Document 17927

Transcript

Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the Attorney General is prohibited. Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding. THE CITY OF CANNING INQUIRY HEARING BEFORE: DR C.N.W. KENDALL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2013 AT 10.01 AM MR D.W.L. RENTON assisted the Inquiry MR P.G. McGOWAN represented G. Delle Donne MS M.G. SARACENI represented B. Mason MR P.J. URQUHART represented G. Barry 20/11/2013 Merrill Corporation Australia 1226 D41/1/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 DACOMBE, MARK OSMOND recalled on former affirmation: THE ASSOCIATE: Inquiry into the City of Canning, Dr Kendall presiding. KENDALL, DR: Thank you. Morning, Mr McGowan, I understand you have some comments? McGOWAN, MR: Yes, thank you, Inquirer. I should have made this point yesterday. I’d like to publicly express my appreciation to your staff who provided great assistance to Mr Stokes and I in helping to reconcile documents that we have with the numbers in the TRIM system. I note in particular we had an email from Ms Rafferty, I think, as late as quarter past midnight on Monday night, so our sincere appreciation for that. KENDALL, DR: Thank you. McGOWAN, MR: And the other small point is, reviewing the transcript this morning, there is an outstanding typo at page 1,211 on the second line. It’s amazing what a change of one letter can do. Passage that I was putting to Mr Dacombe involved the proposition: Why didn’t you go to the Mayor or even to the Council and say, ‘Look, sorry about this’ - what I put to him was, “Got a bit of a rogue here”, but it’s typed as: ‘Got a bit of rouge here.’ Many things I put to Mr Dacombe, but not that. KENDALL, DR: appreciated. Thank you. I note that, and much Ms Saraceni, your witness, thank you. SARACENI, MS: Thank you. Mr Dacombe, I am appearing on behalf of the Deputy Mayor, Mr Mason. What I’d like to do is to start with - just to put an analogy to you and see if you accept this, because it’s something I’m going to come back to during the course of the questioning. I expect I’ll be about half a day today with you - that’s okay. Just in relation to your role at Canning and what you brought to the role, and particularly in relation to the changed management and that 20/11/2013 10:01 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1227 D41/1/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 whole process of Refocus, that’s what I’m going to talk to you about. And I’d like to put to you and see whether you accept this as an analogy: that Refocus was your baby, I think you said yesterday. Was that correct? Or some part of the - your evidence?---I - I certainly - I owned it. Whether it was my baby or not, I’m not sure whether I used that word, but - - Well, for purposes - today that’s what I’d like to take you to, because I - I - I found out that you’re a man who likes art house movies, you’re into equal opportunity, and perhaps if - and I’d like just to stretch that a little bit further. So Refocus is your baby. You come into an organisation and there’s a need for change. People want change, correct?---Yes. Yes. And particularly the people - the top, Council, want a change?---Yes. So if we view Council as dad, the father figure, and they brought you in, Mr Dacombe, and you are the mother figure, if you don’t have a problem with that. Still following me?---I’m still following you. Excellent. So you have a mother figure and a father figure, and they have a family already, and the family of the staff at Canning and the other stakeholders at Canning, yes?---(No audible answer). And part of the discussion and looking forward into the future, mum and dad decide that they want another child, and they try and they realise they can’t have the child naturally so they need IVF. That child will grow up to be Refocus, and, in fact, what they do is they bring in external people, all the specialists to help the IVF process, yes? All the external consultants that were brought in to assist with Refocus, and then it took, and the pregnancy started. How am I going with that, Mr Dacombe?---Well, it’s probably not an analogy that I would use, but - - No, but one I’m using?--- - - - but I’m happy for - - Do you think that’s fair so far?---If we start with the mother and father, the risk - well, that’s - - Okay, yes?---I understand what you’re saying. Excellent. All right. I will come back to that analogy from time to time, but let’s just say that that’s what’s happening there. Now, then you are brought in as the CEO 20/11/2013 10:01 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1228 D41/1/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 of City of Canning. You have certain qualities that you bring to the role, and that’s why you’ve been engaged, as you understand it, correct?---That’s right. And as I understand it - that your strengths that you have sold yourself on is that you have extensive senior leadership and management in the public sector?---That’s right. Correct? You have - proven track record in working with elected officials, local and central?---That’s right. And I won’t read all of them, but just a few of them. You have strong networking and relationship management skills across and within organisations?---That’s right. Have sound qualifications in public management, and I think you’ve got a tertiary degree from the University of Wellington to that effect, correct?---That’s right, yes. And you have strongly strategic - with excellent conceptual and analytical skills?---Yes. And then also impeccable standards of personal and professional ethics?---Yes. Correct? And, in fact, you also say that you have skills in organisation, leadership and management - - - ?---That’s right. - - - advising elected Councils and Ministers?---Yeah. Advocacy and negotiation?---Mm hmm. Management of policy development, advice and implementation?---Yes. Stakeholder management and engagement?---Yes. Strategic planning?---Yes. Corporate planning?---Yes (indistinct). Organisational restructure and change management?---Yeah. You know that I’ve got this from the Localise CV that you have?---This - as I say, I’ve been around a long time, Ms Saraceni. 20/11/2013 10:01 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1229 D41/2/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Well, I wasn’t going to comment on - on - on age. I was doing the - the gender. Operations management and review?---That’s right. Skills in financial management and executive monitoring?---Yes. Correct? So you come to the City of Canning with all of those skills. You are embraced by the Council and you start what you need to do. Now, what's not very clear to me, and I've sat through most of the evidence, as you know, is the first year that you were there, before Refocus actually took off?---Yes. So that's going back to my analogy, of the time that were visiting the specialists and getting the advice needed to - to fall pregnant, let's say. So - I - I you it would work, Mr Dacombe. So you - you - you - you're there for about a year. Now, what is it in year that you do? You do some talking to staff, do you?---What is it that I do during that year? Well, are you talking to staff? start - - -?---Talking - - - you you told you do that You - you - - - you're the new CEO. You go down and talk to staff?---Talk to staff, talking to - talking to Council. Well, before - can we just - bit by bit - - -?---Sorry. You're talking to staff?---Yes. And in relation to talking to staffing, you said yesterday about 600 fulltime equivalents?---Yes. How many roughly of those staff would you know the names of? Not necessarily day one, but towards - towards the end of your tenure there?---I would know probably most of them in the sort of the administration building by name. Not necessarily evenly across the divisions. There were some divisions that I had more contact with than others. Outside of - outside of that area I would know the senior people in the works area by name and I would know the - or would have known the senior people in the aged care by name. Yes. And you also went round and visited the various sites with the Mayor on some occasions. Is that correct?---Initially, the Mayor and I did a tour of pretty well all of the locations that had staff. 20/11/2013 10:07 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1230 D41/2/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And you also did a check to see what sort of documents were in existence, HR type documents were in existence in the organisation?---I - I spent time with the senior people in each of the areas, getting a fix basically on their view of the organisation. And you did this on a one-on-one basis?---On a one-on-one basis but also as a group. You took notes when you went round and spoke to these people?---No. It was very informal. Informal. And did you also get taken to meet people within WALGA, for example?---Um - - You're new to Western Australia. You're from New Zealand, so you don't necessarily know people, do you, or did you only know - - -?---No. - - - people from - - -?---I'm - I'm just thinking. All right?---We're recalling back nearly five years now so I'm just recalling back to - my initial focus was internally but at an early stage, I met - met through probably initially for a zone meeting, certain staff of WALGA. And then - I can't put a date on this, but again, within that first year, I had - I had a sort of coffee, might even have been a lunch meeting with the then president of WALGA, the Deputy Chief Executive and I think one other. So, yep - - And - - -?--- - - - at an early stage. And what about the Department of Local Government? Were you also introduced to people within the department?---I said that myself and the main contact - I had two main contacts. At that stage, they had put in place, I think, a new executive and one of those people, Wendy Murray, had oversight of what was starting to shape up as a reform agenda for Local Government, so I made a point of making myself known to her, what my background was and particular skills and - in an area that she was looking at at that time. And that was the work that you'd done with the Government in - in New Zealand?---That was actually work related to to the commercialisation of aspects of Council operations that I'd certainly done in New Zealand. 20/11/2013 10:07 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1231 D41/3/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And who were the names of the people that you had dealings with, other than that lady at the department?---The other senior person there who I met via a society - by, sorry, a Local Government Manager's Association function was another senior manager called Barry Jolly(?). Then over time I met other staff of the department through various - - And that lady Jenny, is that her name?---Jenny Law. So you - you - you - you had dealings with her at the time?---I - yes. But early dealings with - with her were related around sort of training type activities they provided for elected members. And in relation to your consultations with all these people, I think your evidence has been that you had a feeling that there was a need to change, that things could be done better. There was a lot of good fiscal management but things were done on the smell of an oily rag. I think at the time - - -?---Sorry, we're talking about Canning now? Yes?---Yes. Sorry, going back to Canning. Would that be the - the general view that you'd formed as a result of speaking to all these people?---Yes. And I think there was a feeling also that the immediate past Mayor was held in high regard and the immediate past CEO, and that was the golden era. That was the feeling that you got at the time?---That - that was certainly expressed to me by some staff. All right. Now, moving forward, I'd just like to ask you some questions and I'd like to draw a line in the sand. When we - the period before November 2010, when you have the new executive team, let's say, “AD”, “after Dacombe”. Yes. The other one, before Dacombe and his changes. Now, to start with, the period of time up to and before the new executive starting, you had, I think, four people who were already in the organisation at the time you joined, is that correct?---Four executive members. Yes. Yes. And one of those executives was Andrew Sharpe?---Yes. And is it also correct that you found that because he'd been an Acting CEO, he had some corporate knowledge, he had finance, perhaps a strength that yours is not as strong as his, and that you wanted to keep him in the organisation. Would that be a summary?---Yes, he - he also had - he 20/11/2013 10:14 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1232 D41/3/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 had - coupled with that, he had a long - excuse me - a long history with the organisation. And he had the trust of the staff, didn't he?---Pardon? He had the trust of the staff?---I believe so, yes. So then you have other executives, and who is the next one that was there at the time you started?---In - in the regulatory services area was Mr Gavin Ponton. And your relationship with Mr Ponton?---Was - was quite was quite cordial. But there were huge issues in that area, weren't there?---There were big issues in that area. And that's when you brought in - at some later stage, you brought in Charles Johnson to - to review that area, correct?---That's correct. This is where we go back to my analogy and start bringing in some experts to - to consult. The next executive?---Mr Paul Merlo in the area of community services. Those titles aren't correct, but that was the area. No, that's fine, yes. And Mr Paul Merlo, you formed a view that perhaps he wasn't the right person to take the changes that you were looking at moving forward, is that correct?---Well, he was a very competent and respected manager of that area, but - - I'm not suggesting otherwise, but you'd formed the view - - -?---No, I'm being very clear to say that. Yes?---Because, I mean, this is a public record and - and I did hold that view quite strongly. But I did form the view that he didn't have the skills necessary to take the level of performance in those areas to the next level. And the last person?---The last person was in an acting role, was - in the engineering and technical services area was Mr Steve Apple who was the Parts Manager, and he'd been - he'd taken on the acting role and he'd had it for nearly a year, I think. And after that gentleman, who next filled that role of engineering?---Mr Charles Sullivan who came in from the outside. 20/11/2013 10:14 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1233 D41/3/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And in relation to this period before you have the hand-picked executives, the ones that - other than Mr Sullivan, the ones that you found when you first arrived, Mr Sharpe was the only one that survived in the executive role, correct?---That's right. And in fact, even Mr Sullivan started late, but he didn't survive very long, did he?---He survived about a year I think. So if we come up towards the November 2010 date when you have your handpicked executives on board, of the ones that were there originally and Mr Sullivan who was brought in before the Refocus was up and running was - only one, Mr Sharpe, remained?---Yes, that's right. And in fact - yes?---I was just going to add - no. I can - no. I was just going to add a comment to that regarding the other two, but that wasn't your question. No. And in fact the comments that you've been very careful to make now in your first report on Refocus, you were a little bit more strident, weren't you, about your feelings in relation to the adequacy of some of those executives to continue in the roles we had?---I - I - strident, I probably wouldn't use that word, but I was certainly very clear - I was certainly very clear on the advice that I gave, yes. Sorry, I can't remember the words so maybe - - All right. Well if I could perhaps just - I'll put some things to you, and I'm looking at a document, July 2010, a Refocus document - - -?---Yeah. - - - that you have prepared?---Yes. I think you did that in conjunction with Mr Richardson?---That's right. And you start at some point saying: Since taking up my appointment in February '09, I've got to know the organisation, it's history and culture. Do you recall that?---Yes. KENDALL, DR: Sorry, Ms Saraceni, do I have that - do we have that document? Is that numbered or - - - 20/11/2013 10:14 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1234 D41/3/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 SARACENI, MS: Yes. KENDALL, DR: Just so I have the reference number? SARACENI, MS: I don't have - sorry, I do. COC number, does that assist? KENDALL, DR: That's fine, yes. SARACENI, MS: RENTON, MR: This is a 002051. 2083, Inquirer. KENDALL, DR: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, thank you. SARACENI, MS: So it says - so it continues - so you start in February '09: I've got to know the organisation, it's history and culture, it's strengths and weaknesses, it's achievements and aspirations. Correct?---Yes. I have also carefully listened to the elected Council and its vision for Canning. I am not confident that it is time to refocus the organisation on our mission, ‘Above all, service.’ Correct?---Yep. Thanks to all of you for your conversations with me over the last 12 months. I would also acknowledge the contribution of Mike Richardson helping me clarify and shape my proposals. And that's what you said before, that he was involved in it. But then you go on to say: We also have some gaps in our capability, and we have changes to make. Correct?---Yes. You go on and say that: To achieve certain outcomes, a City Council must be and seen to be forward thinking, innovative and 20/11/2013 10:14 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1235 D41/3/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 entrepreneurial. subtle one. The balance we need to strike is a ?---Yes. Those comments there? And you go on and say: It is fundamental therefore as a staff organisation, we assist the Council to put in place a policy framework that helps attract appropriate development and avoids destructive development. ?---Yes. And you say: Given the speed of change in contemporary society, this is not a one-off task but an ongoing one. It begins with reviewing our town planning scheme on a fast track timetable. ?---Yeah. Now, this is July 2010, this document?---Yes. So you'd been there about 17 months?---Yes. And you have identified that the town planning scheme as at that date needed to be attended to, and on a fast-track timetable. Correct?---Yes, yes. And in fact you made that - you arrived at that conclusion even before you put it in this document, didn't you?---Absolutely. How early on did you arrive at the conclusion that the town planning scheme needed to be updated?---I couldn't pinpoint it, but it was certainly within the first year. At the time that you left the organisation, had it been updated?---No. In relation to Refocus, there are - seemed to be three limbs to it; “Shaping change, service excellence and building trust”?---Yes. You say underneath, “Service excellence”: I want to re-emphasise the fundamental accountability relationships on which Local Government is based. The Council is accountable to the community, more 20/11/2013 10:14 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1236 D41/3/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 specifically to electors. The staff organisation, through me, is accountable to the Council. To put this differently, the Council is elected to serve and provide leadership to the community. We are appointed to serve the Council and provide advice in carrying this out. We are servants. Do you remember saying that?---Yes. That did not go down - that message about being servants did not go down well with the staff at Canning, did it?---Possibly not, I don't know the answer to that. But you have a sense that it didn't go down well?---Well, it was certainly a different way of - it was a way of thinking about our role that - that was not consistent with the way they operated at that point. I - - -?---So I was actually making a very strong point was that our role was to serve the Council. I don't have a difficulty with that, but is it your perception that staff were not happy with being viewed as servants to provide a service to the Council?---That's quite possible. And you go on and say: Secondly, I want to re-emphasise the nature of being a servant and of providing service. So you're really hammering it in: At its root, it is about using one's skills to meet the needs of the community that is being served. ?---Yes. I want to be absolutely clear that we need to be listening and responsive to the community. ?---Yes. Then in relation to building trust, you say: Some of you may not be used to seeing this expressed so plainly, but that in itself illustrates part of the problem. A lack of transparency and an apparent pursuit of alternative agendas. Do you recall that?---Yes. 20/11/2013 10:14 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1237 D41/4/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Then you talk about a balance between leadership and engagement. Your comment is: That the organisation is overly hierarchical and therefore underutilising the talent it has available. ?---Yep. Correct?---Yes. But then you do comment that: There's a role for leadership, for making a decision, being accountable for it, and getting on with it. ?---Mm hmm. And that's your leadership style isn't it, Mr Dacombe?---That's the approach I take. And it's the approach you took throughout your term at City of Canning?---That's correct. You go on and say: I know that some of you will welcome our new directions, others will not. ?---Mm hmm. Correct?---Absolutely. And, in fact, as time progressed the - the ones that did not agree or did not welcome the change became louder and louder?---Yes. You go on to say: I feel it is important to explain this so as to clarify the style of management you should expect from me and the professionalism I expect from you. Such clarity around expectations is one of the keys to building trust. Yes?---Yeah. And then you go on and talk about the need for change. Now, would you accept that when you are introducing change into an organisation, and I say this to you as a professional, given your qualifications and your experience, that there are certain things you need to do, 20/11/2013 10:24 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1238 D41/4/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 and particularly in relation to change readiness there are a couple of dimensions in relation to that, aren’t there, yes?---Yes. Which - when you want to bring change into - organisation, and you’re looking at things such as discrepancy. Do employees believe the change is required to close the gap between current and preferred future states? That be one of the elements that you focus on?---Yeah. And also appropriateness, employees understanding why specific-change strategy is - best way to address the discrepancy. Do you accept that’s the second element?---Sorry, can you - I didn’t hear that. So you’ve got discrepancy first?---Yes. The second one is appropriateness, and I’m sure you know where this comes from, Mr Dacombe, straight from your business?---Mm hmm. Second one is appropriateness, employees to understand why specific-change strategy is - best way to address a discrepancy?---Yes. The third thing you say is needed is efficacy: Have confidence in organisations in themselves to successfully change. Otherwise bury their head in the sand. Yes?---Yes. The fourth element you say - headed “Valence”: What’s in it for me? People understand understandably resist change that threatens their self-interest. Yes?---Yes. And the last one, “Principal support”: Visible leadership support is essential. Employees need to see consistent evidence that leaders are committed to change. So you change before they - would agree that they are the readiness when you go into an you start bringing about some they are certainly - they are 20/11/2013 10:24 Merrill Corporation Australia five dimensions organisation and change?---Well, they certainly key factors DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1239 D41/4/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 you would expect to - to have in play. Now, I’m not - I’m saying that there’ll be different degrees in different organisations that you go in to; it’s simply that. Sorry, I should say, this business you have with your wife, is this more your area or your wife’s area?---Change - the - the change management? Yes?---In terms of - in terms of the - in terms of the direct experience, it’s mine. All right. she - - - And then you also talk about - - - ?---But Sorry?---- - - she has skills as well, and that particular paper that you’re talking about was written by one of our senior consultants. Just to be clear, there’s a team in there. Yes, I’m - I’m aware of that, but you accept that they are the elements of - - -?---Yes. - - - change management. And in relation to leading change, you also talk about assisting organisations to diagnose and address challenges and institute change, and you have a picture, cogs and a wheel, measurements, alignment and inspiring?---Mm hmm. Now, is that what you were trying to do at the City of Canning through the Refocus program?---The - there were two key things that I had in view. One was addressing what were very clear deficiencies in the way in which we were operating, and one was positioning the Council from a strategic point of view to be a leader in 21st century Local Government with a clear understanding that the issue on the horizon was reform. It was both structural reform, but it was also reform in the way in which Councils plan and relate to their communities, the integrated planning and reporting framework. So - - Mr Dacombe, with - with all this change you’ve got to sell it to the staff. They’ve got to come with you. Is that correct? You - you can’t just impose change from the top without having the ground roots (indistinct)?---Well, our our - our assessment - - So would you accept that proposition that change really for it to be successful you need to bring the people with you?---You do. 20/11/2013 10:24 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1240 D41/4/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Now, in this document, the Refocus document, you actually talk about the need for change. Now, as I understand you had some workshops, some road shows that you did, where you were selling Refocus to staff. We’ll leave Council for just a moment, but you’re selling Refocus to staff. Is that correct?---Um - - There were about two or three rounds of workshops?---That’s right. And part of the message, as I understand it, that you were giving to staff, as you’ve said in this document, the need for change - you’ve talked about - you’ve had discussions with the Mayor and Councillors, all this work that you were doing in that first year. I’ve made clear to you - talking to staff: - that they are the Council and our role is to assist them. You might have gathered that it is one of my observations that this fundamental model seems not to be well understood. That was a very strong, strident statement that you made, basically telling off the staff?---Yes. That did not go down well, did it, Mr Dacombe?---When when you say it did not go down well - - Well, did they like being criticised?--- - - - I mean, no, not - - They appreciate being criticised?--- - - - obviously there were a number of staff that - this was challenging the established order and they did not accept what I - say. And, in fact, Mike Richardson, when he was the consultant brought in to assist, he undertook a survey of the organisation?---We started with a survey, yes. And I think there was something like 84 questions that were put to staff?---Something like that. And the end result of that survey was that there was a lot that needed to be done? ---Yes. 20/11/2013 10:24 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1241 D41/4/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You talk about a management style that you found - the time that was strongly hierarchical, albeit benevolent, yes?---Yes. Then you go on to say that the organisational model that’s - that was then in place at Canning had weaknesses, and then you go and list weaknesses: Pride and professionalism can become a barrier. Recall that?---Yes. Belief in hierarchy fosters a reluctance to delegate decisions. Poor communication horizontally between teams and a tendency to blame-shift. ?---Yeah. A focus on internal systems and standards becomes the enemy of customer focus. Yes. Generally, innovation - flexibility are lacking. ?---Mm hmm. Financial prudence becomes elevated to such a virtue that it becomes a vice. ?---Mm hmm. And accommodating change reflecting changing opportunities are needs that are external and planning for the future all tend to take a back seat. You accept that that was the view that you had at the time?---Yeah, absolutely. The weaknesses in the organisation?---Mm hmm. And you say: These are generalisations. I’m not aware of anyone who displays all these characteristics. However, I have observed these traits enough to believe that the fundamental culture of the organisation encourages behaviour along these lines. My intention is not to be critical of individuals. I believe that people in this organisation are talented and committed to their work. I’m saying that our culture has to change. 