Had a look at the Draft Code of Conduct yet?

Details

Published: Thursday, 23 November 2017 15:16

The Office of Local Government has prepared a Draft of a proposed new Model Code of Conduct. Remembering that it will become mandatory, so it’s worth a look. Here is a link.

There are significant additions in areas of harassment, discrimination and bullying and proposed 3.9 provides a definition of “bullying behaviour” as “any behaviour in which a person or a group of people repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards another Council official or a group of Council officials and the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.”

Ooooooo, there is one Council in particular for whom that will be a significant risk. We’ve been dealing with an oppressive and bullying culture now for almost 9 months. Bit by bit the Council throws significant money at treating the unacceptable personal behaviour but also requires employees working under that person to be part of the treatment. Employees have been provided with training and workshops to learn communication skills and assertiveness sufficient to remind the bloke when he is distressing them or employees are in tears in front of him, it’s not appropriate. We can think of a better strategy.

We will be putting in a submission to OLG on the Draft Model Code before the closure date. Obviously we are interested in things like the protection in 5.5 that “the political views of a Councillor do not constitute a private interest for the purposes of clause 5.2” but for staff, the current provision at 7.4 (e) requires staff to “ensure that any participation in political activities outside the service of the Council does not conflict with the performance of their official duties” is intended to continue.

A better protection for the councillors by the look of it, and more restrictions on staff.

And look out for this...

Details

Published: Thursday, 23 November 2017 15:16

Members need to be aware of the current provision in the Code of Conduct known as the Wollongong provision when it was introduced. It’s found at the section titled “Inappropriate interactions” and prevents at 7.5(i)“Council staff meeting with applicants or objectors alone AND outside office hours to discuss applications or proposals.”

This was entirely appropriate when it went into the Model Code because the ICAC had revealed Council staff working away from the office and outside hours. Everyone assumed it prevented Council staff not meeting with developers outside hours and off the premises.

But we are aware of at least one Council which has taken the view that this, in its broadest interpretation, prevents employees of the Council when they are not working (that is, out of hours or on weekends) giving advice or assistance to friends and family in any dealing with the Council.

And when we checked this interpretation with the Office of Local Government, they agreed that in a broad sense that kind of activity could be affected. WTF?

Beware of this risk. Everyone needs to check whether their Council reads this provision as broadly as this before you help your Mum get an application together.

We will deal with the unreasonably broad interpretation of this provision in our submission.

Is that the time?

Details

Published: Thursday, 23 November 2017 15:16

Almost December, can that be right? As extraordinary as it might sound, 2017 has seen what can only be described as an outbreak of pretty good behaviour by HR. Maybe the mergers preoccupied people with developing PDs, recognising protections of staff while consolidating practices as best they can, or something’s gone in the drinking water, or my presentation as part of a panel at the LGNSW HR conference the end of 2016 was so beguiling, instructive and compelling that those HR people present were transformed and started to look after the interests and welfare of employees, instead of just seeing them as targets, or possible cost savings.

But something has happened - to the extent that sometimes we wonder what we’ll do in December when we need to announce our prestigious, authoritative and highly-anticipated Worst HR In Local Government Award - more popularly known as the Golden Turd.

Like getting blood from a stone...

Details

Published: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 16:16

The merger of the former Kogarah with the former Hurstville to create Georges River has highlighted an issue potentially affecting hundreds of employees in the industry.

We emailed all members on 17 October to bring everyone into the loop on this but it is an issue which affects only those members of the LGS Retirement Scheme or the Defined Benefits Scheme.  Both those schemes have a concept of “superable salary” and rules requiring councils in calculating the superable salary of a member of those funds, to include the “value on the private-use of an employer-provided vehicle”.

Kogarah did but Hurstville didn’t.

It does seem improbable, doesn’t it, that a union official who scored 23 for Maths in the Higher School Certificate (out of 130, no less) should find, investigate and pursue a solution to something that no one else seems to have noticed, and if they did, they did nothing about.  More about LGSS later.

Councils which haven’t included a value on the private use of a Council car have failed to comply with the rules of the Fund, have underpaid superannuation contributions as a consequence since 2003 and have therefore underpaid retirement and exit benefits as well.

As an example, we have a member at Georges River from the former Kogarah, for whom the removal of that value for the final 2.5 years of his employment (something Georges River is not proposing) would cost him more than $40,000 when he retires at the end of 2020. For those employees in those schemes who have had a council car, this is worth investigating.

depa filed a dispute with LGNSW* on 28 September and before the dispute came before Chief Commissioner Kite SC on 18 October there had already been two meetings of the unions with Local Government Super and LGNSW.  Our expectation (probably more correctly expressed as our hope) was that this matter, although complex and potentially requiring complicated calculations about retrospective entitlement, could be resolved quite simply.

