Byron councillors will explore the amount Council spends on external consultants and potential conflicts of interest, following a long, and at-times, spiteful debate last week.
As revelations over the inappropriate use of consultants at the Federal government level continue to emerge, a majority of councillors voted to discuss the issue at a future closed-door workshop.
The discussion will canvas the amount Council spends on commissioning reports from external contractors each year, whether such expert advice could be obtained internally, and what measures could be undertaken to improve management of potential conflicts of interest.
The decision to discuss these matters at a workshop was significantly less than what the mover of the motion, Greens councillor Duncan Dey, had originally intended.
Cr Dey had sought what was effectively an internal audit of Council’s use of consultants.
‘I think there’s a case – and I’m not just talking about our Council, I’m talking Australia-wide – that we have gone around a corner and are sending our money out to consultants and then we’re saying “Oh dear, we’re sending all our money out to consultants, but we’re losing all our staff because they’re going to work to consultants”,’ Cr Dey said.
‘I think that Australia should wake up and realise that we need expertise in the ranks of the public service… so that we can get unbiased expert opinion from within.’
But Independent Cr Mark Swivel, questioned whether Cr Dey was motivated by the broader issue of consultants, or a particular consultant’s report that he did not agree with.
Cr Swivel was referring to a consultant’s report which provided the foundation for Council’s decision last month to proceed with a bike and pedestrian path on parts of the Shire’s long-closed rail line rather than returning trains to the tracks.
‘I think raising an issue like this in this manner is almost an abuse of process,’ Cr Swivel said.
Cr Dey strenuously objected to Cr Swivel’s characterisation of his motivation for moving the motion.
‘The councillor is reading my mind, putting words in my mouth, and telling the public what I think,’ he said.
The remaining councillors were divided in their opinions of the motion.
Ultimately, a majority agreed that it should be significantly watered down.
‘I do think the broader issue of consultants is something that we need to get a grip on as a Council,’ said independent councillor Cate Coorey, who seconded the motion.
‘It was raised that the recent rail trail consultancy is the reason for this,’ Cr Coorey said.
‘I dispute that. It may be the starting point for the discussion, but there have been many occasions where reports that have been brought to us that I have felt were conflicted, or perhaps the content was not what was expected, perhaps due to not seeing the brief.
‘I think this is a good opportunity to open the discussion, and for staff to share with us about how we work in terms of discussions.
‘I don’t see this as some sort of witch hunt, I think it’s about getting clarity and better mechanisms for oversight of the process.’
The final vote on the motion went as follows:
In favour of the motion were Crs Sama Balson (independent), Peter Westheimer (independent), Cate Coorey (independent), Sarah Ndiaye (Greens), and Duncan Dey (Greens).
Opposed were Crs Michael Lyon (Independent), Mark Swivel and Alan Hunter (Independent).
Why does this have to be closed door and a spiteful discussion? This is a process that is likely to be occurring at every level of government and business. I am surprised that Mark Swivel voted against this. When was the last time an audit was done?
In a new paradigm rate payers could have access to this information and have a chance to witness these discussions and pose questions.
If there is nothing to hide why not an audit?.
How ridiculous we could use the process to identify how Council decides and prioritises work along with the process. It’s not just the money but the fact that suddenly money is found for consultants yet missing for basic infrastructure or other.
It seems money is going for consultants yet things that have been on the table for years go unresolved. This is not a witch hunt just process which is necessary and coincidental regarding the rail trail. The community have been wanting this to happen for years.
It is deeply concerning that these discussions should be spiteful and difficult. This is standard practise to review.
Well done to those that supported it. It’s a business practise.
The investigative journalism Team at The Echo should swing into action to find out what transpires.
There surely is no better organisation anywhere to find out what happens within the upper echelons of Council.
I look forward to your exposé .