20/11/2013 10:24 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1242 D41/5/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Yes?---Yes. And then you set out the immediate steps that you were going to take: The culture militates against that (indistinct) consistently producing excellence for elected members and the community, so I intend that we adopt some new directions and change our culture. This will take time, but we must recognise and address the barriers to achieving our full potential. One of those barriers is the current structure at senior executive level is not fit to take forward the refocussed organisation. Yes?---Yeah. Now, the change-readiness matters that I just took - took you through before, what thought did you give to whether the organisation and the people within it were in a state such that they were ready to accept change, to embrace change?---I think the climate or the staff survey that you referred to - my recollection would be that - that there was certainly a strong indication that staff were pretty comfortable in their lot, and the conclusion that I came to after some - quite some reflection and discussion was that we needed to - I needed to make a very clear statement about where I was going, which you’ve just read to us. And in terms of an organisation that was ready for that, that they - they weren’t ready for that. We knew they weren’t ready for that, and so what needed to be put in place was a very clear and upfront acknowledgement, because there was a lot of denial, particularly around the relationship stuff with - and our role with the elected members, and essentially I was drawing a line in the sand and saying that this will stop. This is the way we’re going to go. You’re really redirecting the organisation, aren’t you?---Absolutely. And this whole process, you've done it before in New Zealand, the redirecting?---And - and - and have done it differently. I've done it, depending on - depending on the nature of the organisation and where it's at. And - - -?---So - sorry. Sorry?---You're probably going to come to it so I'll stop there. 20/11/2013 10:34 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1243 D41/5/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Then you also talk about the role of managers and the fact that there needs to be a change in the role of managers so that they take greater accountability for the performance of their units?---That's right. I'm expecting that managers will take on some tasks currently undertaken by executives and make a range of decisions that they currently refer to executives. Do you recall that?---Yep. And you want managers to delegate parts of their current workload to their staff and you want to shift decision-making as close as possible to the front line of the organisation. Yes?---Yes. While each manager will have a clear line to a particular executive for performance management purposes, in many cases, he or she will be engaging with a different executive depending on the nature of an issue. ?---Yep. Now, with all these changes that you were making to people's contracts, their contractual arrangements, what they did or didn't have to do, position descriptions, because you go on and talk about position descriptions, value-based - job value statements that you were going to introduce, what input did you seek from the HR manager before you put pen to paper along these lines?---In terms of that document there, none of the executives or the HR Manager had input into that document. Now, the HR Manager at the time was who?---Suzanne Lockwood. Now, you'd appreciate, wouldn't you, that unilateral changes can't be made to a person's employment contract?---I'm not sure that I'm talking - - You appreciate that?---Yes. Okay. Yes. And you hadn't consulted with HR about these changes before this happened?---No. So when you're talking about shifting workloads, 50 per cent of the executive managers' time, I think you say, is to do their work in managing their team, and 50 per cent is strategic, looking forward, all of that, was any consideration given by you to workloads in relation to 20/11/2013 10:34 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1244 D41/5/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 what they were doing and whether they could take this on, or not, or were you only interested in their capacity, their - their mental capacity to - to deal with these things?---The - the lead up to that, there was structured or there were structured interviews conducted by Mike Richardson with the executive members and also with the excuse me - with the managers. Now, at the stage that you're talking about there, I didn't see necessarily, although obviously a potential issue down the road, but necessarily we were talking about changes in contractual arrangements. Well, a job description is - - -?---Well, I - - - - - part of a contract?---In terms of the way we wrote the - the executive job descriptions, certainly. I think the job descriptions for the managers, largely what I was asking or suggesting needed to happen was that they fulfil those, that they act as managers and, in fact, the situation that was there when that was written was the executive were operating pretty well as managers, at a level of detail that was abnormal in an organisation that size, and the managers were abdicating to the executives in that role. So basically, what I was saying was that executives needed to become executives, managers needed to step up and become managers and that didn't necessarily mean, although certainly, at the executive level, that did because I changed that structure quite significantly; that did require a rewrite of those job descriptions. And then subsequently some of the management - well, I think there were probably - there were some particular areas that we focused in, where some of the management job descriptions and contracts needed to be changed, for sure, but that was further down the track. All right. And then just moving on to these job value statements that you talk about, did you - they were introduced for the executive management. You say: They'll be a combination of a traditional position description and a performance agreement. ?---Yep. But you hadn't spoken to HR, correct?---Not at that point, no. (Indistinct): While each executive will have a broad overall focus of responsibilities, job value statements will 20/11/2013 10:34 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1245 D41/5/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 identify specific outcomes that they will be achieving. These will be agreed with me on an annual basis or more frequently if appropriate. Correct?---Mm hmm. So when in the - which month of the year had you set aside to do these performance review or performance discussions, discussions about how they're doing their work?---There was a - are we talking about the new executive or the existing executive? Well, we're still on the old - the current executive - - -?---There was a cycle - - - - - the ones that were there at the time?---There was a cycle for the performance - - Okay. When - when was that because - sorry, when was that?---Well, I think the - the program started soon after the results of the financial year were known. Yes. Because a performance review is often linked to a salary review. Correct?---Often. Often - - Otherwise - - -?--- - - - that would - yeah. But in terms of the year's result, that's a logical time to do it. And when, at the City of Canning, were you getting these results? So the end of the financial year is 30 June?---Yep. So when after that, roughly, would you be looking at it? When was HR - - -?---Well - - - - - getting involved?---- - - HR would be starting the process soon after 30 June, getting everybody geared up to do it. And was there an end date by which these performance reviews would be completed?---Well, the attempt was to do it as quickly as possible. Often we found with, you know, significant parts of the organisation workload mean that that there was some slippage, quite some slippage in that timing from time to time. But by September, that sort of time, it would be finished, the process ought to be finished?---The - the 2010 performance reviews, for example, were actually reported to the Council in February of 2011. 20/11/2013 10:34 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1246 D41/5/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 I'm not suggesting reporting to Council but just the performance reviews being done and people getting told - - -?---They would be 80 or 90 per cent done by September/October, I would have thought - - Right?--- - - - and so there's - that that gets to get over the - - All right. 80 or 90 per cent done by September. Of those performance reviews, how many would you do? The 11 persons that were directly answerable to you?---Who - whoever was answerable to me, yes. Well, at the start of you being there, probably about November 2010, there were about 11 people directly answerable to you, I think you looked at yesterday, with - - -?---Mm. Yes. Roughly. with that. I think there was - - -?---Yep. I'm happy - - - one person you weren't quite sure with?---I don't know the number of that, yep. So in 2009, come 30 June and September '09 - - -?---Mm. - - - you've only been there at the organisation about six months?---Yep. The performance reviews of staff need to be undertaken. With whom, if anyone, did you undertake performance reviews in '09?---Well, I can't recall the detail of that. I'm not asking for detail. You - - -?---No, I can't - - - You were new to the job?---Yes. It's time to do performance reviews. I imagine the HR Manager came to you and said - - -?---Yes. - - - I need to do these things?---Yes. Were you in control of your diary or did you have a secretary in control of your diary? Did the HR Manager organise that for you, all the appointments that you would need?---Look, no, I can't recall. Did you do the performance reviews of the 11 people that were directly answerable to you in 2009, your first year?---I cannot recall that. 20/11/2013 10:34 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1247 D41/6/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Well, more likely yes or more likely no? feeling - - -?---Well, I was - - - Or do you have a - - - one way or the other or - - -?---No. It is - it is possible - it is possible that, having only been there a few months, I decided to delay that, but I cannot be certain of that. Now, the - the personnel files of all these people, who kept the personnel files of the executives?---HR. So that - there'd be documents there to support - - -?---They would be - - - - - it one way or the other?---They would be there. All right. 2010 - - -?---Yes. - - - so you're there a year and a half by that time - - -?---Yep. - - - between June and September 2010, when it's time to do performance reviews - - -?---Yep. - - - of the 11 people or so that were directly answerable to you, do you do those performance reviews in 2010?---I believe so. And who, if anyone, helped you with those performance reviews? Do you have HR with you in the meetings?---No. So - - -?---The performance discussion was between me and the individual. There might have been one exception where I did have an HR person involved and that was over one of the more junior staff who, you know, very obviously it would be much less threatening to meet the Chief Executive with an HR Adviser. Of course. Now, in these conversations that you were having with those directly answerable to you, is that when you told Paul Merlo that his job as an executive was not going to continue under the new structure?---No. I would have had that discussion separate from our performance review, for sure, and - and I was very keen to decouple what I was doing with the review of the organisation from their performance and their existing roles. But Paul you moved sideways and he looked after the Leisureplex complex at Cannington, correct? His role changed?---His role - his role changed, yes. 20/11/2013 10:44 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1248 D41/6/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And Mr Ponton didn’t survive, did he?---What I said, and I think it said it in the document, that there was a role for both of them in the organisation if they chose to take that role. Now, Paul did choose to take that role. I can't actually remember the detail of it, he - - Yes, we've done Paul?---Yes. Mr Ponton did not?---The role that I wanted Gavin to do, he decided that he didn’t want to do and so he was redundant. All right. Steve Atwell?---Steve Atwell was Parks Manager. And so he stopped in his acting role and you had Charles Sullivan?---That's right. And what happened with Mr Sullivan?---Charles - Charles stayed in the role of Executive Engineering and Technical Services. Until when?---Until he resigned in July. 2010?---2010. These changes with executive managers, even in 2010, before November 2010, that created some angst amongst this people in their areas?---Yes. And I think your evidence has been previously that it was very much a siloed organisation?---Yes. And in relation to the engineering side of it, those changes in relation to Mr Atwell and Mr Sullivan, that created disharmony within that group?---Um - - As far as you know?---I know there wasn’t a comfortable relationship there between the executive and his team. And they blamed you for that, didn’t they?---Well, they may very well have. I don't know. Well, you're the one who made the decisions to make the changes. They blamed you, Mr Dacombe, didn’t they?---the we're not talking about changes in the engineering area in the context of the document that you're holding in your hand. Charles Sullivan was employed in the vacant executive role of Executive, Engineering and Technical Services where Mr Atwell had been acting for a long period of time and a former, much respected engineering manager, Mr Silvio Trinca - - - 20/11/2013 10:44 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1249 D41/6/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Yes?---- - - had previously been there. So the - so the Charles Sullivan entry into the organisation was not initially associated with the Refocus work. And what about the other executive? other executives? The other area?---The Yes?---The new one? No, no, still the old one. more?---Um - - - Wasn't there one left, one Who was in charge of planning?---Pardon? Who was in charge of planning?---That was Gavin Ponton. Gavin Ponton. Now, if I could then take you to Mr Johnson's review?---Yes. In May 2011, he provided a report?---Yes. And he also attended a counsel forum and you spoke to his report?---Yeah. And his report looked only at review of Regulatory Services Group?---That's right. And I think he said at the forum - I've been told he said something like "It's a basket case". "The planning division in the City of Canning is a basket case"?---Mm hmm. Do you recall him saying that?---I - I vaguely recall him saying that, yes. And when Mr Johnson came in, he's one of these other consultants, like an obstetrician et cetera, going back to my analogy, you have a situation where he knew about Refocus and he built in some comments of Refocus into his report, correct?---Yes. And in fact he has said that: The review identified a number of significant issues and challenges facing the City in terms of the performance of its regulatory planning functions. It is noted that these problems are long standing and have affected the City's operational effectiveness for many years. 20/11/2013 10:44 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1250 D41/6/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 ?---Yep. It is acknowledged that the Executive Management Team and Council have identified these shortcomings and are determined to make improvements in the way that the Regulatory Services Group performs. ?---Yes. Correct? And you agreed with those findings in his review?---Yes. And in it he made 41 individual recommendations for improvement?---Mm hmm. Correct?---Yes. Some of the changes were broken down into things that could be done in the first six months after he issued his report. Then there were things that could be done within 12 months and some things done within 18 months. Do you recall that?---Yes. And he spoke about a good governance framework in some of the changes moving forward?---Yep. He spoke about corporate records management?---Mm hmm. Yes? And he looked at things that needed to be done?---Yes. So do I understand it correctly that as at May 2011 when you have this report from Mr Johnson, you then have had two separate consultants looking at - casting a microscope over the organisation and saying, “These are all the things that need to be done”, two separate people, correct?---Are you talking about Mr Richardson and Mr Johnson? Yes?---Different roles. Certainly the Richardson assignment was a cross-organisational review for me. Charles Johnson exercise - - - The Refocused?---Very much. Now, at the time of this report of Mr Johnson, May 2011, you've only been there for just over two years, correct?---Yep. Now, given what you said to me earlier, I understood that in the first year that you started at the City of Canning, it was you who was going around and talking to people and 20/11/2013 10:49 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1251 D41/6/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 working out what they were feeling, what they were hope what they were looking at, what they were hoping for and things that were shortcomings?---Yes. So if you'd done it in the first twelve months that you were there, what was the need to have first Mr Richardson do exactly that same exercise - I'll ask you that first. If you've already done it, why Mr Richardson repeat what you'd done?---Well, I had done it from my Chief Executive's role in getting a knowledge and understanding of the organisation for - in terms of my leadership of it. What I wanted was an expert review of that, that would then form the basis of this - to assist me to form the basis of the steps that I needed to do to move forward. So in the first twelve months or so that you were there and you had formed a view as to what needed to be done, what, if any, changes did you make yourself after your review of the first twelve months or so?---The - the changes that I made in the first twelve months were - just trying to think the word to express it in - they were minor improvements consistent with the indication that I'd had from Council that they wanted a steady state for the first two year first year. Give me some examples - give me some examples of those minor improvements?---I think that - I think that we added a very small number of staff to the regulatory area. All right. So you increased staffing in one area and?---We - well, we were working on systems to support that as well. So who's “We”?---“We”, meaning me and the executive. So you directed someone to do something in relation to it, is that what you're saying?---Yes. There was a - there was a small team working on the IT systems to support particularly the regulatory area where - where we were having - having issues. What about things that were going up to Council, let's say the agendas. Did you - you came in, you'd already worked at a few Local Governments in New Zealand. You come in, you look at the agendas, there were meetings every fortnight, so you were looking at agendas very regularly. What, if anything, did you do in relation to changing the adequacy of those agendas in that first period?---In that first period - in the first period I didn't make - I didn’t make significant changes. That's what - what I'm saying. 20/11/2013 10:49 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1252 D41/7/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 But changing the agenda items or making sure that reports are done a particular way when included in agendas, that's surely not a major change, is it?---Well, those - those reports - those - sorry, I'm just trying to give you a considered response here. The areas that - that there were difficulties with in terms of the quality of the reports were also represented in the areas, you know, regulatory, for example. That was the main area where - where there were difficulties. And there was definitely a question there of staff capability. In terms of - - So weren't capable to do what they were meant to be doing?---Pardon? Some weren’t capable of doing what they were meant to be doing?---Well, the report writing is a particular skill, I think. And we - we were light in that area. So, sorry, these were discussed at those briefings that you had with the executives on the Thursday before the - when settling the agenda items before the meeting - the Council meeting on the Tuesday?---That's right. And yet there was nothing that you or the executives thought could be done in the short term to improve this report writing?---I think the issue - there was a - there was a real tension between the machine getting stuff through on that fortnightly cycle and trying to maintain reasonable turnaround times and what was needed to do to substantially change the report writing. Now, I had also had - let's just focus on the regulatory area. I had a very clear view that there - that what was happening at Canning was highly unusual, the level of detail and the decisions - the level of decisions that were going to the Council. Ultimately, that needed a structural change. So we tried to make - - But wasn’t that - - -?---- - - we tried to make - - Sorry, Mr Dacombe?---Yes? Wasn't part of the issue there that the town planning scheme hadn't been updated, and that the approvals and things were so out of date that that's why those things were going up to Council which could have perhaps otherwise been delegated down to someone else. Isn't that the issue?---I think - I think you'll - I don't think that was the issue. 20/11/2013 10:54 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1253 D41/7/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Part of the issue?---That may have been an element, but I think the Johnson report itself indicated that a lot could be delegated down even within the inadequate structural framework. And if we're talking about the reports, there was a template that people were using or was everyone doing their own thing vis-a-vis the reports?---No, in terms of the - in terms of all the reports, there were generally - not generally, there were templates depending on you know, which part of the organisation it was for. So it wouldn't have been very difficult to make changes to the template and to tell people that in future, reports should be done as per the new template. The Dacombe version 2010 of the - - -?---Okay, well let's stick to the regulatory area; that would have been highly difficult, because - - Why?---Because the elected members were very much married to that template. Mr Dacombe, you are the CEO, you are the boss, you control and direct the staff beneath you, all of them; 600 fulltime equivalents, it was up to you to impose - I think that's what you said your leadership style was - impose, make a decision, impose it, hold people accountable and get on with it?---Yes. Well, why wasn't that done?---No, in terms of the - explaining to you, again focusing on the regulatory area and the subsequent experience played out in this way. The Council was - did not want a lot of change. Sure, they wanted - they wanted better information, they wanted more reliability of the information, they didn't want to change to the framework. Mr Dacombe, Council for decision making purposes as a group, but the Council is made up of 11 individuals. In 2009 there was an election, was there not, in October?---Yes. New Councillors came on, old Councillors went off, yes?---Yes. 2010, October, there was another election?---Yep. New Councillors come on, old Councillors go off or maybe the other way around. Yes?---Yes. 20/11/2013 10:54 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1254 D41/7/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So when you're talking about changes and Councillors wanting or Council wanting or not wanting change, you never asked them, did you, whether the templates, for example, of the reports was something that they were happy with?---No, I gathered - I - - Sorry, your answer is no?---No. All right. Now - no, no, your answer is no in relation to that?---Yes. So you work on assumptions that you have formed. You've made some assumptions that maybe Council doesn't want the changes to the reports and that's what you go on. You don't actually scratch the surface and get to the bottom of it, do you?---When I say no, I didn't ask them as a Council. That's exactly right. So you form a view based on an assumption, and you just proceed on that basis. And it's because it's easier, isn't it Mr Dacombe? It's the easy way to do it?---No. Were you just waiting for everything to come under the umbrella of Refocus and then make the change. Is that what you were doing?---No, I've explained what I did for the first year, and I - - But Mr Dacombe, changing a template is not a major exercise. Why did you not direct the planning division or the building division to use a report in a different style?---(No audible answer). You never thought of it?---No, I - I - I built up over that first year a very keen knowledge that change was required on a wide front. The approach I ended up taking was to take a strategic approach to that. What I determined, and particularly around the regulatory area where there were major problems in terms of getting - particularly turning the applications through, both in the planning area, the building area, to a lesser extent, health. The priority there had to be on attempting to improve those systems. What we didn't need - what I didn't need or couldn't impose at that stage on staff that were already overloaded was was a change in the area that you were talking about. The focus had to be on improving the throughput. Mr Dacombe, in general, I hear what you say. But I'm talking about a document, a precedent document. Making changes to a simple document. It would not have been a difficult exercise for you to give that direction, would 20/11/2013 10:54 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1255 D41/7/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 it?---Well, I think you would have been probably surprised about the ripples that would have caused. And I determined - - I'm not asking you that, about whether they would accept it?---Okay. But it would have been an easy exercise for you to look at the reports and you having had all those years experience in New Zealand and you say, "This report, I'm not happy with this report. It doesn't do what it should do. It doesn't meet - it doesn't comply with the standing order, it doesn't comply with the Act. I want that done this way." That would have been easy for you to do and it could have been done within a month, two months, just to bring it in and then you have a consultation period with the staff to make sure they were happy with the changes, and then you roll it through. Couldn't that have been done?---Well, I - - It could have been done?---Of course it could. But it wasn't?---No, I - - In fact, it was never done during your term at Canning, not done at all. Not done before and not done under Refocus?---Well, I don't think that's true, but I would - in fact, I don't think that's true. So there was a new template that was introduced, when?---I can't tell you the date but my - - Who did it?---Pardon? Who did it?---It was done as a result of the Charles Johnson report, that was one of the - - Who did the template?---It was - I couldn't tell you who actually drew up the template, but it was done under the leadership of the executive - executive at the time, Kevin Jefferies. And you took this - sorry?---And - and it must have been some months - it must have been in place some months because the Council subsequently resolved to roll it back. So you took it up to Council, is that what you're saying, this new template?---No, I didn't - I didn't do that personally, Kevin Jefferies the executive did that. There was a workshop on that. 20/11/2013 10:54 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1256 D41/7/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So - - -?---And it was introduced. Well, a workshop is not a decision making time, is it?---No. So was the new template put to Council in its decision making role as a Council, and they got to vote on it?---I couldn't answer that. The answer is no. There's nothing there, is there?---I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. Mr Dacombe, if I could just take you back then, we're rolling along, we're moving. We're moving a little bit further on, and let's say that the IVF has taken, and there's a pregnancy happening. If you didn't know, you're pregnant, Mr Dacombe. Come November 2010, you have new executives. New executives come on board?---Yes. Now, Mr Jefferies is already in the organisation on a six-month contract, correct?---Mm hmm. In fact, he's on annual leave, doesn't come back to 29 November 2010, and when he comes back he takes on the role of executive?---For Property Assets and Economic Development. And you'd worked with him in New Zealand, correct?---I did. Then you look at the executive of Client and Customer Services, and you engage Fiona Armstrong?---Yep. Yes. And Fiona Armstrong is someone you'd had experience with in the past?---No. Not at all?---No. Then you have Mr Mouritz, Dr Mouritz?