(Please note that if you are going to read the dispute notification, the reference to this issue also applying to those employees not in the old closed schemes, who receive the Superannuation Guarantee, is incorrect.  This information came from what was said by LGS in their Employers’ Guide to be information from the ATO website.  It was not.  The first of our LGS disappointments...)

All we needed was the Superannuation Fund and the employers’ organisation to agree that there was a problem which needed to be investigated and, once it was investigated, we would know how big the problem was and all be equally committed to finding a solution.

At our first meeting, LGS took the view that it was a matter between the employer and employees, and LGNSW expressed the view that it was a matter between LGS and employees, it was clear it wasn’t going to be that simple.  LGNSW had already sent advice about the dispute to HR Managers and GMs and LGS needed to do similarly.  It was clear that things got worse the longer the meeting went and it made sense for us to all go away and think about things and we agreed to meet again in a week.

But it got worse at the second meeting when LGS told us that while there were 4500 active members of those funds left in the industry, they wouldn’t tell us what councils they worked at.  It was confidential, apparently, making it a very difficult issue to resolve.

It’s also nonsense, isn’t it - the idea that the Fund responsible for providing a superannuation benefit to employees based upon its own rules, would not provide the simple numbers so we knew where to look.  LGS is the only organisation that knows where the 4500 members of those two funds are employed.  That sort of thing makes people suspicious about their motivation.  You would have thought they would have a handle on whether councils were complying with the Fund’s own rules...

When the dispute did proceed in the Industrial Relations Commission on 18 October, the Chief Commissioner thought it appropriate under section 132(1) of the Industrial Relations Act to direct depa, as the notifier of the dispute, to “invite” the “proper person” from LGS to attend on the next occasion.  This section of the Act allows members of the Commission to “require the attendance of any person whose presence the Commission considers would help in the resolution of the dispute.”

So depa invited LGS to provide the proper person, or persons, and to that invitation was attached an extract of the transcript of the proceedings in which the Chief Commissioner made it clear that if the invitation was declined, then a summons would be prepared to have a “proper person” attend anyway.

Withholding information that should be readily available is one thing, but being summonsed and dragged in chains to the IRC and made to “help in the resolution of the dispute” is another. 

We return to the Commission, with the new CEO of LGS and the Head of Governance attending without the need for a summons, on 3 November.  We can’t wait to hear what they have to say.

And members respond brilliantly

Details

Published: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 16:16

The point of the email sent on 17 October was to prepare ourselves in anticipation that the Superannuation Fund or councils could argue that salary or superannuation information is confidential to employees and we don’t get access to it without the employee authorising us to have access.

At the time of this depaNews going out, 97 members have responded and while a few of them are people who left those schemes sometime between 2003 and now (and we will get to after resolving the principles for the active members) that gives us more than 90 members prepared for depa to be authorised to have access to information that might be claimed by a Council or LGS as being private or confidential to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute. 

And it also makes it clear that of the 41 councils represented by the responses from those 97 members, only the former Kogarah, Sutherland and Parkes have included a value for private use.  A few of the responses are from members who thought their council had, but we really do need some evidence to show that they did.

We have not yet begun to fight.

What is this thing called, love*?

Details

Published: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 16:16

LGNSW has, over the past twelve months, picked up a concept called a “Capability Framework” from the NSW Public sector, fiddled with it with its creator, and developed it to inflict on local government - as if the industry needs some other incomprehensible obstacle laid down in its path.

But despite decades of cooperation between LGNSW and the local government unions, we weren’t consulted - even though it was responded to coolly by the public sector unions when it was implemented some years ago in the State.

And despite two briefings by LGNSW zealots and the creator, it’s still hard to know. It also appears to overlap the skill descriptors - although LGNSW has been at pains to explain that it can’t and won’t be used for job evaluation, or progression in the salary system but it may (somehow) be used for recruitment and performance management.

It was revealing that at the time of the second briefing, while LGNSW recognised that the unions would be critical to an agreed approached about how this thing would be inflicted on the industry, we were told that it was at the printers.  Not so much getting invited late to the dance, but not getting an invitation to the dance in the first place, but a demand to clean up after.

So, we filed a dispute with LGNSW to try to slow down the HR and Management enthusiasts in the industry who may pick it up when it’s still not clear what it is and what it isn’t. Or what it’s for and what it isn’t.  The notification includes a desperate email stream to and from LGNSW trying to have those questions answered.

For those of you who may be fans of the brilliant satire, Utopia, it’s like the Defence Green Paper episode from the recently concluded series where no-one could understand the Paper. And when those in the Infrastructure Authority tried to understand it by bringing together those from the defence industry who had contributed, they could only explain it could only do so in jargon from the Green Paper itself that was, in turn, incomprehensible.

