Vicious onslaught unforgivable

IN 40 years of journalism I don’t recall seeing a nastier or more vicious, misleading attack on a senior council officer than at the City of Casey Council meeting on Thursday, 4 November.
Mayfield Ward councillor Kevin Bradford led an attack against Casey chief executive Mike Tyler that was, in my view, unforgivable.
Cr Bradford and two other councillors argued that three policies deemed to be in contravention of the Local Government Act and restrictive of the chief executive’s role thrown out during an 18 October meeting should be reinstated.
I believe the move was a sneak attack because it was raised during the urgent business segment, rather than as a notice of motion or rescission motion.
The Casey audit and ethics committee initially recommended the three policies in regard to credit and fuel cards and officers conference reimbursement expenses, but placed this under review after receiving the legal advice.
A report to the council said legal advice was that the policies were inconsistent and in conflict with the Local Government Act.
The report said that given the consistency and the clarity of the two lots of legal advice, it was recommended that the policies be substantially amended or cancelled.
No one, except Cr Bradford’s mates, Araluen Ward councillor Rob Wilson and Myuna Ward councillor Brian Oates, knew the attack was coming. The three launched a scathing lastditch onslaught on Mr Tyler.
The councillors came to the table with documents to which they referred, indicating a planned attack.
Previous attempts by the group to disrobe the chief executive over the use of credit cards have failed dismally and even after an extensive investigation of spending procedures, there was nothing on which they could sustain an accusation.
The investigation showed the administration had a wellaccepted culture that great care was taken in regard to officer spending, yet one group of councillors persisted.
They reverted to innuendoes and accusations that sunk the council to one of its lowest ebbs for years.
There is no substance for this attack and the three would be better off the council.
Cr Bradford would have been aware before he moved the urgency motion that it could not be successful because the 18 October motion was already actioned.
Oates will be out of the council and there is a high probability that Wilson and Bradford will be gone after the 26 November poll counts.
They used the penultimate meeting of the council as a chance to launch their attack.
Even if there was a smidgen of substance in the reason used for the 4 November action it should not have been done in open council.
This attack was made against an officer who could not under the rules stand and defend himself.
In my view, the attack was cowardly and the three councillors should really consider what they are on about.
They have claimed over a sustained period that there were no checks on senior officer expenditure and questioned directors’ use of credit cards.
My view is that there is no better way to maintain checks on expenditure than by using credit cards.
The council, through Cr Bradford’s volition, adopted the three policies during the council term in regard to officer travel and conference expenditure and it appeared that Mr Tyler accepted the decision.
However, Mr Tyler recently underwent a serious and painful operation on his shoulder and during his absence the mayor, who is a former chief executive, questioned the legality of the three policies.
He referred the matter to acting chief executive Steve Dalton who obtained two sets of legal advice.
The council decided, because of the strength of the advice, to discontinue the policies. The matter, however, is still open for review by the incoming council after 26 November.