---Dr Mouritz, yes. And Dr Mouritz, you'd had some dealings with him even in New Zealand, but also when he was working with the Department of Housing, or was a consultant to Department of Housing for the Brownlie Project?---That's right. So he comes on board, so you've had some previous dealing with Dr Mouritz. And then you have Andrew Sharpe, the executive for City Assets and Development Services?---That's right. 20/11/2013 11:04 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1257 D41/8/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And that is your dream team come late November 2010. Would you accept that if I call them your “Dream team”?---I would. Your inner circle?---Well, they’re my executive team. Would you accept that they were your inner circle?---Mm. Um - - Did you trust them?---Absolutely. Each of them?---Each of them? Did you trust Andrew Sharpe?---I did. So you have this executive - new executive team that comes across. They are all sold on Refocus, correct?---They came on board to pack up the next phase of Refocus. So they came on board with a very clear articulation from me about what we were talking about. Yes?---What we’ve gone through. So - - -?---So yes, sorry. - - - at the time of employing them they knew about Refocus, the organisational change that you were bringing to the organisation. And what their role was going to be in helping bringing about that organisational change, correct?---That’s right. And even Andrew Sharpe, although he wasn’t new employed, he had come on board in relation to the organisational change?---Yes. The level underneath executive managers, the level of managers, they hadn’t all come on board with Refocus, had they?---Um - - Not all of them?---Not all of them, no. Had Mr Bozich come on board with Refocus?---Um - - That he was serving the Council?---I would - I would say he hadn’t. And who else would you say hadn’t?---Um - - At the manager level. 20/11/2013 11:04 Merrill Corporation Australia I’m not talking about - - -?---Yeah. DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1258 D41/8/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 - - - lower than that?---Yes. Can - can I - can I answer that in two sentences rather than one? Well, perhaps we can have some names. We’ve got Bozich is one. Who else?---No, I can’t - I - Penny Wright would be another. She wasn’t a manager but she was the Communications Adviser. And you thought she was leaking information to Council, didn’t you, about you?---Yes. And you moved her?---And what? You moved her around?---I put her - I put her function into the strategic area, yes. There was a rationale for that related to the function of it - - (Indistinct) rationale. You moved her?---I did. And if you were in her shoes, one minute she has a trusted position as a public - I can’t remember the title exactly - - -?---Public Affairs Officer. Thank you. As a Public Affairs Officer. And next minute she is sidelined?---She was still the Public Affairs Officer. Yes. But for - first time originally she had direct access to the CEO, direct access to the Council, and then that was turned off more or less. Do you accept that?---I think that that issue was discussed with her at the time. And while she reported to Dr Mouritz, she still had access to me. But she didn’t report to me. Well, Mr - Mr Dacombe, you used to sit in your office all the time. People would have to come to you. You weren’t the sort of leader that would walk around, say good morning, check on how people are doing and be friendly with them. You would sit in your office and people would have to make appointments to come and see you. You were the boss. Isn’t that right?---They didn’t have to make appointments to come and see me. Our - - But they had to come and see you. They had to come upstairs and see you?---(No audible answer). But you - you can’t say you had an open door policy?---I did have an open door policy. 20/11/2013 11:04 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1259 D41/8/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 That anyone could come in at any time?---Anybody could come in at any time. Unless the door was shut. And it - which it was rarely - rarely shut. So if someone was complaining about - lower down than manager was complaining about their work, they could come direct to you, or you would send them back to say, “No, your - you are answerable to this manager and to this executive manager, deal with them”?---No. Anybody could come and see me. And I would see them. I would have the first - always have the first meeting with them. Always one on one. Or if they wanted somebody with them, that I was totally comfortable as well. I would always resolve issues involving their executive. That was absolutely essential because I would not undermine the executive. Now, I can give you examples - - No, I’ve seen some documents, Mr Dacombe, where that’s occurred and you’re exactly right. You’ve involved the executive and asked them to - to deal with it. Even though someone may have come first to you, you say, “No, (indistinct) go and deal with your manager and your” - - -?---Well, it would depend on the - - - - - “executive manager”?---- - - issue. And often there’s - there would be a subsequent meeting involving the manager before I handed it over. And Tania Trengove, had she accepted Refocus?---Well, she said - - That is her name, isn’t it?---She said she did. She said she did. she?---She was. She was in charge of aged care, wasn’t And with all this restructuring, what ended up happening to her role?---She indicated that she wanted - she indicated to me, this is a case of a manger coming directly to me, that she was looking for new challenges within the organisation. She felt that she had done what she could do in the aged care and she wished to extend herself. And so - so we found - we found ways to retain her in the organisation and give her new experiences. So she came out of the aged care management role. But she wasn’t a friend of yours, was she, Mr Dacombe?---Well, I - - - 20/11/2013 11:04 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1260 D41/8/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Wasn’t a supporter maybe I should say?---I subsequently found that out. Now, Mr Dacombe, you had all these changes for Refocus. When you’ve come on board, I think you said there were some pressing issues. One of them was the withdrawal from SMRC, the decision having been taken just before you started in the - - -?---Yeah. - - - organisation, yes?---Yes. And wasn’t one of the things that you wanted to do early on is put in place a dedicated Compliance Officer to deal, for example, with the SMRC issues and the fallout from that?---Yes. And when, if at all, was a Compliance Officer appointed?---I can’t - I can’t recall. Before you left Canning was there one appointed?---I - I actually can’t recall. Now, what happened in - what happened in that regular - regulatory area were - there were changes around (inaudible) and - and my recollection would be that we provided for that compliance role. But I couldn’t describe to you how we did that here. And also from very early on you were already making some rumblings about legal services and - - -?---That’s right. - - - how the Council was going to get legal services. What was your view in relation to the legal services provision of services to the Council?---Well, I thought we were probably - well, we had no in-house capability and I thought that we were probably briefing out more than we needed to. I think we had a capability around handling property transactions and that sort of thing, but it was limited to that. So I thought two things around that, that there needed to be tighter management of the external legal advice. And I thought that there was the opportunity to provide a level of advice internally that would be quite cost effective. All right. If I now could take you to something different? And perhaps - I’m going to refer to the transcript, ladies. In relation to some evidence that you’ve already given, dealing with the various issues, specific 12 issues that are being looked at by this Inquiry (indistinct). 20/11/2013 11:04 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1261 D41/9/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 KENDALL, DR: Sorry, Ms Saraceni - - - SARACENI, MS: Yes? KENDALL, DR: Would you mind if we just took a break now? We’re just having an Internet problem I just need to get fixed before we pull up the new document. SARACENI, MS: Yes, sir. KENDALL, DR: So it might be a good time just to take 10 minutes, if that’s all right with you. SARACENI, MS: KENDALL, DR: Thank you. Thank you. (THE WITNESS WITHDREW) (Short adjournment) DACOMBE, MARK OSMOND recalled on former affirmation: KENDALL, DR: Ms Saraceni? SARACENI, MS: Thank you. Thank you, Inquirer. Mr Dacombe, I’m just going to start asking some questions now in relation to evidence already given about the 12 issues that people have specifically been asked on. First, the Bannister Road works. When you gave evidence last time, and it’s up on the screen at page 55 of the transcript, you talked about consultation with the Local Government - Department of Local Government, and they drew certain things to your attention. Do you see that at the top of page 55 of the transcript?---Yeah, I’m just trying to place it. So the question/comment was in relation to - fact that reasons were not adequately given for not accepting a recommendation of an officer in that context there. When did you first consult the Department of Local Government about that?---I - I - excuse me, Ms Saraceni, but I - I think that’s referring to the issue of - - Confidentiality?--- - - - confidentiality. Thank you. I apologise. So the fact that the minutes did not reflect the reasons for confidentiality?---That’s right. 20/11/2013 11:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1262 D41/9/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Thank you for bringing that to my attention. So you consulted - was it you or someone else that consulted with the Department of Local Government about that?---No, I think that issue was raised by the Department of Local Government with Natalie Leeson, our legal and democratic services person, I think. And then how did you find out about it?---I think she told me. As a result of that discussion what, if anything, changed?---A new approach that - a new approach was put in place, and I think the first time that was used was December 2011. Do you remember roughly when she started as your in-house lawyer?---No. It was about midyear, I think. Mid-2011?---I - yes, but I can’t be sure. Now, you had that advice from the department. Natalie, she relayed it to you?---Yeah. You - You’re the CEO. You’re the boss. When and in what circumstances did you inform Andrew Sharpe of that?---Well, she may - she may have already informed him. I don’t know that. Did you?---I - I don’t recall going straight from Natalie to Andrew, for example. And - - - ?---I don’t know how that communication took place. And you didn’t inform Councillor Mason of that advice that you’ve received from the Department of Local Government, did you?---Probably - well, not specifically, no, I don’t think so. How long after you commenced employment at the City of Canning did you develop a working knowledge of the Local Government Act? You’ve made some comments in page 55 of the transcript. You started in February ’09. When - which date in February?---About the 19 - that - no, not the 19th. About the 23rd, I think. And roughly how long did it take you to develop a working knowledge of the Act?---Well, it’s - you know, obviously it’s a large Act, and there’d be parts of it that I’d be more familiar with than others, but over the first few months I started to build up a knowledge of it (inaudible). 20/11/2013 11:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1263 D41/9/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So by the end of 2009, when you’d been employed for roughly 10 months, would you say you had a good working knowledge of the Act?---Well, I wouldn’t have had a photographic memory of each of the sections, but I would certainly have been familiar with key parts of it, and I would have known where and how to consult it. Mr Dacombe, I’m not suggesting you should have a photographic memory. As any lawyer would know, you always go to court with your statutes?---Indeed. When you went into meetings, for example, with Council, did you take a copy of the Local Government Act with you?---Not always, but occasionally. Occasionally. Did Mr Sharpe take a copy of the Local Government Act with him?---I can’t recall. Standing orders. Did you used to take standing orders with you?---Stand - standing orders I had a copy of, yes. And you had them with you at the Council meeting?---Well, I couldn’t say every Council meeting, but certainly most Council meeting - - These were not available to you electronically at the time, were they? You would have to bring in a hard copy?---I had a hard copy. I don’t - - And so you could have consulted that at any time something came up during a Council meeting?---Well, I could have, yes. Did you?---From time to time I would check at - advice that Andrew was giving, but I couldn’t give you a – specific instances where I did that. And when did you commence advising the Council on its functions under the Act?---Well, I advised the Council on its functions under the Act right from day one through the agenda process. How does that work? You decided what went in the agenda and what it looked like?---The – the agenda settlement process certainly included consideration of compliance issues. In relation to one of the sections of the Act that you knew better than others, wasn’t that the section that wasn’t actually in the Act? It was in the regulations dealing with needing to explain reasons why a Council officer’s 20/11/2013 11:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1264 D41/9/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 recommendation is not accepted. If you look at page 58 of the transcript, don’t you give some evidence about that, that you well knew what provision of the Act - regulations was and that you were insisting that people comply with it? No?---We’re talking now about giving reasons. Is that - - Yes?---- - - the story? How is it that you knew about that section but didn’t know about the section that my friend asked you about yesterday in relation to disposal of property?---Because this – this was reasonably common practice. Common practice not to accept the recommendation of officers?---That’s right. And what was the annual turnover of Canning?---The annual turnover - - Yes?---- - - of staff? No, no. Financial?---Right. 100 million, I think. Okay. I don’t – about And how much property did Canning own?---Quite a bit of property. And yet the disposition-of-property section in the Act is not something that you knew as well as that one provision in the regulations dealing with the officers - - -?---Well, there were very – very few property transactions at the time, certainly the early stages that I was there, and that was one of the key projects under the Refocus approach. So – so obviously this situation of changing officers’ or rejecting officers’ recommendations came up on a regular basis, probably every month. Not necessarily. In terms of dealing with property that was quite rare. All right. And in relation to the minutes of meetings ultimately you were responsible for those – the accuracy of those minutes?---Yes. Did you delegate that job to Mr Sharpe at any time?---The – the process was that each – each executive – because the agendas were divided up into the – sort of the areas of each executive. They checked – they checked the minute recording or the draft minutes. They were collated. They went to both Andrew and myself, and that was the system that was in place, I think, for the whole time I was there. 20/11/2013 11:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1265 D41/10/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Now, in relation to checking the accuracy of the minutes, et cetera, do you accept that that was part of your statutory duties to do that?---Yeah. Yes. And it was also part of your contractual duties under you contract of employment to do that?---Yeah, that's what I say, that's what I did. Now, under the Act you can delegate certain functions to other persons, can't you?---Yes. The delegation has to be formal and in writing?---Yes. You can't delegate things that people are paying you under your contract of employment to do, can you? Not without the approval of others?---Not without the approval of others. By agreement you can do it, but not without agreement, correct?---There’s a - there is a formal process for formal delegations under the Act. But not under your contract of employment. There is no ability to delegate under your contract of employment?---Well, delegation I don't think is mentioned in the contract of employment. It may be, but I would expect that the contract of employment was referring to the responsibility for the specific areas. The way in which I - the way in which the Chief Executive actually discharges those responsibilities has to be a reasonably broad range of management discretion. All right?---Bearing in mind at the end of the day the accountability falls back. The buck stops with you?---That's right. Now, in relation to the advice you received from the Department of Local Government about confidentiality and how that was described in the minutes, Mr Sharpe had been the one who was really taking care of that element of the minutes, wasn’t he, checking about confidentiality and what was in the box and what wasn’t. When the Department told you that it wasn't up to scratch through your legal person, did that place a dent in your faith in Mr Sharpe's ability with respect to working knowledge of the Act and the regulations - - -?---No. - - - in relation to this?---No. 20/11/2013 11:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1266 D41/10/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So you just thought it was an oversight on his part?---Yes. Did you direct him to correct it in the future?---Well, did I say, "Mr Sharpe, correct this"? You can see that we took action. Sorry, I'm trying to answer your question precisely. Well, maybe I'll move on because my other question maybe might make this question a bit more understandable. At those Council - sorry, the executive briefing meetings that you held before the Council meetings, that's where agenda items came up, reports came up and that would have been the appropriate time to check whether the item was appropriate, whether the report was appropriate, correct?---That's right. And whether the attachments that the report referred to were the attachments that needed to be there, whether you wanted more or less attachments?---That's right. Correct? The deficiencies - did you detect any deficiencies in any of the items during the time that you were there?---Absolutely. In the agenda, the reports?---Absolutely. You did. And at those briefing meetings, did you direct that they be fixed?---Yes. And were they fixed?---Yes. So when items that you'd picked up at that time had been fixed when they came to the Council meeting, you were comfortable that they were all in accordance with legislative requirements?---Yes. So none slipped through?---I wouldn’t say none slipped through. And how do you explain the slippage?---Well, there was - as I explained it was a very high volume of work, there was a two-weekly turnover which meant as one agenda was settled, the next one was being prepared. And occasionally mistakes happened. Mr Dacombe, if I take you to the period specifically when you had your dream team executives, the inner circle?---Yes. 20/11/2013 11:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1267 D41/10/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So November 2010 moving on. You were having these meetings, settling the agenda et cetera. The brains trust of the City staff were with you and still things slipped through?---Occasionally. Now, was that due to oversight?---I - I would say it was well, oversight. Wilful blindness, you didn't care?---Who didn’t care? You or the executives?---The executives certainly cared for the quality of work that was going forward. Was it incompetence that no one picked it up?---No, I reject that. Why?---In any organisation of human beings mistakes happen. In the case of the preparation of agendas, those mistakes, in terms of the volume of stuff that went through, were not huge. It's a very large risk with mistakes going through and things being perpetuated, isn’t it, Mr Dacombe?---I think you saw that the risks in that area were recognised and that towards the end of my time there, there were - again under the Refocus banner, there was specific improvements being implemented. Now, you've given some evidence that you did not involve yourself in the minutia of the Bannister Road works, as you had other more pressing priorities. Could you tell us what those pressing priorities were at the time?---Can you remind me of the time? The time that - we're looking at pages 58 onwards of your the transcript of your evidence in relation to the Bannister Road and when that was being discussed. So I can't give you an exact date, but you said that you didn’t involve yourself in the minutia because of pressing priorities. What do you recall was pressing? KENDALL, DR: Would it help if you had a hard copy to look at a few of the - - -?---I'm just trying to - I'm just trying to now just place a date, sir. Yes, I'm just wondering if maybe a hard copy might allow you to look at some - - SARACENI, MS: Sometime in 2011, Mr Dacombe?---Well, in 2011 I was - I was certainly very deeply involved in the 20/11/2013 11:40 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1268 D41/10/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 management of the change process. projects - - - The various the Mr Dacombe, you had two consultants working in 2011 on different aspects of that change process, didn’t you?---Yes. So what were you doing in relation to that change process, separate from what the two consultants were doing, the change process that was so pressing in 2011?---There were a number of projects underway. There was - the issues related to the City Centre redevelopment. There were certainly ongoing issues coming out of the regulatory review. There was certainly the day-to-day issues that needed to be dealt with by the Chief Executive. Such as? What did you actually do?---(No audible answer). It's one thing to be responsible for - it's like the pregnant lady carrying the baby, but it's not enough. You've got to do more than that. What were you doing?---I - - Apart from feeding this new thing that was growing in you with you? I don't think I'll go further with that analogy?---No. What was I doing on a day-to-day basis? Yes?---I was dealing with the - with the - I was dealing various issues that would come across my table. For example, issues related to Mr Harding. Towards the end of my time there I was spending huge amounts of time in dealing with questions for Council agendas, personal time that I had to put into that. There was a high degree of consultation with - with executive team members about staying in touch with the work that they were doing, again, on a range of projects. And - yeah, I mean that is a fair summary of what was taking my time and attention. All right. Moving on, Black Spot Funding. At page 63 of the transcript you've given some evidence that you had a particular belief in relation to Black Spot Funding and that was that: A report ought to be made to Council before formal applications are made to Main Roads Department. Otherwise there'll be a lot of work wasted. Do you recall giving that evidence?---What, sorry? didn't catch the last thing you said. 20/11/2013 11:40 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN I 1269 D41/11/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Do you recall giving that evidence?---Yes, I do. And you had that belief, but why did you not discuss the proposed funding details with the Council before the Engineering Department submitted the application to Main Roads? So you had that belief, but what did you do about it? Did you direct the executive in relation to Black Spot funding, "Before you go further, put it up to the Council"?---The direction that I gave Charles Sullivan was that we needed to be shifting - shifting our approach to not just Black Spot Funding, but anything that we were seeking external funding for and that's not just the engineering areas. So it wasn’t just Charles. But the Council needed to be involved in the initial stages of deciding on those programs. And so what I was starting to do was address that from a systems point of view through the budget process. Moving on, at page 64 of the transcript, you've given some evidence that if you and your executive managers and senior engineering staff did not understand a decision of the Council on any particular matter, your habit was to keep your original recommendations consistent and re-send the matter back to Council for a decision. Would you like to look at that, at page 64 of the transcript? It's about the third full paragraph down from the top?---Yes, I'm just trying to. So I take it from that that it was a deliberate action on your part and the part of executive managers and others, if you couldn't understand what Council - why Council decided something, you'd just send the original recommendation back without doing anything. Is that correct?---No, and I just need a bit more context for this - for this answer, I'm sorry. What - what traffic signal modification were we talking about? We're still talking about Bannister Road?---Okay. You have said, and I want to make sure that I've understood, that it was a deliberate action on your part and those of your staff, if you did not understand a Council decision on something, you would stick with the original recommendation and set it back up to Council. That's deliberate action on your part, correct?---No. It was inadvertent?---(No audible answer). That's what you've said, are you changing your evidence now?---Look, I have - I have to say, I've got a total blank about this line of questioning. So I would actually like 20/11/2013 11:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1270 D41/11/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 maybe a few minutes to just go back and just get the context. Mr Dacombe - - -?---Because the simple answer to your question is no. No to what? It wasn't deliberate?---That - that was not a deliberate approach to responding to things that might be a little unclear coming out of Council. Surely it was being done deliberately because you were trying to wear down the Council or try and sneak something in. Like what happened with the administrative policy in relation to purchasing? Changes were made and - by Council that were never actually adopted - sorry. Changes were - there were internal changes made, and brought to Council, further changes made, still not made, and then we ended up where we did end up. This was not a deliberate ploy?---No. All right. Let's turn to Centenary Avenue, the second issue. Looking at page 68 of the transcript. Now, when I read your evidence at page 68 of the transcript, it seems that as CEO, you have a particular view about division of labour, some things that are within what you do and some things that are beneath you and you don't do, others do. Is it correct that you failed to ensure that the Council understood that the Centenary Avenue stage 1 was fully funded because you felt that as CEO, it was not your role to do this, despite the discussions being held at Council meetings on the point?---(No audible answer). You didn't feel it was up to you as the CEO to draw that to your - to their attention, correct?---Are we referring to something that I said, are we? Page 68 of the transcript, in relation to Centenary Avenue?---Is this here? Yeah. So you felt it wasn't up to you to - - -?---No, Ms Saraceni, I did not know at the meeting that they didn't understand it was Black Spot funded, and in fact that information had been provided to them as part of the budget process. But that's what I'm saying, you didn't think it was up to you to correct any misunderstanding they had because they'd already heard it before from someone else?---There was no apparent misunderstanding at the meeting that I attended as to where the funding was coming from. 20/11/2013 11:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1271 D41/11/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You also failed to make the Council aware in relation to Centenary Avenue of the potential for City of Canning construction workers to run out of work if - if that project did not proceed immediately before they voted on whether to proceed with the works because it had been raised earlier at the budget forum. Isn't that correct? You didn't raise it then because they'd heard it before at the budget forum. Page 69 of your transcript?---Um - - Do I - do I take it then that it's correct that what's happening is, you know that something is not right, you're sitting in this meeting, but you don't say anything to correct it?---(No audible answer). Is that what you did?---I didn't - I didn't raise the issue at the meeting that they - my - I don't recall raising that at the meeting. Because you didn't think it was a real issue that workers might run out of work?---No, because I actually thought that largely it was a management issue that we would be able to address. Mr Dacombe, how does that action of yours demonstrate you being a proactive leader in advising elected persons, who are mostly volunteers, about what's going on?