Our requests to stop the bloody thing roll out on an unsuspecting industry in proceedings before Chief Commissioner Kite on 10 October met with deaf ears but we were able to reach agreement that LGNSW would place a warning on their website that no one should proceed to use the Framework, even though it was already on their website, until further notice and until guidelines and precautions had been agreed to between LGNSW and the unions.

This is what the website now provides:

LGNSW advises councils that the LGNSW Capability Framework does not displace or override the Local Government (State) Award 2017 (“the Award”), and is not linked to the Award. The Award is the enforceable industrial instrument setting the minimum terms and conditions for the majority of local government employees in NSW.  The framework does not alter councils’ obligations to:

• Evaluate positions in their structure in accordance with the Award's skill descriptors; and
• Ensure progression through councils’ salary systems based on the acquisition and use of skills, or employee performance, provided that progression beyond the entry level based on the acquisition and use of skills is also available.

LGNSW recommends that councils not implement the framework as it relates to employees covered by the Award until the implementation tools and resources have been developed and published.

For further advice on implementing the framework in compliance with the Award's provisions please contact the LGNSW Industrial Unit on 02 9242 4142.

Clearly it would have been smarter for LGNSW to bring the unions into the loop much, much earlier.

(*Yes, this is a poor misuse of the title of Cole Porter’s classic song, “What is This Thing Called Love?” Sorry about that.)

Andrew Spooner resigns as President

Details

Published: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 16:16

Andrew Spooner

Andrew has been an active and enthusiastic contributor as a member of the Committee of Management, Vice President and President for two decades.  He has presided over all those significant industrial issues we have dealt with over that time, provided fair and balanced leadership, guidance and an overwhelming commitment to fairness at work and good receptive management which respects equitable treatment of staff.

So, it was with great disappointment that Andrew submitted his resignation as President and member of the Committee of Management last month.  We were all very, very sorry to see him go.  We wish him well.

The next elections for members of the Committee of Management will be held in March and April next year to elect those members for two-year terms to operate from 1 May 2018 and for the Secretary for a four-year term from that date as well. 

Rule 26.2 allows the Committee of Management to appoint to vacant offices and the Committee responded to Andrew’s resignation by unanimously resolving to appoint Vice President Jo Doheny as his replacement. 

Jo Doheny

Jo has been a member of the Committee of Management for six years, including four years as Vice President and brings significant experience from these roles, as well as her years as delegate at Gosford and a representative of the significant number of members we have at Central Coast Council, following the merger of Gosford and Wyong.

Having worked with Jo for many years in all of those capacities I look forward to developing our relationship and continuing to deliver reliable and even-handed services, without fear or favour, to our members. 

BPB nails idiots at Griffith City Council

Details

Published: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 16:16

Well, it had to happen somewhere, but in all the years of BPB accreditation of council staff, the BPB has never found any cause for alarm in any Council.  That is, up until a recent investigation into work being carried out at Griffith that required BPB accreditation, but was carried out by people without that accreditation.

Here is a link to the BPB’s report.  It is relatively tight-lipped about how, when the BPB’s accreditation requirements are notorious in the industry, some people (who were not members of ours) ended up doing work which required BPB accreditation.  Those people reported to a Manager (who was not a member of ours) who seemed to think that all perfectly fine, and they in return reported to a Director (also not a member of ours) who seemed to have no awareness or concern, if he knew at all.

Clearly here is clear evidence of a direct causal relationship between doing something completely stupid and not being a member of ours but Griffith has always been a place reluctant to pay market rates of pay if they are required to attract and retain staff.

Whether they did try to attract staff who were BPB accredited, and simply couldn’t do so because they weren’t prepared to pay proper rates, and then decided to let anyone at all do the work, we don’t know.  But we will be engaging with the GM to try to find some kind of explanation about how this farce could roll out and how we can avoid it happening again, anywhere else. 

Griffith, and particularly the management at Griffith- the GM, Director and Manager - have let us all and the industry down.  What a significant cluster****.

Local government always said that the accreditation by the BPB of council staff was unnecessary.  There were sufficient checks and balances - of the qualifications and experience of people doing the work and their supervision by people who also had experience doing the work - for there to be more than enough proper governance and control of the process.  The reality was that the checks and balances applied by councils could never be matched by the private sector. 

And, despite the years of oversight by the BPB, the BPB was never able to find the industry lacking. 

Now they have.  All of those involved at Griffith let us all down.

depa's responsibility to look after our members’ social interests without discrimination

Details

Published: Monday, 09 October 2017 13:47

Our rules broadly define our purpose and objects to uphold, advance and protect the interests of members, "including industrial, social, economic and professional development interests".

It was under this broad purpose in the 1980s that we deleted all the sex-specific pronouns in our rules. We then went on to delete sex-specific pronouns in all of the Awards in the industry - all because we had an increasing number of women who were members but our rules and the industrial awards in the industry presumed that everyone was a bloke.

