard a whole range of views expressed at the meeting. What happens now is a report will be written up containing the submissions and motions. This report will be presented for consideration at our next Council meeting on 23 February.”

Mayor Enders thanked former member of the Legislative Council Sue Smith for chairing the meeting and ensuring the voices of the community were heard in an appropriate manner.

The meeting was filmed and has been uploaded onto the Huon Valley Council’s YouTube channel.

At its recent meeting, the Huon Valley Council considered the outcomes from the public meeting held on 4 February on the process undertaken for recruiting and appointing the General Manager.

Motions from the public meeting were addressed in both open and closed sessions of the meeting in line with the requirements within the Local Government meeting regulations.

Click here for the full response.

The Mayor and the General Manager have both written personal responses to the motions carried at the public meeting:

Mayor’s personal response to motions

General Manager’s response to motions

The statutory declaration was referred to the Solicitor-General as requested at the public meeting. Council was advised by the Solicitor-General’s office on 2 March 2022 that it is not the role of the Solicitor-General to investigate such matters.

The statutory declaration was referred to the Auditor-General as requested at the public meeting. The Auditor-General has advised that any investigation on the statutory declaration is a matter for Council or the Local Government Division and the Auditor-General does not intend to investigate the matter.

A motion requesting the Auditor-General of Tasmania to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the process undertaken by the Council for the appointment of the new General Manager was also forwarded to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General will not be accommodating the request on the grounds that:

• Further investigation will not change the conclusion that the recruitment was flawed;
• The Auditor-General’s report documents the implications of the conflict of interest. The existence of the potential bias means that the process was inequitable; and
• The Auditor-General cannot advise Council what action it should take to rectify the situation. Provision of this advice would be a threat to the independence of the Auditor-General and inconsistent with section 10 of the Audit Act 2008.