---I actually didn't think that that issue was germane to their decision. And it wasn't a big issue at all, was it?---Pardon? It wasn't a big issue at all because there was work for the construction workers to do?---There were - if - if the team had been relying on this work and the Council had adopted for whatever reasons not to do this work, then I would have considered that as a management issue to sort out how we addressed any possible impact on the organisation. But that sort of decision - - That's right. It wasn't the end of the world that these workers were going to be made redundant or anything?---That sort of decision should not have been driving - that issue should not have been driving any decision on the - on whether the work got done or not. All right. Now, moving on again, still in Centenary Avenue you were giving some evidence at page 69 on that same page, you made no change to the practice current at the time you commenced as CEO whereby Andrew Sharpe would advise the Council on procedural matters under the Act, and the standing orders, without any formal written delegation from 20/11/2013 11:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1272 D41/11/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 you. That's correct, you made no change to that?---No, I didn't make any changes to that. You would appreciate now, if not before, that any delegation under the Act needed to be in writing, yes?---Yes. You understand that now?---Yes. Now, earlier you gave some evidence that you had a working knowledge of the Act by about the end of 2009, after about eight months. And are you expecting the Inquiry to understand that you hadn't realised that that was what needed to be done; a written delegation of that particular function?---Well, just in - as far as that function is concerned, again I - I think that I'd already responded this way. But I considered that, yes, I had the ultimate responsibility for the quality of - - Mr Dacombe, we - we - - -?---- - - all of the advice that was - - Mr Dacombe, we've heard that before. white - - -?---Okay. It's in black and - - - the delegation has to be in writing. put in writing by you, was it?---No. It was never Now, it was - you never put it in writing; was it because of oversight on your part, wilful blindness, or incompetence?---No, if it was supposed to be in - in writing, it would have been oversight. KENDALL, DR: Ms Saraceni, what's the - what’s the statutory number for that section, do you know? SARACENI, MS: KENDALL, DR: Not off the - - I don't either, it's fine. SARACENI, MS: it up, sir. KENDALL, DR: I'll get my instructing solicitor to look I'll just make a note of it. SARACENI, MS: So if I could move on, then. But you were familiar with standing order, clause 3.14, weren't you?---Which - was I sit here, I haven't consulted them for two years so perhaps you could remind me. 20/11/2013 11:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1273 D41/12/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 But you're working as a consultant in the sector?---Pardon? You're working as a consultant in the sector?---Yes, and I would - if I needed to refer to standing orders, I would do so. Well, they're pretty standard across the Local Government, aren't they?---As I said, I don't have a photographic memory and I haven't consulted them for some time. Clause 3.4 - sorry, clause 3.14 of the standing orders, you said at page 70 of your evidence, perhaps if you could turn to page 70 and see if that assists you. Page 70 of your evidence, you've said that although you'd formed the view that clearly standing order clause 3.14 was not applicable when Councillor Mason relied on it, and then proceeded to move a motion that Council not deal with the item at its Council meeting, you did not draw it to his attention such that he had an opportunity of not proceeding with a procedurally inaccurate motion. So you've said that you clearly knew that clause 3.14 did not apply and yet you sat there and did nothing when Councillor Mason relied on that for purposes of his motion. Why?---(No audible answer). Mr Dacombe, was it oversight, incompetence or wilful blindness? What are we talking about here?---Okay. I'm again having trouble with the context of what we're looking at here. As I recall, it was the fact of the matter of Centenary Avenue was brought back within the three-month period?---Okay. You said at page 70 of your evidence that you'd clearly you'd formed a view that clearly standing order 3.14 did not apply and yet, sitting in that meeting, you did not draw that to the Council's attention, did you?---No. So my question to you is why not? Incompetence, wilful blindness or a mere oversight?---Well, clearly oversight. Again, are there going to be many more of these instances, Mr Dacombe?---I would expect not. As Chief Executive Officer you did not speak to the officer's report on Centenary Avenue - I'm looking at page 71 of the transcript - so as CEO you did not speak to the officer's report on Centenary Avenue road works and you did not bring any particular matters to the attention of Councillors to ensure that they were well informed before they made the decision, although you'd been made aware of 20/11/2013 11:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1274 D41/12/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 the potential for those construction workers to run out of work. So you - you felt comfortable that they didn't need to know that when deciding what they did?---The construction workers? Yes?---Yeah. We've covered that. Yes. So you didn't think that was one of - and that one was important or not?---No. Now, this Centenary Avenue road works, does that have anything to do with the contamination of Centenary Park West, the old refuse site, or not? They're completely separate, just happen to be in the same area?---They're in the same area but I can't - - That's the only link? There's not there's - - -?---Pardon? That's the only link? They just happened to be in the same - - -?---I think so, yeah. Well, if I could just turn to Willetton Child Care Centre, moving along, at page 72 of the transcript. So you start in February 2009. You try and get on top of what the issues are, what's going on with Council, as you were saying before?---Mm hmm. At the City, I should say, not Council, at the City. When did you first become aware that the lease for the Willetton Child Care Centre had expired about two years before you started?---Well, my awareness of that would have - I would have become aware when the issue of - when the Willetton Child Care Centre raised the issue related to their need to do works. So when you first joined the City you didn't make any attempt to ascertain what buildings and land it owned, any leases it had? You didn't check the finances?---The - the issue of Council property, what we owned, what the - what the use of it was, who might be leasing it, all that sort of thing, was an issue that was on the table when I joined the Council and that information, as part of a project, overall project, was not collated in one single place until quite some time after I started. Mr Dacombe, you're all in one building. It may be that the Community Services are looking at and the building lease people are looking at it as well, but they're all in the one building and you're the boss. What did you personally do to advance this issue about the lease of Willetton Child 20/11/2013 11:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1275 D41/13/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Care Centre, you personally? What did you do?---No. I was involved in initial - an initial discussion that involved the Mayor, local member Mike Nahan, and - and I assigned appropriate staff members to deal with the issue. So apart from the meeting with Mike Nahan and making sure or telling people, do - do what you need to do, you did not personally - - -?---I did not - - - - - move the matter forward?---I did not intervene in that issue. Why not?---Because I had perfectly capable senior staff who were assigned to deal with it. You heard the audio yesterday. I think in your words you said it was “Combative”. Why didn't you feel the need to step in and act? You were the face of the City. Why did you not do anything personally?---Because, as I've said, I had perfectly capable executive staff handling - assigned to handle this and other issues. Mr Dacombe, you may have thought that but Mr Holland didn't think that, did he. He kept coming back - - -?---I think Mr Holland had - had quite high regard for Fiona Armstrong, who did everything that she could to shepherd that through. Now, as a result of this lease having been expired for a long time and nothing having happened, did that raise a red flag in your mind that perhaps you should check whether other leases were similarly in a state of uncertainty?---Yes, and that's what happened. Did you do that personally?---No. You - - -?---I caused that to happen. Who did it?---There - it was - the actual physical work was done by a person who I think was on contract to us specifically to do that and - and that took place under the oversight of Andrew Sharpe and that detailed information quite huge spreadsheets were actually provided to the Council as part of the Refocus program. All right. If we could move on? There's a letter on 21 December 2010, you refer to it page 78 of the transcript. A letter from the City of Canning that goes to Lotterywest, the funder of some works that was going to be done in relation to repairing the kitchen we've heard evidence about. I put it to you, Mr Dacombe, that you acted unprofessionally when you sanctioned that letter to 20/11/2013 12:02 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1276 D41/13/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 go out on the Letterhead of the City of Canning, knowing that the speed with which the lease could be finalised was not as you had portray in that letter. That letter is actually misleading. Do you accept that?---I think the letter says something like - well, I can't - I'm not going to paraphrase what was in the letter. I don't think it was misleading. I think that it was a reasonable - reasonable expression of what we thought might be achievable. Based on what?---Well, based on our assessment of the issues. Who's "Our"?---This was certainly discussed - certainly discussed with Fiona Armstrong. Mr Dacombe, you had a register about to be undertaken, a register of assets. That hadn’t been finalised. You had attended Council meetings, you'd attended the Council forums when all this was discussed. The delays were inordinate. McLeods had done nothing for a period of time and yet you felt that it was appropriate to tell Lotterywest, a Government department, "By the way, it will be - the - the lease will be finalised soon", or words to that effect. You say that's not misleading?---No. Well, what does that - - -?---Could I - could I see the letter? If my friend - there we are. like this. Thank you, ladies. Magic. I So 21 December 2010?---Yes. And if we just scroll down. sentence: Second paragraph, second Currently, the renewal of the lease between the City of Canning and the Department is receiving consideration and it is intended that a new lease will be formalised in the new year, i.e. 2011, January 2011. Couldn't have been anything further from the truth at that time, could there?---No, I think it was - given our assessment of the issues at the time, I think it was reasonable. Not "Our assessment", you. Your - you signed this letter, didn’t you?---I didn’t sign it. 20/11/2013 12:02 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1277 D41/13/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 No, you authorised this letter to go out under the letterhead of the organisation. "From Mark Dacombe", are you saying you never saw that letter before it went out?---I can't say I saw it before it went out. But I - - So people write letters under your name and you know nothing about it, is that what you're saying?---In a large organisation, that happens. So is that good governance according to you?---If people are operating in their areas of their responsibility, it's - it’s an appropriate way to operate. Mr Dacombe, that's a sackable offence. You don't write a letter on behalf of someone without that person authorising it or agreeing to the letter being - going - going out?---Everything went out of the organisation, as I understand it, under my name. And that was - that was the - the convention in the place and I did not get involved in every single issue. I'm horrified, Mr Dacombe. Where's the - where are the checks and balances?---I'm not sure of your point. Anyone can write a letter and put your name at the bottom of it and it's okay?---(No audible answer). What does that say about the City?---I'm just thinking of a measured response to what you're saying. The City could only operate and operate effectively if the people were undertaking their roles with a high degree of - we talked about it in that document - a high degree of scope. So you trusted people?---Absolutely trusted the people. Your inner circle?---Now, there's no - there's no - there’s no way that I could sit down on a daily basis and sign everything that went out of that organisation, so there had to be a system in place to do that. Mr Dacombe, this is not anything, this is a matter that was taking up a lot of time at Council meetings. You had a very disgruntled person who'd rock up at meetings, he was writing emails, saying horrible things; it was in the press. You had Mike Nahan involved, you had the Government involved and you still didn't think it was appropriate that you personally take charge of it and you ensure that anything that went out on behalf of the City was 100 per cent accurate?---I was comfortable with the work and oversight of my executive. 20/11/2013 12:02 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1278 D41/13/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 This - - -?---This particular issue was discussed with me. I think that it was a reasonable assessment of what we knew at the time. The expression that were being made by the Council that, "Yes, we want to continue to support these people in this place", that this could - could go ahead. And I think the other key point around it was there was never any - any suggestion with anything that we did under Refocus that the bus should stop while the heads were counted. It would have been quite a simple matter ultimately for the Council to make a decision on this one and - and still protects its interests related to its property. Thank you, Mr Dacombe. That's exactly right, what you've said. Refocus wasn't stopping the business of the Council, wasn't stopping any projects, nothing at all. Refocus was only an internal change management tool. But if I could just move on from there by concluding with the fact that that letter indicates January 2011, there'll be a new lease. At the time you left the organisation in April 2012, was there a new lease in place as far as you knew with - - -?---No. Thank you. Now, you also authorised the officer's report dealing still with Wilson Childcare Centre which set out a variety of options, but failed to make any recommendation. Do you remember that?---Yes. Page 78 of the transcript. Now, you authorised that officer's report and you authorised it to go to Council without any recommendation being made, didn’t you?---That went through the - well, yes. Yes, because the buck stops with you?---And I can tell you the process that it went through, but I - - No, we've been through the process. The buck stops with you. You let it go through without a recommendation?---That's right. Now, that was not an appropriate way of putting things to Council, was it?---I disagree with that. You were not assisting them to be fully informed as to what was appropriate, what could and should be done insofar as the City's concerned?---No, in that case all four options were viable options that in the end they could exercise their political judgment over. 20/11/2013 12:02 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1279 D41/14/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 That's interesting because political judgment, that's what it was. You didn’t want to upset the Council. You couldn’t tell which was the Council wanted to go with this, could you?---In this case we couldn’t tell and I - - Yes, Mr Dacombe, you wouldn’t stick your neck out on the line because you didn’t know which Council wanted to go?---We'd already stuck our neck out on a line. Mr Dacombe, you believe in consensus. You say that your leadership management style is authoritative. You make a decision, you act upon it, you're accountable. That's what you might do for those subordinates. But that's not what you do to your masters, is it?---Um - - With Council you could not determine, politically, which way they were going to go and you didn’t want to stick stick your neck out so you said nothing?---As I've explained to you, we made recommendations that did not go through. The matter went around in circles and our approach at this point was to crystallise key options that - that ultimately they could make a decision on. Mr Dacombe, I put it to you that you were abdicating or sidestepping your responsibility by not putting forward a recommendation or insisting that your executive managers and their staff put forward a specific - or a recommendation vis-a-vis those options?---No, I deny that. Moving on, when you chose not to become personally involved in trying to resolve the animosities that had developed in relation to the leasing dispute, as you sit here now in hindsight, would you accept that there was an error in judgment on your part not to take a more proactive role?---In the context - in hindsight there are always other ways of doing things. And in fact not just in hindsight, but in keeping with the motto of Refocus, the document that I took you to earlier this morning, when you very clearly said that Refocus was putting service back into the motto of the City of Canning that had been around since 1962, “Above all, the[sic] service”?---And I think that - - And here Willetton Child Care Centre did not get service, did they?---I can - no, they didn’t get service. And you did nothing about it?---I did. 20/11/2013 12:10 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1280 D41/14/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You didn’t do enough to put things on track?---Well, that's - that’s your assertion. It still wasn’t completed or dealt with by the time you left, was it?---And not for another six months. Moving onto the legal services tender, I'm just conscious of the time, Mr Dacombe, so I'm sorry I'm moving a little bit faster. Page 88 of the transcript. KENDALL, DR: We're not in a rush, Ms Saraceni, so don't feel that you need to rush through for any - - SARACENI, MS: chopping - - KENDALL, DR: I'm just conscious of it just No, that's fine. SARACENI, MS: - - - Mr Dacombe to think I'm doing this staccato fashion. The legal services tender is something that you raised early on, I think, when we looked at the Refocus document this morning, correct? Legal services?---Certainly and we were talking about the in house - yes. So early on in your tenure at the City of Canning, the issue of legal services was in your mind?---That's right. Forefront of your mind even?---Yes. You knew, didn’t you, that there was policies, administrative polices that were in place dealing with legal services?---Yes. And when did you first look at that legal services policy that was in place at the time?---I can't recall specifically. I think - - Well, I don't want a date. But I mean roughly?---No, well, when I came on board I read through the policies and I think at an early stage there was a review of them. And were these policies available on the Intranet or were they hard copies?---Well, I had a hard copy. You prefer hard copy?---No. You prefer electronic?---For the most part, yes. 20/11/2013 12:10 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1281 D41/15/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And also the purchasing policy, that was something you were aware of at about the same time as the legal services policy?---Yes. Now, in relation to Council and what Council was looking at doing in relation to the provision of legal services, you were aware, weren’t you, that it was not consistent with what was actually written in the policy at the time, the way Council was looking at going, where Council was looking at going with legal services was not consistent with the policy?---As I sit here I can't actually recall that, but that's been pointed out to me, yeah. And I put it to you that entering - knowing the policy, understanding what Council wanted to do, it would - it was up to you, as the person to advise the Council, to speech to them about, "Okay, that's what you want to do, but we also need to review the policy". You never did that, did you?---Well, no. And would you accept that you failed to meet your statutory and contractual obligations by not doing that?---I'm just trying to recall the - no, I don't accept that I've breached my contract. And if I have, certainly not deliberately. Or your statutory duties?---Or my statutory duty. It may not have been deliberate, but you didn’t - you didn’t think of it. You weren’t proactive at all, were you, Mr Dacombe? You were too focused on this Refocus to worry about anything actually happening on the ground?---Well, I think that's not true. Isn't it?---And I would be happy to - to go over that. But that is not true. I think what you're putting to me is an expectation that is quite unusual and certainly the level of detail that was expected, and that you seem to be personally attributing to me, of a Chief Executive in an organisation this size was not - is - was quite unusual is quite unusual. And what I was moving the organisation towards was - was an approach that had highly skilled and highly qualified people across the organisation handling the detail, handling effective customer service, while we also addressed the bigger issues of City development. Mr Dacombe, I've let you speak. At the end of the day, I didn't - I don't expect you - I don't think anyone expected you to - to know the - the minutiae of everything, but my concern is that you did not turn your mind to saying to the executive, “This is what they want to do. By the way, 20/11/2013 12:17 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1282 D41/15/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 we've got a policy. Can you make sure it's consistent.” That, would you accept, would be appropriate for a CEO to do?---Yes. And you didn't do it?---No. I - - - You didn’t do it?---No, I’ll be quite clear on my answer here that - that, like you, expressing my responsibilities under my contract, likewise that was my expectation of the executives, that we operate within policy, that we operate within the law and we advise accordingly. If we didn't do that at any stage, as I've indicated to you, that was oversight. In fact, the way you operated, and I think at page 89 of the transcript you've said that you really wouldn't turn your mind to procedural matters that needed to be considered or reviewed unless someone first drew it to your attention, so you weren't being proactive. If someone drew it to your attention you might do something about it but not off your own bat?---No. I think you've taken me out of context there. What is the - what - what were you saying then?---What I what I was saying that clearly, within the framework of procedural matters being dealt with, such as policy reviews, delegations and for that sort of thing that I would not re-look at those sorts of issues unless there was a problem or an error that was - - But how would you know?--- - - - that was brought to my attention. But surely, as the CEO, you need to ensure that things are being done appropriately and you need to ask questions. You may not know the answers but you ask questions. Isn't that your role?---And there was a high level of contact between me and the executive team that was very much focused on the way in which the organisation was being led and managed. Moving on to another topic in relation to Mr Sharpe and your oversight of Mr Sharpe. I'm looking at page 91 of the transcript. Moving on. You've given some evidence at the bottom of page 91. I'll just give you a moment to read that. KENDALL, DR: Just at the bottom? 20/11/2013 12:17 Merrill Corporation Australia Yes? DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1283 D41/15/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 SARACENI, MS: Yes?---Yes. So you've got the excuse there again that, as I call it an excuse, that a large organisation, you can't have a finger on every pulse, et cetera, et cetera. You employ the right people. Well, you had your dream team there at the time. You provide oversight and you go on. Just in relation to that, I put it to you that you abrogated your statutory and contractual obligations by delegating the hands-on management type work to the executive managers without any or any adequate quality control by you before matters went to Council?---Well, then, I deny that completely. What did you do?---I've explained the agenda process where everything that went through that process. And the - the meeting that - that we had on a weekly basis, fortnightly to deal with the agendas, were lengthy meetings as each and every report was examined. How closely did you read the agenda and the reports at the - at or before the briefing sessions you had with your executive managers?---I - it would depend on the report. Did you do what some of the Councillors have said, skim read it and then focus only on the ones you want to, or did you read everything line by line?---No. I certainly focused on the strategic issues and I did not focus on no, I focused on the strategic issues quite clearly. So you read the minutes of the previous Council meeting? Would you read those?---Yes, absolutely. And if there was anything incorrect would you pick it up?---Anything? Anything incorrect, inaccurate?---I would pick up anything that was inaccurate from - from my recollection of the meeting and any notes that I had taken. I would certainly pick that up. So you would take notes at meetings, handwritten notes?---Well, not extensive but if it was something I wanted to jog my memory, then - then I would jot it down. And where would you put these notes? On the agenda page or did you have a pad or a - - -?---No. Just on an agenda page, which I referred to when I was looking at the minutes. 20/11/2013 12:17 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1284 D41/15/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And could you give at least one example of you correcting the minutes that were now wrong?---No. We're talking two years ago now, the latest time I was involved. No. I appreciate it was a while ago. So if you had an officer's report of 13 December 2011, talking about the fact that there's a need to review the legal services policy, you would have read that? I'm looking at page 93 of the transcript. You would have read that, wouldn’t you? In going through the minutes, et cetera - - -?---Yes. - - - of the report. It - - -?---We - - - You've read the report. - - - talks about - - -?---Can we just have a look at the report again? The report, yes?---No. If you go down - - -?---I wouldn't - I wouldn't have seen that report. Sorry, why is that?---Because I was overseas when that agenda was put together, so that would - that was put forward by Andrew Sharpe. So the first time you saw it was when you were at the Council meeting?---That would be right. Now, when you were travelling did you have your City provided phone with you?---I had my phone, yes. City provided phone?---Yes. And that has email access?---Yes. Did you have your laptop with you?---I had my laptop. You were travelling overseas?---Yeah, I had my laptop. You had your laptop? And were you networked into the system at the City of Canning?---Not - not overseas. Not overseas, but you did have access - - -?---No. that turned off, for obvious reasons. I kept Well, you had access to it and you had it off or you didn't have it? Which one is it? I'm just confused?---I could’ve - I didn't have access directly to the Council system but I - I would have had access to the Internet. 20/11/2013 12:17 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1285 D41/16/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Exactly. And on the Internet you would have found the agenda for the 13 December meeting?---Yes. And the reports referred to in the - in the agenda would have been attached if they were going up to Council, is that correct?---Yes. So even when you were overseas - you were there on work, weren't you? You weren't holidaying?---I was - I was partly holidaying, mainly holidaying. Mainly holidaying. But before you left you weren't holidaying. You were in Casoli doing business, weren't you, or did you go to Casoli first?---No. I went there at the end. So the trip to Casoli in Italy for the sister city relationship, that was part of work?---Yes. So - - -?---Well, it was - yes, yes. So the time that the agenda for the 13 December 2011 meeting was put up, you were in Italy, in Casoli and you were working?---Yes. And as you said you could have accessed the Internet and checked what was the agenda for the meeting the day you got back, correct?---Yes. And attached to that agenda you could have also accessed the reports that the officers had that were attached to the agenda to be looked at on the 13 December meeting?