Presentation to Ordinary Council meeting November 27th 2018 by Lei Parker Items: GMR18/029 Annual Report 2017-18. CAR18/041 Categorisation of Community Land at Kyla Park, Tuross Head. Mayor, Councillors Today I wish to present on two items. The first is the Annual Report. Whilst it is understood that Council has been granted an extension to complete the annual Financial Statements due to key staff turnover and the implementation of a new finance software system and that the figures contained in the Annual Report 2017-18 are based on unaudited financial information and maybe subject to change as the Financial Statements are finalised I seek clarity around the line item: Information Technology on Page 37 that states: Original Capital Expenditure Budget $2.504 million Actual Capital Expenditure $4.711 million This gives a variance of $2.207 million with no explanation. Question: Have Councillors been advised of the variance and the reason behind this $2.2m variance? I remind Councillors that on Tuesday the 26th June 2016 you endorsed the staff recommendation of their selection of the preferred Corporate Business System Implementation, Support and Value Added Service Provider tenderer and also, by that motion, provided delegated authority to the General Manager to commit to a contract value for the purchase of software licenses, implementation services and first year Maintenance and Support in accordance with the confidential attachment to that report. You were also advised on that day that funds had been internally restricted for this purpose and that the current tendered amount can be accommodated within these funds. I have recently been advised by a Council spokesperson that $6.249 million was allocated in the budget, which included the cost of TechnologyOne software and implementation services as well as the cost of Council effort to deliver the project. I have also been advised by the Council spokesperson that the TechnologyOne implementation project comprises three phases, running concurrently addressing different aspects of Council’s systems and that Phase 2 and Phase 3 are in progress and scheduled for completion before the end of 2019. Question: With no public explanation of the reported $2.2million variance in Information Technology Capital Expenditure, which is limited to hardware and software alone, and with Phase 2 and Phase 3 still to be completed, does Council anticipate further spending on this project and if so how much and how do they intend to fund any budget overrun? The Annual report also reveals the General Managers remuneration at $315,000 The disclosure of the General Manager's salary has been a long time coming since July 2017 when it was reported that Eurobodalla Shire Councillors gave Dr Catherine Dale a resounding endorsement at the Tuesday 13th June 2017 Council meeting when the results of her annual performance review and an extension of her contract were voted on. Council advised then that Dr Dale’s contract as General Manager had been extended for five years, commencing from 1 July 2017 with Mayor Liz Innes saying the vote "acknowledged Dr Dale’s outstanding achievements against the nine key performance indicators she was assessed on." There has been considerable consternation in the public domain around Council's apparent reluctance to reveal the General Managers remuneration following notice of her contract being extended. This Council has failed to carry out the very clear directive of the Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet Guidelines For The Appointment & Oversight Of General Managers that states, in part: It is important that any decision by the governing body of council to renew a contract for the general manager and the term of that contract be reported back to an open meeting of council, together with the total amount of any salary package agreed to. and ... Any discretionary increases should be modest and in line with community expectations. All discretionary increases in remuneration, together with the reasons for the increase, must be reported to an open meeting of council. It has taken twenty months for ratepayers to discover that the General Manager's remuneration jumped by a staggering 6.1% from $296,866 to $315,000 - remember …. All discretionary increases in remuneration, together with the reasons for the increase, must be reported to an open meeting of council. That has NOT been done. Question: Can Council please advised why this was not done? Categorisation of Community Land at Kyla Park, Tuross Head. As today’s Council agenda will become a historical document it is essential that it reflect a the whole truth and not just an abbreviation. In the agenda today it states as background, in precis only: Council resolved on 28 June 2016 (Motion 16/184) to seek public comment on the proposed recategorisation and subject to the result, amend the relevant plans of management What Council in fact resolved was: 16/184 MOTION Councillor Pollock/Councillor Brice THAT: 1. The draft amended plans of management 26 - Kyla Park Community Land and 27 - Kyla Park Community Land - Areas of Cultural Significance (2003) to re-categorise the southern part of Lot 77 DP 260321 from area of cultural significance to general community use be endorsed for exhibition for a period of 28 days and that public submissions be received for a period of 42 days. 2. A consultant be engaged as an independent chairperson to hold a public hearing for the draft plans of management. 3. All submissions received by Council prior to the exhibition period and as part of the exhibition period, be provided to the consultant for his consideration. 4. A further report be received following the receipt of the public hearing report from the independent chairperson on the draft plans of management taking into account all submissions that have been received prior to this process. That was two years and five months ago. Might I remind Councillors that under the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 335 the Functions of a general manager state in part:
(b) to implement, without undue delay, lawful decisions of the council, It has taken two years and five months of nil action to a definitive Council directive to see this report come to Council recommending that there be no action negating the adopted motion of June 2016. Question: Can Council advise why the general manager, on the Kyla Park issue, contrary to SECT 335 of the Act, did NOT carry out councillors clear instructions as per the June 2016 motion and undertake the process, as directed, of recategorisation of Part Lot 77, Kyla Park?