Everything was he, his - never she, never hers.

This was a bold thing for what was pretty much an old blokes’ club of building surveyors at the time with 20 or so women members. But it showed that even the old blokes got the idea that things needed to be fair and that no one's treatment should be otherwise.

Now we are watching unseemly brawling and unsettling discussions as people justify why other people, with different sexual identities, should be denied equal treatment under the law.

depa doesn’t discriminate, we are committed to ensuring that you all receive fair treatment at work and, whenever the opportunity arises, in public debate and public policy. It's part of our responsibility to care for and look after your social interests.

I'll be returning my survey with a yes.

So will all my family (including my gay sister and her partner who have been together for four decades and should be an inspiration to heterosexual couples who can't last a few years - making it both extraordinary and grossly unfair their union can't include marriage if they want it), my 93 year-old mum, my wife Elizabeth, my kids (not Ben, who is only seven but lost his favourite chef, a French bloke, who had to go back to France because he wanted to marry his boyfriend and couldn't do it in Australia. So Ben discovered the concept of marriage equality very, very early and thinks it unfair the ABS won’t ask him), and so will Margaret, her husband and kids and her 90 year-old mum.

So will all of the members of our Committee of Management.

And so will lots and lots of our members - probably consistent with the 70% support opinion polling finds but, knowing them as I do and their own interest in fairness at work, I hope a higher percentage.

Let's be fair and let's do the right thing for everyone. Go on.

Yes, for marriage equality

(This was originally sent by the Secretary Ian Robertson to all members by individual email on 14 September and is updated here to include the support of the Committee.)

Get your own ideas!

Details

Published: Monday, 28 August 2017 13:15

On 26 July the last depaNews was published proposing cutting councillors out of development assessment. We gave plenty of good reasons and dared you all to give us three good reasons why councillors should have anything to do with considering a DA.

We didn’t receive one good reason. And that included us broadcasting the issue to the board of LGNSW who, neither collectively nor individually, could come up with a good reason and convey it to us. They were speechless.

In the interests of disclosure though, one of our members provided two good reasons - first, “because it is so often immensely amusing” and second, because “they make planners feel smart”. Yes we know, that really goes without saying, doesn’t it.

But clearly we started something didn’t we. The following day the Government made two announcements about local government.

The first, and most relevant to what had been an unshakeable commitment by the NSW Government while Mike Baird was Premier, was to announce the abandonment of those amalgamations that were pending and the subject of a variety of litigation. Not for Gladys any conviction when it’s unpopular, if it’s unpopular then it’s time to abandon it.

And we would assume that because the legal challenges were primarily about the failure of the Government it was never going to end well. Who needs to get rolled in the High Court because the authoritarian bureaucrats in the Department of Premier and Cabinet insisted the financial analysis in the KPMG report had to be confidential, raising issues of procedural fairness. And potentially the same bureaucrats couldn’t find the right part of the Local Government Act to amalgamate one local government area and the remainder of another, once a section was “excised“ from Hornsby and given to Parramatta City. Not a lot of smart people involved in those decisions.

And the second, and most relevant to our proposed course of action, was the announcement that Cabinet that day was going to consider “stripping councils of DA approval powers”. While the Herald did claim that it would be “reconsideration” (because there had been rumours of this occurring back in May but the Government not having the appetite for it) that doesn’t really count.

The expose in the Sydney Morning Herald about the ongoing ICAC investigation into planning decisions at the former Canterbury Council was the catalyst. The Government had to think again about the issue but with a reasonable expectation of some kind of emotional support from the Opposition. As the Herald made clear, those planning decisions, rejecting the recommendations of staff, were made by an untraditional alliance of ALP and Liberal councillors - add a couple of floors here, blow out the floor space ratio there, on and on.

But, that will teach us, next time we’ll shred all of those brainstorming documents we have about building a better world now we know they go through our recycling.

The Herald was right, Cabinet did consider establishing IHAPs on 27 July but the decision was deferred - they say, to allow consultation with the developers (that is, the Property Council), the ICAC and local government. Whether they did, or whether they didn’t, the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing Anthony Roberts and the Minister the Local Government Gabrielle Upton were able to jointly announce on 8 August that IHAPs would be introduced for Sydney councils.

The Government claimed that Wollongong and 15 Sydney Metropolitan councils were already voluntarily and successfully using IHAPs and the Bill to be introduced into parliament would make it mandatory for all councils in the Greater Sydney area and Wollongong, because Wollongong wanted to be part of it.

While a real independent IHAP would be a qualitative and significant improvement in the assessment and consideration of DAs, and where we are entitled to expect significant levels of acceptance of the recommendations of planning staff, just who the Government thinks will be “independent” enough is their next challenge.