---Yes. Did you do that?---No. I put my - no, I didn't - - - Why?--- - - - and I can explain, if you - - Please?--- - - - wish. Please. I - - -?---My attention related to the agenda and just be clear that of the two or three weeks I was away I think I was working two days. I fully delegated an Acting Chief Executive and - who contacted me over a major issue, so the time I had available I put into addressing that major issue and I didn't have the opportunity to go through the agenda in detail until I got back to the office on the day - the afternoon of the meeting. Even if not in detail, Mr Dacombe, did you actually access the agenda for the 13 December meeting - - - ?---Not - - - 20/11/2013 12:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1286 D41/16/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 - - - whilst you were away?---- - - not before I got back. But you could have, but you chose not to?---I could have if my - - That’s my - sorry?---- - - if - if my program had allowed it, but I also chose not to, I agree. I was away primarily on leave and significantly dealing with the issue that was raised with me by Andrew Sharpe. What was that?---That was the issue of the notice of motion to cease Refocus. So - - - ?---And to me that was the paramount concern on my mind. When you received the - or actually when did you get to Casoli?---I - I could find you those dates. I can’t off the top of my head. All right. Well, let’s just say you left on 24 January. Is that correct? Left Perth 24th of - sorry, 24th of - - -?---November. - - - November, correct?---Yes. And you returned 13 December?---Yes. So that’s about three weeks?---Yes. Yes. You went first to - - -?---First to London. And how long roughly were you there?---I was there the bulk of the time. So - - So when did you get to Casoli in Italy?---I think - again I’m going from recollect - recollection here. I could probably pinpoint the time with a bit more accuracy, but I think that I arrived there - I think I arrived there on the Thursday before the Council meeting. So which date are we up to, sorry? So the Council meeting was Tuesday the 13th. Is that correct?---Yes. Tuesday the 13th, so we go back a week is the 6th, Tuesday. So are you talking about 7 or 8 December you would have arrived?---Yeah, it would be the week - - The Thursday, I think, may have been 7 December?---Yes, thereabouts. 20/11/2013 12:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1287 D41/16/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Stand to be corrected by someone, one of my learned friends in the room. 7 December 2011 was a Thursday. You arrive in Italy on that day?---Yes. URQUHART, MR: Wednesday. SARACENI, MS: Wednesday, sorry. Thank you. Wednesday. So Thursday would have been the 8th. 7th or 8th, let’s say, yes?---Yes. I think I had two full days with them. What was your habit of checking your emails when you were away?---I would - if I was on leave I would probably check them every two or three days, knowing that I’d left in place arrangements that if I needed to be contacted I could be. And you arrive in Italy. Different country. The time is slightly different to - it is - what it is in England, but you’re six hours behind Australia, roughly, in summer, correct? Six, seven hours?---It’s not - - So it’s afternoon here. Italy is in the morning?---Yeah. Come from an Italian background, so - and I’ve been to Casoli. So roughly that’s what we’re talking about?---Yeah. 7 December. Isn’t that the date that Councillor Mason provided - sent an email about Refocus?---It could be thereabouts. And do you remember reading that when you were in Italy?---Yes. What, if anything, did you do when you read it?---The notice of motion? I spoke to - I called Andrew Sharpe and I spoke to him. I may have - - And said what?---Pardon? And said what?---I wanted some background as to what had what had transpired in the time that I was away, and I had had - during that fortnight I had had a couple of - I think email exchanges with him. However, on the issue - - Sorry, sorry, just a moment. You had some email exchanges with Andrew Sharpe whilst you were away?---Yeah, I think so. 20/11/2013 12:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1288 D41/16/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 In relation to - - -?---I actually can’t recall. Well, are we talking an email a day, an email a - - -?---No, no, no, no, no, no. - - - an email every - - -?---Just - let’s say just a couple, I think. But to do with work or pleasantries in relation to your - - - ?---No, to - I’m sure to do with work. And specifically what?---I actually can’t recall. can recall is that - - - All I Is there a chance that it had to do with Refocus, given that - - -?---No, there was - - - - - the day before you left was the final Council forum on 23 November?---Yeah. Yeah, sorry, I didn’t catch your question. You had nothing - none of them had anything to do with Refocus, even though the day before you left the last thing you did was attend the Refocus Council - - -?---No, I thought I’d battened down the hatches, to put it colloquially, on that, and I felt that I could go away at that point and that we at least had an understanding that there were issues that needed to be addressed and we needed to find a way to address them. That was where I came away from the 23 November forum. So I - I - - Did you have a happy heart or a - or a sad heart after the 23 November forum?---I didn’t go away particularly happily, no. Now, when you spoke to Mr Andrew Sharpe did you send him did you forward him a copy of the document that Councillor Mason had sent you?---I think he - I think he had it. However, I can’t be certain, and so - - Did you tell him the contents of Councillor Mason’s motion?---I think that’s what I’m getting to. One way or another he got it. Whether he got it from me or from Councillor Mason I can’t be sure, but the - the conversation that we had on the phone was definitely with his full knowledge of the - of the notice of motion. And I know it was a long time ago, but are we talking a five-minute phone conversation, half an hour, two hours?---I - I - I don’t know. Possibly 20 minutes. 20/11/2013 12:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1289 D41/16/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And what information did Mr Sharpe provide you at that time?---Well, I asked him what he could tell me about the context of it. He said that - that while I had been away things had been quite intense. There had been a number of issues that he’d had to deal with. In fact, he did indicate he’d spent a lot of time with elected members in the time that I’d been away. He said some of those discussions he wasn’t comfortable relaying to me over the phone, but he indicated that there had been a - a lot of activity with - with elected members in the time that that I was absent. And how did you conclude your phone conversation with Mr Sharpe? What did you want him to do?---At that stage I indicated to him that I would respond to the email with the notice of motion, and - and without looking at the - the actual documents, but I would say that I copied in - him into that response, or I sent it to him separately. Who were you travelling with, Mr Dacombe?---I was on my own. Did you have any communication when you were overseas in on that trip with anyone from the Department of Local Government?---No. Before you left to go overseas - - -?---Yes. - - - what communication did you have with the Department of Local Government in relation to where things were at with you and the Council and Refocus?---I think there’s - I think there’s an email that actually reflects that. Well, that - that actually is the - is the communication. I can’t actually recall. So you did have communication with the Department of Local Government, and the person you spoke - - -?---I - I think we’ve seen an email through these proceedings. Yes. yes. And the person you spoke to was Jenny?---Jenny Law, And that was a physical face-to-face meeting?---There was one physical face-to - no, there may have been two. There may have been two? That’s correct. And, in fact, one of them was on 18 November, roughly a week before you went overseas, correct?---Yes, I’d accept that. 20/11/2013 12:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1290 D41/17/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And when was the other meeting? that?---Before that. Before that or after How long before that?---I think probably early November. Early November. And those meetings coincided with the topics being discussed at the two Council forums on Refocus held on 9 and 23 November?---Okay. I’m just taking a moment to recall, because the main - - Well - - -?---- - - the main reason - - - - - perhaps I’ll ask the question differently, Mr - - -?---No, no, I - I’m happy to answer it. I was just actually just - - All right?--- - - - ordering my thoughts. My initial approach to her was about one specific issue. Which was?---Which was the issue of the resolution related to the panel for interviewing the Engineering and Technical Services applicants. But in the process of that I gave her a briefing on the context of what we're doing - were doing. Why? She asked?---Pardon? Why? She asked you about that?---It's the - well, I can't remember whether she specifically asked, but I certainly I certainly told her about - you know, in a reasonable conversation about what we were doing. I actually think I left her a copy of the Refocus booklet. Her role was to keep an eye on what's going on in Local Government across the board and that was a perfectly reasonable conversation to have. I'm not suggesting it was not?---No, no. into context here. I'm just putting And in relation to - to bringing her up to speed where things were at with Refocus, did you also explain to her that things were a bit difficult and that Refocus wasn’t proceeding as you would have liked?---What we talked about also in that context was - was my concern that - that the elected members and myself were not on the same page. That over a period of time I'd attempted to address that. We'd got to the stage now where these two forums were set up to get issues out on the deck. And we did discuss the possibility which I'd subsequently floated at I think the 23 November meeting. 20/11/2013 12:37 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1291 D41/17/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 A mediator?---Well, a third party. A third party?---But I put it as a third party, I didn’t - - So that was her suggestion, was it?---She - she raised the function that the - the Department used to have. I think they used to have a statutory function where they could intervene at that level. That had been taken away, but she did say if it was helpful, they might be able to find an informal way, you know, whether it be - an informal way, not a statutory way, to sit with the parties and see whether we could sort out the issues and find a way to resolution. And the parties, by that she meant you versus the Council or did she mean the City staff headed up by you versus the Council?---No, she meant - she meant me as the City's Chief Executive and the Council. And this was a lengthy meeting you had with Jenny?---I can't remember how long it was. It was in her offices?---It was in the Department of Local Government office, yes. 140 William Street?---Yes. And you had booked that appointment in advance?---Yes. And given that the first November Refocus forum was 8 November, from memory - 7/8 November, this meeting with Jenny must have preceded that?---I think so. You still think it was early November, or could it have been late October?---Yeah, as I say, it wasn’t long before, so - - All right. Now, with this suggestion about the independent third party person, I think at transcript page 121 onto 122 you've already given some evidence about that. But now you've told us that the idea for that was from the Department of Local Government from Jenny. Did she give you any sense that the Department would be happy to intervene or become involved, other than through an independent third party, or did she just say, "You deal with it and keep me posted", or words to that effect?---My recollection was that if there was a willingness of the parties, then they would have - the Department - she would have provided some sort of facilitative assistance, even if it was simply to identify somebody who could do that role. 20/11/2013 12:37 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1292 D41/17/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And were names discussed at that meeting?---No, no, no. No. And did she say to you that you could contact her at any time?---Um - - You could use her as a sounding board, did she say that to you?---Well, that was certainly the tenor of the conversation, yes. Now, the other person you used as a sounding board was Mr Richardson, wasn’t he?---Yes. So you had communications with Mr Richardson when you realised that Refocus was not going the way you wanted it?---I had one particular contact with him. I certainly after he finished his assignment, I didn’t have a lot of contact with him at all. But you did have one - - -?---But during that period I had one, I think. Even one after he'd done his final report?---Yes, I think so. Did you also seek guidance from your wife who works in the Local Government sector at about this time?---Well, she and I certainly talked about these issues. And was she at that stage contracting to the Department of Local Government?---Mm - - The services of her business which is now known as Localise, but then had a different name. I think it had her surname, Dalziel?---To the Department, I don't think so. Was she contracting to WALGA at that time?---I don't know the answer to that. She did WALGA forums, didn’t she?---She's what, sorry? She did WALGA forums in relation to change management, educating Councillors about how to run a Council?---Yes. And she was doing that in 2011 as far as you know?---In during 2011 she may have - she may very well have done some work with elected members. 20/11/2013 12:42 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1293 D41/17/FY/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 All right. Now, if we go back a little bit in time, yesterday you were giving some evidence in relation to your feeling, your perception that Refocus was off track? KENDALL, DR: Sorry, Ms Saraceni, before you get to that point I just want - I try not to interrupt. I apologise. SARACENI, MS: Yes - no, no. Please. KENDALL, DR: I just have on question, in relation to the offer of mediation, did you discuss that offer with any of the Council or - - -?---Yes, I discussed that at the forum subsequent to the meeting with - with Jenny Law. I put that on the table as a possibility that we invite a third party to be involved. And the response actually came from Ms Saraceni's client who- Mr Mason, who said that he would be - would not be uncomfortable with that - no, I'll say that again. That he would not be comfortable with that. I left that - I left that as an open question at that point. And had things not progressed down the path that they did while I was away, it was my intention to come back to that and have another go at it. But at that time I got a very what I've called, I think, elsewhere a lukewarm response to that proposal. Okay. Thanks. SARACENI, MS: Now, yesterday you were giving some evidence in relation to your perception that Refocus was off the tracks. And as I recall in your evidence you said that not November, you were aware of that back in September 2011. Do you recall giving that evidence yesterday?---Yes. If I could just take you through a little bit of a timeline to get us to that September date to try and narrow it down a little bit. October every year is when the Council elections are held, correct?---Yes. So in 2011, October 2011 would have been the Council elections. Do you recall receiving some emails from some Councillors before the elections complaining that they didn't have enough time to do their electioneering because of the workload that they had, particularly with Refocus and all the things that came through that?---I don't recall the emails, but I have no doubt that was an issue. 15 August 2011, an email from Councillor Barry to you in which he advised he was withdrawing his nominations for PAGs because lack of participation - - -?---Okay, I actually do remember that. 20/11/2013 12:42 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1294 D41/18/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Okay, perhaps I could just finish saying it whilst the ladies are trying to find it?---No, no. I - I just - your comment - - All right?---- - - brought it back. Okay, thank you. So Councillor Barry wrote to you and he said that he was withdrawing his nomination from PAGs because (1) there was a lack of participation and - or sufficient Councillors to gain a broad opinion required and there was too few doing too much. And (2) That will concentrate energies on upcoming election. Do you recall that email, yes?---Just - yes, just excuse me, cos somehow this has come alive. That's okay, mine does that the same (indistinct). KENDALL, DR: I’m just trying - just trying to get the document number, 28 - counsel? 28? RENTON, MR: 96. SARACENI, MS: KENDALL, DR: I apologise that I haven't - - No, no, that's fine. SARACENI, MS: KENDALL, DR: Last night there was no one else to ask. We'll get there. SARACENI, MS: You responded to that, Mr - sorry, have we got it up there? Well, given that you've remembered that, I'll move on. You responded to that email on 18 August. You replied to Councillor Barry and you actually chose to include the Mayor in your response. And you said, and I quote from that email you sent: The Council has endorsed a very large change program. A critical step in managing such a program is ensuring that there is an effective governance framework in case. The Council recognised that issue and adopted the Refocus governance structure comprising the Refocus Council forums and a number of PAGs. Do you recall that?---Yes. Now, you are writing to Councillor Barry here, aren't you?---Pardon? 20/11/2013 12:47 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1295 D41/18/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You're writing to Councillor Barry?---Yes. I find it very - very remote. Looks like you're writing for someone else to read this, not Councillor Barry. He knows all this stuff. Why did you put it in that term - in those terms?---(No audible answer). And then you proceed. March 2011?---Yep. Wasn't PAGs set up in So this is five months on?---Yes. You feel the need to play schoolmaster and tell Councillor Barry, verse by verse, what it's all about. Look, you go on, you say: The PAGs are modelled on the advisory panel set up to oversee the development of the Cannington Leisureplex, and they're based on the principle that a small number of members can engage with an issue or project to a greater depth than might otherwise be the case and act as a bridge between management and the Council. All decision making is retained by the full Council, so all members are ultimately involved. At the present time, now the budget is behind us, we are focused on preparing a work program through to the end of June 2012. So you're looking forward to June 2012. You weren't there at that stage in August, you were looking forward to that period of time?---Mm hmm. This will show how the work of each of the PAGs will progress over the year and whenever possible, will include key milestones and targets. I think that will address your concerns about the relative attention being paid to various areas. Why did you say that, in those terms, to Councillor Barry?---I think that - yeah. It doesn't answer his email. You've written that for someone else. Who did you - who else did you send that document to, apart from who is visibly shown on it?---I thought - I thought that it was an opportunity just to no, the answer to your question - sorry, the answer to your question is I don't believe I sent it to anybody else. You didn't send it to the Department of Local Government, to Jenny?---Did I? 20/11/2013 12:47 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1296 D41/18/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Mm?---Okay. Did you?---I don't actually recall doing that. Is it possible that you did?---I think it's unlikely that I did that. All right. So that is August 2011, then I think the budget happened at or about that time? Maybe just before then, is that correct?---August - yes, just before then. The budget. Then we move forward to September, and on 20 September what you have is a Refocus Council Forum?---Yep. Now, your comment yesterday that by September, you knew that Refocus was well off track, that came to you at that Refocus Council Forum on 20 September, didn't it?---It actually probably came to me - - Earlier?---Yeah. How early?---I mean, when we talk about going - excuse me - going off track, key decisions that were instrumental in that were actually made as part of the budget process. So you know, clearly I had issues from 8 August, I think. 8th or 9th, when the budget was adopted with certain constraints put on it. And one of those was in relation to HR and bringing people on?---Absolutely. So your awareness that things weren't right - I forget whatever pregnant women have, they have the - not an MRI scan or they have something else, but anyhow, we won't go there. So August, maybe even July, you could tell that things weren't going well with Refocus?---I -I - - Because the budget - the budget was looked at in early August - - -?---Yeah, I’m just trying to - - - - - wasn't there a budget workshop before?---That's right, I'm just trying to give you a considered response - - Yes?---- - - to the question. That - that - you know, through the Refocus process, it wasn't an armchair ride at all. So it took, you know, quite hard work to make things happen, and for steps forward there'd be steps back, et cetera. So - - - 20/11/2013 12:47 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1297 D41/18/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And that's not just - you're not blaming just the Council. You had a problem with your staff as well, didn't you?---I - I was managing two sides of that coin - - Yes?---- - - quite clearly. Yes?---And - but the trigger point that would throw timelines off track completely, including some things the Council had already approved, were the constraints that they put on 8 August. And that took some time to work through, 27 September I attempted to address the concerns. But - I apologise, it is a long way to go in answering your question. No, no, please?---But 8 August was when the key decisions were made that caused me real problems. Because yesterday I had the feeling that what your evidence was was the abolition of PAGs is when you realised that maybe things weren't on track. But as I understand you today, it is - it pre-dates?---Well, that's right. The thing about the abolition on PAGs was - was on 27 September I think you'll find that actually responding to Councillor Barry's and others concerns, I actually write that - you know, I propose that we review that structure after the election, in October. So the reason why the abolition of PAGs was so - figures so prominently in my mind was it was after we'd had that discussion that we would review it that the Council arbitrarily abolished them. The Council meeting on 27 September 2011 had item number CE-036-11, "Refocus forum report of 20 September 2011." Now, part of what was there was looking at a document that Mike - Mr Richardson had completed which was the overall summary of his work with Refocus. Is that correct?---Yes, that was - that was a final report, basically, on his assignments. Two assignments. And at this meeting, when this item was being looked at, you have attachments. One was the Refocus 2011 September update. Now, is that the one that Mr Richardson - is that this green one here that I think my friend was holding up yesterday. Is that Mr Richardson's document or your document?---No, that's my document. And you also looked - included the, "2011/2012 budget program, new investment areas”, as an attachment?---Yes. Attachment 3, "Engineering and technical services review presentation." 4, "Engineering and technical services draft brief." Now, when we're talking about draft brief, 20/11/2013 12:47 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1298 D41/19/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 is this the document we're talking about? Executive engineering and technical services application package for the - - -?---No. There's another document?---Yes. All right. Then you had number 5, "Land asset review presentation"?---Yes. Six, "Land asset review draft brief"?---Yes. This is to engage outside consultants is it, is that what you're talking about with these briefs?---They - it was probably a mixture of outside consultants and in-house work. But yes, a brief to define those particular projects and to apply the resources to do them. And then you had item 7, "Re-design of care services and review of patrol security and community safety"?---Yes. Another attachment, number 8, "Patrol security and community safety review draft brief"?---Mm hmm. Again, this brief is what? "Patrol security and community safety review draft brief”, it's internal?---That's for a review of that service. I don't think at that stage - - An internal review or external?---Well, I don’t think we’d decided at that stage. And the last attachment, number 9, “Integrated planning framework overview presentation”?---Yes. So the purpose of this report that you put to Council, as you’ve said here on paragraph numbered 1 is: To report on the Refocus - Refocus forum held on 20 September ’11 and to seek Council approval for subsequent actions with respect to the following matters. And you list things moving forward: 2011/’12 budget program. New investment areas. Recruitment. Engineering and technical services review brief. Land asset review brief. Care services redesign. Patrol, security and community safety review. Integrated planning. Explanation of framework and pathway to adoption. So this is all forward moving?---Yes. 20/11/2013 12:57 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1299 D41/19/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Now, this is 27 September 2011 - - - ?---Yes. - - - and you’ve said this whilst you know in your heart that Refocus is not a goer?---No - - So you’re still plodding along, aren’t you?---No, I haven’t - I haven’t said that it wasn’t a goer at that point. I I’ve been careful with the language that I’ve used. Well, the - the wheels were falling off. If they hadn’t fallen off they were falling off?---What - - Would it be a miscarriage - sorry?--- - - - what I attempted to do - and - and there’s a trail of these attempts, Ms Saraceni - - Yes?--- - - - is to bring it on track. That 27 September report followed a Refocus forum where we went through the detail, and quite a lengthy session, it is my recollection, of those items that are in there. And what I - what I was aiming to do with that process, both the forum followed by that report and the Council consideration of it, was - was satisfy or clearly demonstrate that the concerns that were being expressed to me were being dealt with. At the same time I gave an indication of the impact of the decisions that - in that case as well, the 8 August budget decisions were - were arbitrary and made without, you know, pre-consultation with me. So what I was trying to do there was bring things on track. Now, I wasn’t about to give up at what I saw as - as a, you know - a hurdle if - albeit - - It’s not your character to do that, is it? pardon? No?---Is - Not your character to do that. Of course you would keep up with it?---That’s what I was doing. Persevere?---So that’s the context of that report. All right. Now, following that meeting on 27 September 2011 you had a very firm view, had you, about Councils’ attitude to Refocus as opposed to your staff’s attitude to it?---Yes. So you think - you thought it was still salvageable at that point?---What I - what I saw was time and time again the objections to Refocus being expressed by criticisms of - of operational things, things that I would totally agree deserved to be criticised. What I was attempting to do with the Refocus progress - process was take a - sort of a 20/11/2013 12:57 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1300 D41/19/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 strategic and systems approach to dealing with those. So you’ve quite rightly put to me, you know, why didn’t I do something about this and why didn’t I do something about that. I did, through assigning skilled people to do that, but my approach was that I could spend three years or five years or however long I was at the City of Canning dealing with those fires, running around after Councillors and looking after their constituency issues, which had to be done and which I attempted to make sure was done, while we focused on this. So I thought that as we moved into this and started to demonstrate some results in the areas that were being expressed as a concern to me, that tide would turn and they’d say, “Well, okay.” But the shame of it basically was - was that people weren’t prepared to allow the time, you know, for that to happen. And this is not just the Councillors. as well?---I - I think - - - This is your staff Unsettling for them?---No, I think - I think - can I say what I think? Please?