Instagram · Post · 26 March 2026
Staffing Crisis 2 - Electric Boorloo 💃
If this month's extra short agenda was a sign, then perhaps report 19.2 is the tell.
Our governance is so understaffed it seems the CEO is now writing recommendations for the their own reviewers - and the results look like they were rushed with no peer review.
The officer's advice cites that the 2 Councillors seeking to be appointed have no other committee roles - except they do. Both currently sit on the Audit and Risk Improvement Committee (ARIC) together.
Allowing the CEO to author the advice on who gets to vote on their performance is just not good governance in any industry. The psychosocial report recommendations can be achieved by allowing other staff members in the audience, not giving them a vote which puts them in a psychosocial hazardous environment.
The CEO not firewalling the advice on their own performance review is a massive red flag for me. Surely this advice must be given by the HR experts - perhaps the incoming Chief People Officer or an independent consultant?
I have serious concerns over our City's governance. Amidst the chronic understaffing and under-spending, we're now adding factually false advice and HR conflicts of interest to the list.
Can we do better?
Correction (30/03/26): I have been alerted to a technical statutory error in my initial assessment. Under Section 5.10(2) and Section 5.9(2)(d) of the Local Government Act, ARIC does not statutorily count toward a Councillor's mandatory committee entitlement due to its independent members. I retract the claim that the administration's advice on their committee status was factually false.
However, my primary governance concern stands unchanged: A CEO authoring the recommendation report for their own performance review committee, rather than firewalling it through independent HR, remains a severe conflict of interest Under Section 5.70(2) of the Act.