---I think that around the time where Councillors were starting to express their concerns and the way they were doing it, that gave licence to disaffected staff. Now, I think that the work that we had done, which we haven’t touched on in your discussion, the work that we actually did, the programs that were run with key people in the organisation to start to inculcate some of this change and be very clear about the direction, I think that was starting to take hold. But when - when the steps - the very visible steps that the Council took to, you know basically to - that derailed aspects, if not all, of the Refocus program. That gave licence to the mischief-makers on the staff. So I wouldn’t say that I had opposition on both sides. I would say I had levels of opposition on both sides, but - well, I’ll stop there. I think I’ve described it. All right. Inquirer, I only have about three questions before I finish on this topic. Could I indulge - - KENDALL, DR: Yes, yes, go ahead. That’s fine. SARACENI, MS: Thank you. If I could just take you back then to 9 December 2011, that email that you wrote that you sent to Councillor Mason and others - - -?---Yes. - - - that was a very decided email, very considered email, and you very carefully set it out, as I see it?---Yes. 20/11/2013 12:57 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1301 D41/20/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Would you agree?---Yes. Did you run that by anyone before you sent it to Councillor Mason and the others?---I don’t know. Some of that information may have been in your head, but not all of it. Did you need to refer to anything, or did you send it to someone for a second opinion? Your wife, for example, or anyone?---I - I - I may actually have sent it to her for - she quite often looked at something from a tone point of view. But to no one else, and I’m not even sure that I did that, actually. But it’s possible you could have? ---It’s possible I could have. And how long did it take you to draft that document?---Several hours, I think. Then we get to the meeting of 13 December 2011?---Yes. A lengthy meeting, and I don’t want to take you to that other than for the purposes of Refocus. That is where the motion is moved that Refocus be cancelled - - - ?---Yes. - - - and it got passed?---Yes. There really was no opposition to it, was there?---Pardon? There was no opposition to the motion, was there?---No. And you did not speak against at all, did you?---I did. What did you say?---I essentially said - and I can’t recall the exact words, but basically we - I said that the motion - was an answer to a question actually from Councillor Clarke. The Mayor gave me the opportunity to address it but made the comment that I was to stick to the facts and not attempt to sway anybody. And essentially I said that the motion would give - I can't - I - I - my words are actually in the documentation so I would refer you to that, but my recollection is I said that that would give me some considerable difficulties if that motion was passed. And by that you meant if Refocus is my baby, if Refocus is no more I am no more?---No, no. That's not what I meant at all. 20/11/2013 1:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1302 D41/20/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Is that what you felt?---Well, I - certainly, at that meeting I felt that on 14 December I would have some significant issues in terms of keeping the organisation stable and dealing with the implications of the resolution. But what I was concerned about was that quite specifically in a number of reports, including the report of 27 September, I'm explicit about what Refocus meant. There has been a lot of discussion through the Inquiry that it was a bandaid and it didn't mean anything other than that. Take that away and everything else would continue. I had been explicit in all of the documentation so that it did have a meaning. It had a meaning that meant that, you know, if it was passed in that form a whole list of things we would have to stop and that's what I was concerned about. And that's the nature of the email that I had sent to the Mayor and Councillor Mason, which I thought should have been enough for them to at least delay and wait and talk through the issues with me. Now, that's you in your capacity as CEO running an organisation. That's how you felt. But personally, as a human being, as an employee, where you have put everything into Refocus, it was your baby and it was being thrown out?---Well, I think - - How do you feel at that point?---Yeah, I felt pretty awful, really. And is it at that point that you decided this is no more for me? It must have been devastating, Mr Dacombe?---Well, I think that - I mean I had put - I had put a lot of effort into it. I did actually have a vision for what this could mean for the elected - the elected members and for the Council and so - I mean, I'm taking a long way to saying yes. But you still wanted to work through things?---Well, I wasn't about - - You (indistinct)?---I wasn't about to walk out of the Council chambers and say it's all yours. All right?---I felt I had a responsibility the next day to pick up the pieces and work out what needed to happen there. Because while the Council said Refocus was to stop, it was just patently clear to me that the way they went about that resolution, is that they had no idea at that point what Refocus was. It was something that they were expressing through frustration about some operational things that didn't get done, which I've acknowledged had to be fixed. But it was also about - it was their development 20/11/2013 1:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1303 D41/20/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 program at that point that would have morphed into their strategic committed plan, et cetera, et cetera. So to summarise - - -?---So the next day - - Yes?---The next day I thought it was my responsibility to get on and deal with this and maintain, as far as I could, stability in the organisation, attempt to explain what had happened and then focus the executive team on - on addressing the implications of the resolution, because there's stuff there that couldn't stop. So to summarise, you still had a role to play after the 13 December meeting when Refocus was thrown out?---Yeah. Clearly. Thank you, Inquirer. KENDALL, DR: All right. Thank you, Ms Saraceni. I think what I'll suggest, Mr Renton, is that we adjourn until 2.30. That's fine? All right. Thank you. (THE WITNESS WITHDREW) (LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT) 20/11/2013 1:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1304 D41/21/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 DACOMBE, MARK OSMOND recalled on former affirmation: KENDALL, DR: SARACENI, MS: Ms Saraceni? Thank you, Inquirer. THE WITNESS: Excuse - Mr Inquirer, could I just correct an incorrect answer I gave to Ms Saraceni earlier? KENDALL, DR: Yes, that's fine, please do?---Just a matter of fact. Ms Saraceni asked me whether - I think in October/November 2011, my wife's company was working for the Department of Local Government. The answer to that was no, and it's still no, but Ms Saraceni asked me, "What about WALGA?" At that time, her company was contracted to WALGA to provide workshops for elected members on integrated planning and reporting. One of those workshops was actually conducted at the Civic Function Room at the City of Canning. Occasionally, that room was hired out for that purpose. So just to correct that. SARACENI, MS: very much. KENDALL, DR: I appreciate that, Mr Dacombe, thank you Thank you. Ms Saraceni? SARACENI, MS: Mr Dacombe, before lunch we were talking about 13 December 2011, just in relation to the timeframe?---Yes. So - - -?---Is the baby born yet? Well, I was actually going to - now that you've said that, I think it's more like a miscarriage rather than a still birth or anything else?---Okay. But moving on. You had meetings with the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor on a couple of occasions in relation to issues associated with Refocus - the running of Refocus, where to from here. Is that correct? As I read the evidence, there was one meeting held at the Mayor, Mr Delle Donne's house, that you attended with the Deputy Mayor. Do you recall that?---No. One in West Perth, and one in Bentley. Do you recall any of those meetings? I don't have dates, I'm sorry?---Yes, but not in that timeframe. 20/11/2013 2:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1305 D41/21/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So - sorry, I don't have the dates, I should say, okay? Were any of them after 13 December or were those meetings before?---No, there was no - there was no discussion after that meeting with the elected members until a meeting was held on 12 January, but that basically didn't touch on Refocus issues, it touched on a range of others that we talked about. So just to follow on from what you've said, the meetings that you held with the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor pre-13 December were dealing with issues associated with Refocus?---Well, the first meeting which took place at the Mayor's house, that Councillor Mason attended, I think was in February 2010. Okay?---And that was right - it was that meeting that I basically put the proposal that now was time to change gear. Mm hmm?---And out of that came the decision then to bring on Mike Richardson, which was made in March. The meeting which took place in West Perth, that was a meeting that I put possibly around the beginning of August, but I can't be sure about that. And that was certainly to talk about the issues that were going on, and from my point of view, I was beginning to pick up how those were being dealt with through the Refocus process. Now, that's two of them. There was another one? At Bentley I understand, is that correct? I don't have anything more specific than Bentley?---There - there was a meeting in the food hall, I wouldn't have called it a meeting, I think. We were coming from somewhere, going to somewhere, and stopped for a bite to eat. I couldn't recall what was discussed. All right. So if we go back then to 13 December 2011, and we're looking forward?---Yep. There was a Christmas Party held at the City of Canning that year?---Yes. Was it 24 December?---Yes. If it was - if that was a weekday, that would be the day it was. Now, you didn't attend that Christmas Party did you, Mr Dacombe?---I did - - Not initially?---No, I wasn't there for the beginning of it, no. 20/11/2013 2:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1306 D41/21/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You were in your office and I think Councillor Mason and perhaps someone else came and got you and requested or insisted that you attend the meeting?---No, I was - I had a meeting - - Sorry, not the meeting, the Christmas Party I should say?---Pardon? Yes. I had a meeting with the executive team that morning where - I'm just trying to recall the issues that were being discussed. But that was what I was doing. And my recollection is they sent a staff member over and said, "You better come now, the Mayor wants to make a speech." All right. And you were working on what needed to be done after Refocus was (indistinct)?---I'm pretty sure that that was centre to what we were talking about. And you had a discussion with the Mayor on 24 December?---I had a brief discussion with the Mayor at the event saying - this is my recollection, of saying you know, "Can we get together?" And the get together was to discuss ongoing issues post-Refocus?---Yes. And I think Councillor Mason was going to be in on that meeting, and the first availability given the Christmas holidays and the New Year holidays was early January 2012?---Yeah, I think initially the suggestion was that the Mayor and I would meet to talk about issues, but and I think the suggestion was his, which I was perfectly comfortable with, that the Deputy Mayor be there as well. I think that came afterwards though, just to be - - And so the meeting is then set for the morning of 12 January 2012?---Yeah, that's right, yeah. And you knew that that meeting was to discuss, "Where to from here”, in relation to Refocus, the work of the Council - sorry, the work of the City, et cetera?---The - the meeting - the way it had been discussed, it was more about addressing specific issues. Refocus at that point was off - was off the agenda. So what we're talking about is the specific issues that Councillors were concerned about. That they wanted you to action?---Yes. So there was a list of to-do, a to-do list, so to speak?---There was a to-do list. 20/11/2013 2:27 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1307 D41/22/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 For you, that was discussed with you at length on 12 January?---Discuss, I wouldn't - it was put to me, put it that way. So there was stuff you needed to do?---Yes. Now, we've heard some evidence that at the very end of that meeting the Mayor handed you a performance document - - -?---Yep. - - - and said words to the effect, let's see what you did, what happened last year and we'll do the performance review. There wasn't a performance review done there and then on the spot. You were handed a document and the idea was that you would have a performance review at which you would contribute at another point in time?---No, the - the idea was that the performance review had been done and it was handed to me with the comment, you might like to sign this. Just - you might like to - I can't actually recall it was basically inviting me to read it and sign it. Yes. If you agreed, to sign it?---Yes. There was no obligation on you to sign it?---No. So to have input from you into that document? what was being asked of you?---Mm hmm. That was Is that correct?---No. It was - it was - it was being presented to me as a document that had been - been done. There was no invitation to say, well, we'll meet after we set a time to meet or anything like that. It was basically read it and sign it if you agree to it. I appreciate it was a while ago. You don't - didn't take any notes at that meeting. Only - - -?---No. - - - Mr Sharpe did?---No. So his - the contemporaneous note that was taken at the time. But the other thing that comes out from Mr Sharpe's notes is that after that there was some discussion about the need for you to then do the performance reviews of those persons who were directly answerable to you?---Yes. Now, that ought to have been done, given what you said earlier this morning, between June 2011 and some time in September 2011. In the normal course of events you ought to have done the performance reviews of those who were directly answerable to you. Is that correct?---If they if they were done in accordance with that cycle. I think 20/11/2013 2:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1308 D41/22/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 though that this team had come on in November, had only really got to grips with things in the New Year and so what I had decided to do was that a year of Refocus, basically let a year elapse so that we had a reasonable period in which to review. Other than for Mr Sharpe, who had then a current contract, for the new executive team, did they come on under a probationary period of employment?---No. No. And was it your view to even do a half-year review with them, even if a full 12 months lapsed?---No. To me, I think that what I was doing was I was meeting with them all regularly and I think that - I think the cycle was - was I would sit down with each one of them on a weekly or fortnightly basis and then there were executive meetings. So I had a fair grip on what they were doing and where. So the meeting concluded after about three and a half hours on 12 January 2012 - - -?---Yes. - - - roughly, and you went to your office or were you already in your office? Is that where the meeting was held?---No. It was in the Mayor's office. In the Mayor's office. office?---Yes. So you went back to your You then went back into the Mayor's office where you found the Mayor and Councillor Mason. Do you remember that, after a short while?---No. No, no. Well, both the Mayor and Councillor Mason, is my recollection - Councillor Mason definitely has said that that's what occurred. They stayed in - in the Mayor's office, talking, and about 10 minutes later you came back. You say that's not true?---Yes, I came back. I didn't come back and do what their - Councillor Mason's evidence says. Well - - -?---And I don't think I came back. Well, let's just - one thing at a time?---Yes. Basically - - -?---I understand. - - - Councillor Mason very clearly says you came back into the Mayor's office after about 10 minutes and you had a piece of paper with you. Do you accept that or not, or you don't remember?---I don't recall going back into the office. What I do recall is going back to my office and and - and reading the performance review. 20/11/2013 2:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1309 D41/22/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 All right. Now, HLS Legal you mentioned in your evidence yesterday?---Yes. How did you get a referral to the law firm HLS Legal, which specialises in employment law, as I understand it?---How did I get a referral? Yes. You didn't look it up in the Yellow Pages, did you?---No. Back in December, when I considered that I probably needed to talk to a lawyer, I - I called one of the Council's legal people, Michael Hardy of Hardy Bowen, and said who do you know in this field. So that was the extent. And that was before - sorry; between 13 December 2011 and the Christmas break. That's when you made - - -?---That's right. - - - the contact?---Yes. So, Michael Hardy gave you the referral and you contacted HLS Legal?---I did. And that was a phone contact you had?---Yes, it was. Before you went on the Christmas break did you physically meet with John Long from HLS Legal?---The initial contact wasn't with John Long. He was on - - Who was that with?--- - - - leave, I think. the name but I could easily - - - I can't recall David Helsinger?---That could very well be. A South African, short? Sorry. I just - all right. It's not John Long but it's one of the partners at - - -?---It was one of the partners - - - - - HLS Legal?--- - - - at HLS. All right. Well - no. The other gentleman is Tony Smetana?---No. RENTON, MR: He's not HLS. SARACENI, MS: correctly. Tony Smetana?---Maybe I didn't hear Sorry, Tony Smetana?---Sorry, I thought you said Dennis McLeod. 20/11/2013 2:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1310 D41/22/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 No, no, no. Sorry. So you spoke to them - - -?---Yes. - - - and that was a physical meeting, so you were saying, or over the phone? Where are their offices, Mr Dacombe?---Their offices are in West Perth. Ventnor Avenue?---Yes. So did you physically meet with them before Christmas?---Look, I'm not sure whether the - whether again I can verify this, but I'm not sure whether the meeting actually took place before Christmas or not - or not. Now, you're going to see lawyers about your employment status. I assume that's what you were talking to them about?---Yes. You were well aware that that was important because you'd had that experience in New Zealand when you were at Waitakere. Is that not correct?---No. What experience was that? Dealing with lawyers about your employment and what to do to part company?---I'd certainly been through that experience before. Yeah. So you have a discussion, a meeting with someone from HLS Legal. The New Year comes in, so we're into January, the first week in January 2012. Do you have further contact with someone from HLS Legally, either verbally - so orally, by phone or by writing?---There was definitely a meeting in January and there may have been two, so - that's why I can't actually place whether one took place between before Christmas or both after. But before 12 January 2012 you had met with someone from HLS Legal, one of - one of the partners there?---Yes. And you had obtained legal advice about your employment status at the City of Canning?---Yes. And is it also correct that you were given some options in relation to what you could do, given the terms of your contract?---We certainly talked about options. And was one of the options that you should resign?---No. Was one of the options that you should put something in writing to your employer, a please explain type letter?---No. One - one option was - and this may have had 20/11/2013 2:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1311 D41/23/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 that as an aspect of it, was just - was to push on and basically see how it played out. The other was to discuss an agreed termination in accordance with the provisions of the contract. A mutual parting of the ways if I could say it - -?---Yeah. - - - that way?---Mm. And there was some discussion about money, monetary compensation for a mutual parting of the ways?---Yeah, I there's a legislative provision to that and that related to the contract provision and so yes, there was some discussion around that. And you discussed with your wife the various options that had been put to you by HLS Legal?---Indeed. And before the meeting of 12 January, isn't it correct that you'd formed a view as to what would be in your best interests, as what to do with your employment moving forward?---No. No, the trigger for actually going down the path that I went down was the unilateral performance agreement - performance assessment. So at that point it was clear to me that the breakdown was terminal. Well, not from your perspective. Not from the Council’s perspective?---Well, I think - - Insofar as you were concerned, you thought you couldn’t continue to work there?---I thought that the actions of the Council, the cumulative actions of the Council, culminating in the presentation of the performance agreement, was an absolute demonstration that the relationship had broken down from their side as - I accepted that. So the relationship outside of Refocus?---Well, the performance review wasn’t about Refocus solely. It was about my management of the organisation. No, but I’m just talking to you, Mr Dacombe, sorry, about before you go into the meeting of 12 January - - -?---Yes. - - - and what your expectations are, what - what, if any, decisions you had made in relation to your ongoing employment before you get to the meeting of 12 January. So in that light?---That the relationship had broken down. Yes, as - as I say, the trigger for that final conclusion was the document - basically the manner in which the meeting was conducted and the document. Sorry if I’m missing your point. 20/11/2013 2:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1312 D41/23/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 No, no, Mr Dacombe, I’m just taking you to a period - - -?---Yeah. - - - immediately before the meeting, and I’m sorry if I haven’t asked the question clearly?---No, that’s fine. So we’re talking about a period between 13 December 2011 and 11 January 2012, the day before the meeting, let’s say - - -?---Yeah. - - - because the meeting was held in the morning at about 8.30?---Yes, yeah. So in that period you had time to mull over - - - ?---Yes. - - - you - sorry, in that period you’d already spoken to to a partner at HLS Legal and got some legal advice?---Yeah. There - you weren’t at work, because City of Canning closed down for a period of time over the holidays, didn’t they?---Yes. So you were mulling over, weren’t you - - -?---Yeah. - - - your future, whether you stay at the City of Canning or not?---Yes. Your wife’s business is progressing nicely at that point in time?---She was happy with it. And you’re considering all the options that you - you were available to you, and one of those options, as you’ve already said, was the parting of the ways?---Yes. Now, you weren’t going to allow them to sack you, were you?---Well, no. It would not have done your reputation any good, would it?---No. Particularly because you’d already decided that you were going to work as a consultant in your wife’s business and eventually become a director of that business?---Well, that was a long-term plan. That’s why you migrated to Australia, wasn’t it?---Pardon? That’s why you migrated to Australia. Get away from your family, the history in New Zealand?---No, absolutely not. 20/11/2013 2:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1313 D41/23/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You saw my history in New Zealand, and that was - there’s certainly nothing to escape from there, Ms Saraceni. So before you go into the meeting of 12 need to make very, very clear that I’ve correctly, you had already decided that was parting of ways. Yes?---Well, yes, January, I understood one of the yeah, yes, just you options sorry. You weren’t going to allow yourself to be sacked, were you? You’ve said no?---Well, no. And you weren’t going to resign, were you?---No. So the only option that you saw was a mutual parting of the ways?---I had not come to the conclusion that that was the only option on 11 January. There were two options in place, and I - my mind was open enough to see how 12 January played out, but I was very clear. And you did receive something in writing from HLS Legal at some point in time talking about the - the - the way the mutual parting could take place. That’s correct, isn’t it? Written - - -?---Yeah, I saw the - I saw - - - - - a written advice saying you could do X, Y, Z, three months’ notice, you could get this much payments?---Yeah, I certainly had advice from - I couldn’t tell you exactly what was in it, but obviously canvassed the - canvassed the situation - the option. And that advice that was in writing to you, do you recall if the letter or email, whatever it was, was written to you in the first person or the third person?---Got no idea. When - when you read the letter or the email does it say “you”? “You have the right to compensation. You must give three months’ notice.” Or does it say, “Mark Dacombe is entitled to X, Y, Z”? Is it more formal or less formal?---It’s probably less formal. Okay. I put it to you, Mr Dacombe, that you had received written advice from HLS Legal before the meeting of 12 January; that you then prepared - you - you uplifted some stuff from whatever they sent you electronically. You prepared that into a one-page document which we’ve already seen, which sets out three months’ notice. Sorry, I don’t remember the name - number of the document. Three months’ notice and all the compensation that you’re entitled to, and that at the meeting of 12 January 2012 - at the conclusion of the meeting you go back to your office. You don’t read the performance review. What you do is you go 20/11/2013 2:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1314 D41/23/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 to your computer and you actually - you actually download either what you’ve prepared or you cut and paste there and then what HLS Legal has given you as advice, and you then walk back into the Mayor’s office with that typed document and you hand it to the Mayor, and your words are along the lines of, “I can go. These are the terms”?---No, that’s wrong. And the Mayor said to you - the Mayor said to you, “It’s not signed. I won’t accept it”?---That is wrong. URQUHART, MR: 416. SARACENI, MS: Sorry? URQUHART, MR: Document 416. Beg your pardon? SARACENI, MS: Document 416, I think it is, ladies. We could just bring that up for just a moment. Make sure we’re talking about the same document. KENDALL, DR: Which number is that? SARACENI, MS: 416 I believe it’s numbered. It’s the one-page document that was looked at yesterday in relation to - - KENDALL, DR: The - the termination requirements? SARACENI, MS: Yes. Cessation payments rather than termination. You comfortable with “Cessation”, or you happy with “Termination”, Mr Dacombe? KENDALL, DR: My words. however you like. I apologise. You can refer to it SARACENI, MS: I think that looked like the document. Could we have the handwritten notes one? That’s fine. Sorry, was there a moment ago and then it’s just gone. KENDALL, DR: No, no, it’s fine. We’re not in a rush. SARACENI, MS: Yes. Mr Dacombe, that handwriting on that document, is that yours?---Yeah. Now, a document marked without prejudice and confidential, you put that there because of your past experience, and you have an understanding - a layperson’s understanding of what it means to write “Without prejudice and confidential” on a document?---No, no. I certainly put that there. 20/11/2013 2:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1315 D41/24/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Or was - or was an HLS Legal - - - ?---Is there - pardon? Was that an HLS Legal - - - ?---No, no, I prepared that document. Did HLS Legal have any input into what’s in that document at all?---I - I discussed that document with them post-12 January. Well, the evidence of Mr Mason and the Mayor, as I understand it, is that that was handed to them on 12 January. You - they were - said that, no, it’s not signed. You took it away and then after a week, on 19 January, you then fronted up with that same document, but this time it was signed. And if we could just go to the - scroll to the bottom of that document, make sure that that has a signature on it. No, it’s not signed?---Look at the date on it. Yes. I don’t have any difficulties with dates. Dates can be changed very quickly. If I print a document today from my computer it will say today’s date. 19 January is - on the evidence that Councillor Mason and I think the Mayor has given is that the second time that this document is produced - - -?---Yes. - - - that it’s signed. I notice this one’s not signed, but there is a signed one on the records of the Inquiry. So 19 January, when you’ve got the signed document, it is signed then, isn’t it? This document is signed on 19 January, or do you hand over an unsigned copy for the second time?---I believe that this remained unsigned. It remained unsigned. But these were the - - -?---I can’t be certain of that, but that’s my belief. Now, there were two meetings, but the date - your dates are wrong. The first meeting, I came back to the Mayor with the first draft of that on the 18th, the day before the 19th. On 18 January? Where did that meeting take place?---In the Mayor's office. In the Mayor's office?---So I came into the Mayor's office, he was there alone, and I said to him - that was where I said to him, "I've read the performance agreement, I don't agree with it, I don't accept it." I said that it's clear that - I think I may have used the words, "That you and the Council see that I'm a problem. Given where we've reached I think, and I would be prepared to open discussions on a mutual termination of the contract." And from that, there was a brief discussion around - well, "I'll need to talk to 20/11/2013 2:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1316 D41/24/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 the Deputy Mayor." He said, "Perhaps we should leave the discussion of this until we can meet with him so we don't have to go over it twice”, and that's where we agreed on the meeting to take place on the 19th. That meeting did take place. Yes?---It was a reasonably amicable discussion, I thought. It was a business proposition at that point, isn't it?---That was a business proposition, and from there the - I took the reception to be reasonably positive. And from there, I went back to HOS and had the - and you'll see the reference on there to a draft deed of settlement. Your deed, yes?---I had that - I had them draft that up. And that was sent to me on 23 January, and I passed that straight on to the Mayor. And then the sequence took place with the meeting in the evening. Now, Mr Dacombe, at the meeting on 12 January or the meeting of 18 January or the meeting of 19 January that you've just spoken about, there was no gun held to your head to say, "Resign or else”, was there? There was no pressure on you to bring - to end the contract?---No, I opened that discussion. In fact - - -?---But - - In fact, Mr Dacombe, the discussion on 12 January gave you a list of things to do, as you've said, and those things - that list of things to do was going to take more than one week, i.e. 19 January. It was going to take longer than that to do. There were some long term things that you needed to take care of, correct?---Yes. So it was your free will, free choice to decide to want to part company with the City of Canning?---Well, yes. And the terms of payment and compensation and deed, et cetera, your main concern there was that one, you would get properly compensated, but two, that your reputation would remain in intact and that how it was announced, how your parting of ways with the City of Canning was announced was going to be focused on, because you wanted it to come out in a particular way. Is that not correct?---I was concerned about the reputations of both sides, so yes. That's what this business deal was about, was saying, "Okay, we've gone as far as we can go here." I didn't walk into the room pointing any finger at anyone, and you know, basically I was saying it was time to recognise - from my point of view, it's time to recognise that this is done. 20/11/2013 2:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1317 D41/24/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 We can do this, you can get on with your business and run the show the way you want to run it, and I'll go off into the sunset and do whatever I wanted. So as I saw it, it was a discussion of equals. Definitely. And in relation to handover, et cetera, and for a smooth transition, once you come to some agreement in relation to the basis of the parting of the ways, there was some discussion that you ought not work out your notice. That you make yourself available from home if and when required?---No. No? So gardening leave was not discussed?---Absolutely not. And - absolutely not. Are you saying that gardening leave was not discussed at all?---Gardening leave, which I take as quite an offensive term - - It's very Australian, I don't know what you say in New Zealand?---Pardon? It's very Australian, I don't know what you say in New Zealand?---Yeah, but it means a certain thing, not the way it was described the other day. Mr Dacombe - - -?---There was absolutely no discussion about me taking leave on the payroll. So what I'd offered to do is work out the three months' notice and have a proper handover, a proper formal and detailed handover, but I was prepared to reduce that by agreement. But they chose not to offer you to work out your notice, but to keep paying you and, "Don't bother coming in." That's what happened at the end of the day. If you don't want to call it gardening leave, you were still being paid your normal pay once a month, is that correct?---That's what happened on 30 January. Yes. You didn't get a lump-sum payment at that stage, did you?---No, there was no agreement at that point. No. But you never got a lump-sum payment until the very end, is that correct?---That's right. So what you did get is you had your normal pay, even though you didn't front up to work for about three months, and then whatever was left you got in a lump-sum at the end?---Yes. 20/11/2013 2:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1318 D41/24/NR/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And in fact, they didn't call on you did they, to do anything within that three month period?---No. All right. Mr Dacombe, I just wanted to take you to two final matters that you've been asked questions on earlier, and this one looks really at the engineering services. I'm not quite sure why it's done this way, but this was issue number 11. And what I wanted to speak to you about very briefly is the advice from McLeods, document 1947, the advice from McLeods of 12 January 2011. Do you recall you gave some evidence about this yesterday?---I missed the subject, sorry. So in relation to this document that's just on the screen?---Okay, yes, absolutely. Mr Gomes, you see that there?---Yes. Now, isn't it correct that when documents come in to the City of Canning, there's a requirement to print them and stamp on them the fact that they've been received and the date of receipt?---Yes, yes. And that was - that would be correct even if the document is received electronically?---That should be the case. This document does not bear any sign from City of Canning acknowledging receipt of it, does it? Perhaps if you could scroll down so that Mr Dacombe has the opportunity to have a look?---No. Now, this letter as you can see at the top was sent to Mr Gomes, CCed to Mr Jefferies. Was it Mr Gomes that brought this letter to you? He printed it from his computer and brought you a copy. Is that what happened, or did he send it to you electronically?---I don't recall getting it from Mr Gomes. Do you recall getting it from Mr Jefferies?---I was asked about this yesterday, and I subsequently checked, and the letter content was made by the solicitor from McLeods seeking Mr Sullivan. Mr Sullivan wasn't available, so it was referred to Mr Jefferies and Mr Jefferies did send the letter to me. And you printed a hardcopy or did he?---I think I probably printed a hardcopy. Now, in the normal course of events, for the document to become part of the records of the City of Canning, it would 20/11/2013 2:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1319 D41/25/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 need to be stamped as you've just already said, received and a date?---Well, I understand - - Sorry, is that correct, that's what would happen?---Sorry, Ms Saraceni. That's what would normally happen?---That is the case. But it didn't happen here?---Not on that copy, no. Did it happen on any copy?---Well, what I was going to say was that my understanding is that McLeods always sent a hardcopy. So a hardcopy from them to Mr Gomes, and that would have come through the central records system. Now - I'm just telling you what the procedure was. Yes. And so that hardcopy that comes in, it doesn't surprise me that McLeods would send a hardcopy at the end of the day, but there is - you had no control over that document when it arrived, did you?---No. So you don't know if it actually did arrive or if - and if it did arrive, whether it was stamped as per the normal procedure?---Well, I believe it was, but I can't point you to any document that says that. Now, in fact, in relation to this document and this - these events that this is talking about you decided to take a proactive approach as CEO, didn’t you?---Yes. So you weren’t doing strategic stuff. You actually did some practical operational stuff in relation to this matter, correct?---I - well, I certainly did. And, in fact, this letter is dated 12 January, correct? If it goes back up. 12 January. In fact, on 14 January you emailed Jeff Owen and McLeods. Do you recall that?---I certainly had contact with Jeff Owen. There was an email dated 14 January 2011 from you to Jeff Owen at McLeods?---Yeah. You’ve CCed Kevin Jefferies. The “Re” is, “Tender for engineering services”, and your email says, and I quote and I’m sure the ladies will bring it up shortly: Jeff, I’m very unhappy with this opinion and would ask that you recall it for further work. I would then request that we meet to discuss the matter. Recall that?---That’s right. 20/11/2013 3:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1320 D41/25/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Do you then recall that same day receiving a response in writing from Jeff Owen at McLeods? And Jeff says: I’m quite prepared to do so if there are some facts which I did not properly understand or were not supplied to me. Can you please ring me to discuss? Do you recall receiving that email from Mr Owen?---Yes, I think so, yes. And I certainly had a discussion with them. You then had a telephone call with him. Now, Mr Jeff Owen there properly states, because lawyers - we have code of ethics that we comply to. Code of conduct as well. And he has said that he will relook at his advice if the facts were not properly understood by him or some were not supplied to him. They would be the only basis upon which he would take that back. That’s what it says, isn’t it?---Mm. You understood that?---Yes. So he indicated very clearly to you that he was not prepared to change his advice just because you didn’t like it. That’s what it says, isn’t it?---That’s what he says. So you rang him and you repeated your request that he withdraw the letter. What did you say to him was the reason that you wanted that letter withdrawn?---I - I said to him the reasons that - that - well, I - I said to him the reasons that I’ve outlined here before, that the advice was unhelpful. It muddied the waters. It simply - - Thank you, ladies. I think the document’s just up there. No, that’s the - - THE WITNESS: It simply repeated advice that I’d already given the Council. It - it - it would muddy the waters in terms of the political process that I was trying to support and manage, and it added nothing to getting to the final result. SARACENI, MS: All right. Sorry, Mr Dacombe. I’ve just been a little bit distracted. There’s another email up there. It’s not the one I was referring to, but that one is interesting. If we could just look at that for a moment. 13 January. It actually predates the emails that I’ve taken you to?---Yeah. From Mr Jefferies to you. Jeff Owen, who’s a lawyer from McLeods, contacted Kevin Jefferies, who’s written the email, when you were away. Do you know what he’s referring 20/11/2013 3:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1321 D41/25/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 to? When you were away when? Did you go away over the Christmas/New Year break or the start of January? Or is he talking about when you - - -?---Maybe I - maybe - - November?---No. Maybe it was a day that I wasn’t sitting in my office, Ms Saraceni. And Mr Owen alerted me to the fact that they - “They” being McLeods: - had concerns about the process around the engineering consultancy services tender. I asked that he send it to us as well as to Colin Gomes. So that letter is - that is the pre - predecessor email to the one that I have just read out to you. And if we look, ladies, to 14 January 2011 there are a series of emails. After that phone call you had with Mr Owen you then wrote another email to Mr Owen on 14 January. Do you recall that one there?---Yes. And I think this is the last in the chain of emails when you said to Mr Owen: The main issue is ours. The request that came to you for a written opinion was not authorised by me, and neither was it specifically authorised by the resolution, which is, in fact, misquoted. The process therefore does not comply with the Council policy on the commissioning of written legal advice. Yes? That’s - they are your words?---Yes. But I’m more interested in the last - the next paragraph: The matter is very sensitive. ?---Yes. Why was it very sensitive?---It was very sensitive in the context of - of the view that certain elected members had that the staff were working to thwart them, and this landed in the middle of a particularly difficulty period in the relationship between your client and my executive engineering and technical services. It was - - - 20/11/2013 3:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1322 D41/25/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 That’s Mr Jefferies?--- - - - an appallingly difficult relationship for me to manage, and I did not want anything landing on the table that looked like I was working or Charles Sullivan was working to undermine what they want to do - wanted to do. So - - So you were trying to appease those above you and protect those - - - ?---No, because I had a very - I had - - - - - subordinate to you?--- - - - I had given - I had given this advice. I had - I had - I basically had been given this advice. I’d been given an instruction that they’d had some difficulties with it, but what I was looking to do was find a way, and no appeasement at all find a way to - to - - Well, what was it, Mr Dacombe?---Pardon? What was it? You were covering your own back?---Well well, the - this - - It was - - - ?--- - - - since you asked - since you asked the question, there seems to be an impression that there are two - there’s a right way of an executive relating to a Council and it’s got to be like this. And for most things - and I accept that there are technical issues that this isn’t the case, but for most things there’s more than one way of looking at it, and - and so quite often the CEO’s legitimate role, particularly if you’re headed to a more modern and innovative and engaged Council with the community, is to support your elected members to work their way through various options and come to something that actually represents their view of the world. And that’s not - it’s not right and it’s not wrong. So my approach with this Council and every other Council that I’ve worked with is to work as closely as I can with the elected members to give them the result that they’re achieving provided, you know, a - certain criteria are met. Now, what I found in the City of Canning, the culture that we talk about was that - and you’ve seen it in some of the and a lot of the reports and recommendations that went up that there was one right way. Now, as I say, more often than not there’s not one right way. There’s a range, and what I was trying to do was work with the elected members to more closely support their decision making. All right. Well, thank you for that, Mr Dacombe. email continues. You say this: The matter is very sensitive. management issue - - 20/11/2013 3:05 Merrill Corporation Australia This There is a political DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1323 D41/26/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 ?---Yes. - - - here as well as a legal one. ?---That’s right. And that’s what you’ve just described?---Yes. So you’re very sensitive always, aren’t you, to the political dynamics in play?---Yes. Well, absolutely, in the context of what I’ve described to you. And you’ve learned that from past experience in New Zealand dealing with Councils, haven’t you?---No, I’ve learned that - that for high-delivering Councils to their communities, the strongest - the - the - one of the key factors, if not the key factor, is the ability of the executive to work with the elected members in a collaborative manner. That’s the culture on that side of the coin that I was trying to to develop. All right. Mr Dacombe, moving on from that email, did you and Charles Sullivan or anyone else go and meet with Mr Jeff Owen to finalise this issue about the letter and its contents?---I - I - there may have been a meeting. There may have been a meeting. And is it also correct that on 24 February 2011, so about six weeks later, Jeff Owen sends you an email when he asks - or says: Hopefully this is back on track. an account for the work we did? Is it okay to send Do you recall receiving that email?---I recall seeing the account. I can’t actually recall the email. You recall seeing the account. Do you remember roughly what - how much it was for?---I think about $2,000. All right. Now, leaving that. I think the last issue that I need to speak to you about is the issue of governance. Thanks, ladies. There’s some evidence been given previously about governance-type matters. I just wanted to ask you briefly about the compliance audit returns?---Yes. 20/11/2013 3:15 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1324 D41/26/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Now, I take that the one that was done for the 2009 year was not long after you started?---Yeah. So the fact that Andrew Sharpe completed it and signed it perhaps is not the end of the world. But what about 2010? You had been at the Council a good year and a half if not more by the time of the 2010 compliance audit. What if any involvement did you have in completing the 2010 annual audit return for the Department?---I didn’t have hands on - - Sorry, for provision to the Department, I should say, for the City of Canning?---Yeah. I didn’t have hands-on involvement in completing it. But it was reviewed - was discussed with me by Andrew I believe on an exceptions basis but - but we certainly discussed it. Then it went through the executive process and onto the Council agenda. This was purely a compliance exercise tick and flick. That’s what happened, isn’t it, Mr Dacombe? That was your review of this document?---(No audible answer). “Has that been ticked? Yes, okay, next, next.” You didn’t do anything positive - positively to check the accuracy of what was in this return, did you?---I didn’t do a personal audit of it, no. But you didn’t even ask any questions of anyone - - -?---It’s - - - - - did you?---Well, I believe I did. What, “Mr Sharpe, is this correct?” And he said, “Yes”?---He wrote - he - we went - he - we - as I recall we went through it. It was discussed with him. He pointed out any issues that he felt needed to be pointed out. It went to the executive team and there was a discussion of it at that point. But I certainly relied on - I certainly relied on the information having been collected and presented correctly. And it was - the discussion was perfunctory. There was nothing much discussed other than, “Here it is, happens every year, we’re obliged to do it, have you gone through it? Okay, yes, okay, off you go.” That was it. More or less that’s all that happened, wasn’t it?---Well - - Mr Sharpe may have done more but that’s all you did?---I certainly asked the question. 20/11/2013 3:15 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1325 D41/26/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You didn’t even sign the letter at the end of the day?---No. The - - It went out under your name but you did not sign that letter?---That’s right. Another example of things going out when you are telling the Department, hand on heart, “This is what the City of Canning has done, we are compliant, I am the CEO, I stand behind it, we are compliant.” That’s what you were saying. But there was no substance to it, was there?---Well, I believe there was. Well, Mr Dacombe, when you look at that, the letter to McLeods that you tried to hide, get rid of, made it - make it disappear, what - what sort of ethics were you working with?---I was very - very clear on the fact that letter was not authorised by me. And I’ve been through that. There’s no ethical issue there from my point of view at all. I certainly managed the compliance audit approach on the basis of asking key questions along the lines of what you said. I was absolutely relying on the people that put it together. And I certainly can’t see any ethical issue in that at all. You had a very hands-off management style, didn’t you, Mr Dacombe?---I think - - Well, that’s - that’s correct statement, isn’t it?---Pardon? That’s a correct statement? You had a very hands-off management style?---I did not personally get involved in auditing people’s work or that sort of thing, absolutely. I focused on the direction of the City. And let me guess - - -?---And making sure the systems - - - - - strategy stuff, strategic stuff?---- - - were in place. Strategic stuff?---While making sure that the right people were in the right place to do the operational and regulatory and compliance stuff. Just to conclude, Mr Dacombe, just take you back to section 5.41 of the Local Government Act which sets out very neatly the functions of a CEO. And I just want to ask you a series of questions and that will be the end of it from me. You - you’re relieved. The CEO’s functions are, at subsection (a): 20/11/2013 3:15 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1326 D41/26/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 To advise the Council in relation to the functions of a Local Government under the Act and other written laws. You did not provide that advice personally, did you?---On the functions of the Council? I would certainly say they had extensive advice on that from me through the strategic processes that we were putting in place for it under the Refocus banner. Well, Mr Dacombe, Refocus didn’t come to life for at least 18 months or 16 months from when you started. It - it had a life for a period of time and then before you left it had stopped having a life. Do - are you saying that you advised the Council personally in relation to the - to its functions under the Act and other written laws?---Yes, through the processes that were in place to do that. And where did the work of Mr Sharpe intersect with what you’ve just said in relation to advising on Local Government functions under the Act and other written laws?---Mr Sharpe’s advice? Mr Sharpe provided advice on procedural issues. The functions - - And functions under the Act?---He provided some advice in that area. Yes. Including the compliance audit returns that we’ve seen?---He - he signed off the compliance audit. And then moving on. to: One of the other functions at (b) is Ensure - ensure. Ensure, as I understand it, is almost like a guarantee. Would you accept that?---(No audible answer). Another word for “Ensure” is “Guarantee”?---No, it’s to ensure. Yes. So it’s not just to check. It’s to almost guarantee. Ensure that something is done a particular way?---Yes. So when it says at 5.14(b): Ensure that advice and information is available to the Council so that informed decisions can be made - 20/11/2013 3:20 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1327 D41/26/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 - that places a very high onus on you as the CEO, doesn’t it?---That’s right. Did you ensure that advice and information available to the Council was such that they could make an informed decision?---Well, I would say yes. And you (indistinct) - - -?---I would say - - - - - despite what happened in relation to - - -?---Well - - - - - the Bannister Road Works Project?---I would say I made every effort to ensure that the Council had in front of it the information they needed to make informed decision. And you did that - - -?---Now, whether you can - whether you can point to some deficiencies in that, fine. But I made every possible effort to ensure that that happened. And (c), that you needed to: Cause Council decisions to be implemented. ?---Yes. So you - you feel happy that when Council said, “X is going to happen”, that you made sure that people did what Council wanted?---Yes. Or did they keep coming back with recommendations that they had made the first time even though Council had rejected them, as we’ve looked at earlier today re Centenary Avenue because that’s what the officers and through them you wanted to do?---Sorry, I lost - I lost the drift of that question. Yes, it was poorly worded. I apologise, Mr Dacombe. 5.14(c) says that you must as CEO, must: Cause Council decisions to be implemented. ?---Yeah. You’re saying to the Inquiry that every decision that Council made you - you actually implemented through your staff?---Through my staff? 20/11/2013 3:20 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1328 D41/27/AGD/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Yes?---I mean, the answer to that quite clearly is that the decisions of Council after they were made went into a process to be implemented. Some would be implemented the next day if they were a planning decision or something like that. Others might end up on a longer time frame, in which case there was a schedule of outstanding - outstanding business. But certainly the objective was that all Council decisions were implemented. Now, you put an addendum to that question. Yes?---There was certainly no - no intent, the way it was put to me earlier today, just simply to take decisions of Council back to them unless there was a particular reason to do so. And that actually didn’t happen very often at all. All right. Just two more questions and I think we’ll be through. 5.41(h) places on you as a CEO a requirement to: Ensure - that word “Ensure” again: Ensure that records and documents of the Local Government are properly kept for the purposes of this Act and any other written law ?---That's right. Now, do you say that that occurred all the time, particularly given we have just finished looking at the McLeods letter?---The - the records systems, when - when I took up the role, weren’t - weren’t satisfactory; there was a lot of paper-based stuff. And a key project early in that process was to update and modernise those systems and put in place a fully automated records management system. So you know, obviously I inherited what I inherited and I took action to - to address that. Some stop-gap, short-term measures or only long-term measures under Refocus?---I actually think that project may have - may - excuse me - I think that project may have pre-dated Refocus, I think it may have stared in - early than that but it’s neither - neither here nor there from my point of view that - that it was a comprehensive and quite expensive project to deal with that records issue. And to conclude, Mr Dacombe, section 5.41(d) has a function that - of the CEO, one of the functions is: 20/11/2013 3:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1329 D41/27/AGD/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 To manage the day-to-day operations of the Local Government. ?---That's right. Not only the strategic operations, but to manage the day-to-day operations - - -?---Right. - - - of the Local Government?---That's right. Do you say that you managed the day-to-day operations of the Local Government?---Through - through the employment of appropriate people, absolutely. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr Inquirer. KENDALL, DR: Thank you, Ms Saraceni. Mr Renton, do you have anything say? RENTON, MR: Inquirer, if we could just take a 10-minute break before moving to the next counsel. And through you, may I inquire as to whether the witness feels content to continue the cross-examination after that break? KENDALL, DR: Yes. Are you - are your suggesting that his not? RENTON, MR: Well, if you want to make an inquiry of the witness if he’s happy to proceed? KENDALL, DR: No. That’s fine. I recognise, Mr Dacombe, it’s been quite a long day. Would you rather end now and come back tomorrow or continue for another hour?---No, I - I do - Inquirer, I do have commitments that I, you know, need to get back to so - - All right?---- - - that - I prefer to carry on and - - And you’re find with that, Mr Urquhart? URQUHART, MR: KENDALL, DR: Yes, I am, sir. Okay. Yes. That’s fine. Then we’ll take a 10-minute break and then we’ll come back. 20/11/2013 3:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M.O. XXN 1330 D41/28/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 (THE WITNESS WITHDREW) (Short adjournment) DACOMBE, MARK OSMOND recalled on former affirmation: KENDALL, DR: URQUHART, MR: Thank you. Mr Urquhart? KENDALL, DR: Yes, thank you very much, sir. Thank you. URQUHART, MR: Mr Dacombe, I want to start off with an area that’s been already covered a couple of times in cross-examination of you, and I understand that we don’t want to harp on this for too long, but I just want to see whether we’ve got this right now, because your - and this is to do with the delegation that you made from time to time to Mr Sharpe, and - and I’m concentrating on - here with obligations that the Council had to comply with legislation. Now, your evidence to the Inquiry last month was that you, as I understood it, delegated to Mr Sharpe any advice that was required at Council meetings regarding standing orders. Is that right?---Yes. Right. And as I understand your evidence to questions last month by counsel assisting - that that delegation also extended on occasions to Mr Sharpe to provisions of the Local Government Act?---In the - the short answer to that the short answer to that is yes, but also to other executives as was appropriate. I see. Right. Yes, and I was referring to page 79, just for the record, of your transcript last month. And your evidence was that it also extended to procedural matters, which I suppose is all rolled up into that delegation?---Well - - Such - such as whether a vote required an absolute majority or not?---Well, that - that generally was worked out in advance and included in the agenda. Right. But were you relying on whatever advice you got from Mr Sharpe in relation to that?---Well, from Mr Sharpe and the executives concerned. And the - I - I apologise if you already answered this question, but did you delegate to Mr Sharpe matters relating to codes of conduct?---No. 20/11/2013 3:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1331 D41/28/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Right. So advice to Council relating to its functions under the Local Government Act and other written laws was delegated by you on occasions to either Mr Sharpe or other members of the executive?---Yes. And do you accept that responsibility for that advice was vested in you as CEO?---That’s right. And we’ve already been through section 451A - - -?---Yeah. - - - of the Local Government Act. Now, I know you came from another jurisdiction and I know you commenced the position of CEO of Canning in February of 2009, but I gather that - and I know that the Local Government Act is quite a voluminous piece of legislation, but I gather you have at least read part 5 of the Local Government Act, and that relates to administration - that you would have at least read that part - - - ---Yes. - - - before you began your position as CEO?---Yes. So these delegations that we’ve spoken about to Mr Sharpe and other members of the executive, those delegations weren’t in writing, were they?---I’ve used the word “Delegation”. The functions of each of the executive in their areas would be covered by their job descriptions, contracts and - and delegation, which would include giving advice in their particular areas of responsibility (indistinct) there. I’m - I’m talking about advice to Council with respect to the Local Government Act and any other written laws, to quote section 5.41(a). Now, you personally did not delegate those responsibilities of yours to Mr Sharpe or other members of the executive in writing, did you?---In in terms of - - Can we just - can I just have an answer to that question?---Well, it was going to be a yes-or-no answer yes-and-no answer (indistinct). So it was going to be both?---It can be both. Now, what I was saying is that in the area of the standing orders I certainly asked Andrew to - to ride shotgun, if you like, on that, and that’s not in writing. I would expect covered by the general delegations to the various officers and their, as I say, employment agreements to have covered off the issue of providing advice in their areas of responsibility. 20/11/2013 3:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1332 D41/28/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Did you check?---I can’t say that - I can’t say that is the case as I sit here. Well, I’m going to suggest to you that you did not?---Did not check? Mm?---Well, I can’t recall specifically doing that, no. I just want to show you - and it to you. It’s section 5.44 and this might be easier than than me reading it out. Says I’ll hand up a hard copy of of the Local Government Act, - for you to follow, rather under the heading: CEO may delegate powers and duties to other employees. Subsection (1): A CEO may delegate to any employee of the Local Government the exercise of any of the CEO’s powers or the discharge of the CEO’s duties under this Act other than this power of delegation. And subsection (2): A delegation under this section is to be in writing and may be general or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation. Now, I gather, given the fact that you would have read part 5 before you began your job, because it dealt with administration matters - you would have read that?---I’ve read that. I’ve also read the delegations and I’ve also been involved in the review of the delegations once, if not more times, while I’ve been there. Right. And did you discover that they were in writing?---Pardon? The delegations. I’m talking about those. The delegations of your duties under section 5.41(a). That’s what I’m concentrating on there?---Understand that. Am I right in saying from your evidence that you didn’t personally yourself make any written delegation specifically to Mr Sharpe or any other members of the executive when it came to delegating your responsibilities under section 41(a)?---Not over and above what will be included in the delegations in the formal delegation manual. 20/11/2013 3:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1333 D41/29/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So the formal delegation manual. You’ve - well, you’re not talking about their contracts?---Well, I’m talking about their contracts and the delegations to - to the CEO and officers. You’re just making a guess there, aren’t you, because you haven’t got a specific recollection of checking - - -?---I - - - - - such delegations if they exist?---No, what I - I’m I - I - sorry. Excuse me. Maybe I should have - what I’m saying to you is there was a process for reviewing those. You’ve asked me whether - whether I specifically checked delegations related to each of those officers. I can’t recall five years ago when I came on board whether I did that. I expect that I did, and subsequently they’ve been through a review process more than once, I think. And why was it that they were subject to a review process?---Pardon? Why were they subject to a review process?---Well, I think there’s a requirement that they are reviewed on a regular basis. Are you talking about section 5.46? Turn over the page and have a look at that. Do you see a register of and records relevant to delegations to CEO and employees?---Yes. Is that what you're referring to there? the CEO's - - -?---Yes. Subsection (1), - - - need to register - - -?---The register. - - - delegations made - - -?---That's right. - - - in this div to the CEO and to employees?---That is right. So you're saying that there is a register of delegations - - -?---Yep. - - - in the City?---Yep. But that register of delegations won't be as precise as to say Mr Dacombe, the CEO, has delegated his responsibilities under 541A to named executives?---Well, I don't have them in front of me so I cannot answer for sure. 20/11/2013 3:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1334 D41/29/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Well, if you were named then you would have caused that to have taken place?---I'm not sure - - Do you agree?---I'm not sure that I understand the question. Well, you see, I'm just trying to work out - for example, did you ever say to Mr Sharpe, at least to start with, working there - you said to him, look, if there's any question that comes up at Council meetings regarding compliance with the Local Government Act or any other written law, I want you to take responsibility for answering that question. Did you ever do that with him?---What I did with him was say, Mr Sharpe, I would like you to handle the standing orders issue. Yes?---So he dealt with that one specifically. Yes?---In terms of providing advice under the Local Government Act or any other Act, I - that will be either covered in that delegations manual that I've referred to or their contracts. I see. The answer might - I want an answer to my question?---Pardon? Do you recall speaking to Mr Sharpe about this specific issue at Council meetings, I'm going to delegate responsibility to you to answer any questions regarding the procedures required under the Local Government Act?---No. No. And am I saying - am I right in saying that the answer would be no to whether you did that with any of the other executives?---I'm only pausing in terms of recollection. Not in those terms, no, would be my recollection. And what about when the new executives who arrived Dr Mouritz, Mr Jefferies and Ms Armstrong, did you speak to them specifically about this requirement that you'll be delegating the responsibilities that you had regarding advising Council of the provisions of the Local Government Act?---When - when they came on board there was - I sort of - no, well the short answer is probably not in those terms. No. No. Because would I be right in saying that those three would have had very little experience, if anything at all, of the provisions of the Local Government Act because they came from outside the jurisdiction?---They - I would not expect them to be, you know, word perfect in that area. No. 20/11/2013 3:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1335 D41/29/SMM/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Mr Dacombe, I know you've been cross-examined at length about this matter but isn't it the case that the delegation to, say, Mr Sharpe, for example, of your duties under section 541A, just simply evolved without you considering whether compliance had been made with the Local Government Act?---The issue of standing orders, which I covered - - I'm talking about - - -?--- - - - and secondly, the issue of the Local Government Act - he, simply in his role as finance, head of finance, he - he provided advice under the Local Government Act. When his position changed to include the corporate services role, the - the formal function of providing support for Council is included in that job description, is my recollection. Am I right, though, in saying that an active prescription just simply evolved?---Well, it evolved to the extent that I've just described. And are you saying that it evolved with you knowing the provisions of section 5.44 and 5.46?---Well, the short answer to that is yes. Okay?---Again, that yes is in the context of answers that I've already given you. And that applies to any requirements under the Local Government Act and its regulations?---Well, yes. Section 5.41(b) - I don't intend to go through every single subsection of 5.41, but this one, the CEO's functions are to ensue that advice and information is available to Councillors so that informed decisions can be made. Now, I was listening to your answers to questions from Ms Saraceni and I know that you're response to her question regarding that is that you believe that you did comply with the provisions of that subsection?---That's right. Okay. But would you agree with me that it's readily apparent from evidence before this Inquiry, and I've heard you say that you have been reading the transcripts and also it's evident from listening to audiotapes from Council meetings which, of course, you were present at, that a common complaint from Councillors was that they weren't being provided with enough information so that informed decisions could be made by the Council. Do you agree with that?---I don't agree with the - I agree that that complaint was made - - - 20/11/2013 3:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1336 D41/30/AG/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Yes?--- - - - from time to time. Yes. And - well, not just from time to time. I'm going to suggest to you that it was a complaint that you frequently heard at Council meetings, for example?---I heard that complaint. But I gather from what you're saying is that there wasn't a justification for those complaints?---On occasion there was. On - - There were occasions?---On occasions. So there were occasions when they should have been better informed?---I would accept that. And are you able to recall some examples of that?---Not not specifically. I think it was quite often a complaint in the planning area, less so in the other areas, I believe. From time to time it might have arisen related to - related to the engineering area and often the issue was not so much that the information wasn't there or, well, not sufficient information to make a decision. Often the issue was the Council wanted more understanding of the issue; in which case there was a process to deal with that. Yes. And this would emanate would it not from the fact that as far as the Council was concerned, that edification wasn’t present in the report. It was before the Council?---The - the answer to that is yes, but I would also qualify that. Are you of the view that Council should have been better informed with respect to any of the matters that this Inquiry is looking at?---Well, only in the context that you can always do better and not take it on board and let - - All right. Let’s use an example, Willetton Child Care Centre?---Well, I don’t see how they could have had much more information than they actually got. So you don’t agree with that?---No, I don’t agree with that. I - I think the issues around that were - were not issues of lack of availability of information. And that may have been the issue right at the beginning, but the process was such that every request that was asked for by the Council was actually provided as I understand it. And you would - then from your answer and from questions that have already been asked of you this morning, that that letter in your name for 21 December - I think it was 2010, 20/11/2013 3:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1337 D41/30/AG/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 you were of the view that by that stage, all Council had all the information to make a decision about this lease?---Without actually going back and looking at the the - at the chronology, I would have thought by about that stage, they did. Even though the asset review hadn’t been completed by then?---Yes, they had - I think - believe they had sufficient information to make the decision in the context - sufficient information if there were of a mind to, to make a positive decision in the context of the asset review program. And I explained that earlier in the - with the example of stopping the bus to count the kids. All right. So did you believe that they had sufficient information notwithstanding the fact that the asset review hadn’t been completed to extend the lease or to make a new lease with the sort of time frames that the Child Centre was seeking, namely 10 years with an option for a further 10?---They could have shortened that. They had sufficient information to do that. So the question is they should have been able to grant the lease as requested by the child-care centre?---They could have chosen to do that, yes. But really in practice, would that have been a sensible decision?---Well, there were - there were quite clear political statements made about there being no intention to throw out the child-care centre, so I give you a scenario. It’s quite possible - - I’m - I’m just simply asking would be a sensible decision information they had to have new lease for that length of peppercorn rate?---I think that decision. whether you would think that by Council with the extended the lease and made a time at - and also at the I think they could have made I know they could have, they could have made the decision to make the lease for 100 years, but I’m asking you whether it would be a - I used the word sensible, but maybe I should use the word wise decision?---Look, I don’t want to frustrate you, but I can’t answer that question without some explanation to it. So you’re saying then they could have made a wise and informed decision at that time, December of 2010, to extend the lease and the conditions that the child-care centre was seeking. But I gather from what you’re saying, your answer 20/11/2013 3:55 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1338 D41/30/AG/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 would be yes?---Yes, I believe they could have without compromising the asset - the overall asset review. What about compromising the situation that other child-care centres were in, in the area. Wasn’t it a case where the rent arrangements - lease arrangements with respect to those premises should be taken into account? The answer must be yes?---Pardon? The answer to that must be yes?---That it would compromise it in the context of others? Sorry? Yes, to have a look at it in consideration of what other child-care centres were paying by way of rent and what arrangements they had with the Council?---And that information, if it hadn’t been provided could have been provided at that time. I believe it was provided. They could have made a decision taking into account those factors. Can I ask you a general question now, and that is what role did you think you had as CEO when Council was debating whether an officer’s recommendation should or should not be accepted?---What role did I think I had? Mm hmm?---Well, that role was made - made pretty clear right from the beginning that the - by the time it got to the Council chambers, the officers had had their say and the opportunity to look at the case. It was a matter then for the Council to - to debate and make a decision, so clearly there was no role as part of the debate if you like as the 11th Councillor or whatever, but there was certainly a role to ensure that advice was provided if it was required. And that might be what the role of others thought you should play, but I asked you what did you think your role should be?---In terms of the way in which I have operated with elected members, I was comfortable with that role. So you didn’t disagree?---I didn’t disagree. That’s consistent with the approach that I talked about earlier. So did you regard then your role as merely reactive rather than proactive?---I certainly didn’t see I had a role to steer the debate. No, the question was, do you regard your role then as being simply reactive? Do you only say something when you’re called upon?---No. 20/11/2013 4:00 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1339 D41/31/SEB/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Right. So when you say steer the debate, did you feel that your role was to step in and say something about the merits or otherwise of the two opposing views?---No. No. Did you ever speak up in favour of a recommendation that looked like it might be rejected?---If - if there was - and I can’t actually as I sit here thinking, I can’t think of an example, but if it looked like a resolution was going to go away of actually compromising - you know, of having a knock-on effect, then I would have considered it appropriate to intervene in that, but you know, that there was very little that took place at the Council table that had anything of any sort of strategic significance, at least in the first period. Well, I’ll use an example that’s come up in this Inquiry. The Willetton Child Care matter. Did you ever speak up at a Council meeting and express your views in relation to that, and I’m talking about a Council meeting?---No. Never?---No, I did not - I did not express a view, a personal view as part of the debate, no. You see at the - the Payton Inquiry, an observation had been made by a senior manager at the City that you very rarely defended at Council meetings, reports that had been written by administration staff. So I gather from what you’re saying - and my previous questions - you would agree with that?---Sorry, I’m just contemplating the question, because again, the - the language is - if the - if the - if the Council got to the point of a - a member putting up an alternate - or recommendation to - to reject the officer’s recommendation and to move something else, I would not generally enter the debate, no. If that’s what you mean by “defend”. That would be one way of looking at it, yes. Or for example, advising Council of what you regarded as the merits to the recommendation - of the recommendation. You wouldn’t do that as a matter of course?---No, I would not do that unless invited. You see, the senior manager making that observation at the Payton Inquiry was Mr Paul Merlo - just for the record sir, that’s at page - well, it’s document 3215 at page 14, Mr Merlo’s transcript. And he also suggested a rather simple solution to - and the impasse that would happen when Council didn’t accept an officer’s recommendation, and I will take you to this. It’s at page 24 of his evidence. Again, that’s document 3215. And yeah, we’ve got most of that passage there that I wanted to speak to you about with 20/11/2013 4:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1340 D41/31/SEB/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 the question did it - did it happen in Dr Lekias’s time? And particularly the sixth line down starting off with: - seemed to be a reluctance to just simply go along with what was being recommended. And that’s a rather longwinded answer. And what he is essentially saying, is that - rather than read it all through already and out aloud - is that - and it’s - it’s really encapsulated in the last few lines there, that he was talking about the relationship breaking down between Council and the administration staff with recommendations. And he’s saying that when that happened you don’t just put up reports cold, as he says, without any discussion. Perhaps you know, speaking to Council in some way or another, whether it was a form or a memorandum or whatever, there’s a greater risk that it won’t go through. So what he’s saying is that instead of just putting up a report up cold, that there be some discussions beforehand?---But it would depend - - You see some merit in that?---It would - that would depend on the issue and that - in terms of for example, in terms of anything that we put under the umbrella of Refocus, that’s what the project advisory groups were set up to do as was the Refocus Forum. Pretty well anything else that didn’t come under that heading was of a - was of a relatively low level matter. Quite often, recommendations that - well, those recommendations that were overturned would be around issues of discretion related to buildings and patios and garages and all of that sort of stuff. But there were some other major matters as well. I mean and these are the ones that we’ve looked at in this Inquiry?---I think that - that - - Yeah, - - -?--- - - - you - you - - - - - that’s right there, isn’t it? aren’t - - -?---Sorry? I’m right there, - - - I? That there were some projects that did reach an impasse and the - the Nicholson/Bannister Roads project for example?---And there was a lot of discussion on that. Yes? And you see - I just want to take you to an answer that you gave regarding the Nicholson/Bannister Road project and that’s at page 63 of your transcript. I think you were taken to this page earlier today in your evidence. And at the top of the page there you were asked a question by counsel assisting: 20/11/2013 4:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1341 D41/31/SEB/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 So there could be situations where significant work had been done and requests were (indistinct) and applications made for funding, and indeed the approval of funding before Council even knows what’s going on. ?---Yes. Yes? You remember that?---Yep. And then you - the answer that you gave to that question I’m concentrating on the last sentence there, which is four lines from the bottom: That - that was one - that was one that certainly got my attention, because, you know, my experience would be that you report that sort of thing to the Council before you actually make the submission. And then you were asked: Otherwise you run the risk of it being an utter waste of time and resources to go and do all that work, only for Council to say ‘Well, it’s not a priority for us right now.’ Do you see that?---Yes. The - and so you actually said there, in your experience, you would report that sort of thing to Council before you actually make the submission?---Absolutely. So you’re talking about your experience working in other Councils?---Yes. See - so did you apply your experience then to any of the situations that this Inquiry’s looking at?---What I’ve explained to you, is how I was comprehensively the experience by - by reviewing and developing the systems in the organisation, including the budgeting system. But did I pick out this one particular one and deal with it on its own, no. Well, had you picked out any of these ones that the Inquiry is looking at and apply that process?---In terms of funding? No, just in terms of before putting up a submission or a recommendation, actually taking Council through the process? I know you mentioned that this was something that Refocus was looking at?---Well, I think there were some 20/11/2013 4:05 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1342 D41/32/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 good examples of how we did that, and one good example was the - in fact I’ll give you two examples. One was the Canning - whatever they’ve called it - the - the $37m aquatic system - - The - the leisure centre?---Leisure centre. Yes?---And there was a - a lengthy and involved process that Councillors were involved, and that as you’ve heard me refer to earlier today, was the model of the project advisory groups. So that was one of them. Yes?---The other one that I would refer to was the Canning - Cannington City Centre. Yes?---A huge planning exercise. Again, that was the approach that was - that was taken. It was set up - you’re shaking your head. No - no - no - no, I’m - I’m not arguing with you there, but - - -?---Mm. - - - I’m asking you about whether with respect to any of the matters that this Inquiry is investigating, whether that process was done?---The - - And I’m suggesting the answer is - the short answer is, no?---Well, I don’t think that’s entirely correct, because the - the Willetton Child Care Centre, there was considerable face to face contact between staff and Councillors working through that issue; that’s one example. No - no, Mr Dacombe that’s not a very good example I suggest to you, because it only came before Council three years after the lease expired. That example would have to be, in this context - the facts of that example would if Council was alerted to the fact that the lease was going to expire and therefore the process would be put in place to arrange how a new lease (indistinct)?---So related to that and possibly as a result of that, the - well, not as a result of that, but the work that was done on pulling together all of that information and detail for the Council as part of the Refocus process was - was well underway. Now, through - through no fault of your own that was three or four years too late, wasn’t it?---For the - for the the child-care centre? Yes?---Yes. 20/11/2013 4:15 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1343 D41/32/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Okay?---The - - Well, did you - did you want to refer to any of the specific issues this Inquiry’s addressing where that process was applied?---Well, I think the - I think the other example I was thinking of just as you started to speak then was the one on the border of Gosnells. That had been going on for - for quite a while. And - and that was probably a factor. And that was - was probably the length of time that had taken, the people that had been involved in it, et cetera. But again once that became an issue what - what I did was put the staff alongside the elected members, the Mayor in particular, to try and work that one through. See, just harping back to what Mr Merlo said, it seemed to be supported by Councillor Elliott’s evidence which Mr McGowan referred to you yesterday, about you tending to acquiesce to Council’s views on recommendations. Do you remember Mr McGowan taking you to that passage of Councillor Elliott’s evidence?---I remember that. Now, it - it’s not necessarily a criticism at all, Mr Dacombe, but do you agree that there is some evidence before this Inquiry to suggest that you preferred to avoid disagreeing with the Council?---No, the evidence that’s before the Inquiry is that I prefer to work with the elected members to come up with a result that they - they can all accept and support. Yes. Isn’t that an accurate way of describing it? You prefer to avoid disagreeing with them?---I - I actually prefer to avoid disagreeing with them in public. But again as the information before the Inquiry will show, I’m - I am quite capable of arguing my corner and what I consider to be the appropriate place. But disagreeing with the Mayor in public, for example, is just simply not an option unless it comes down to a, you know, a matter of life and death. What about disagreeing with a Councillor?---Well, I think I would - no, I’d - I’d make a clear distinction about that. I - I would - I would not argue with a Councillor over a Councillor’s legitimate political position. Well, I’m not so much talking about political position, I’m talking about matters they might raise in debate over an officer’s recommendation or giving you notice of a notice of motion they intend to raise at a Council meeting?---There are several examples I think in the record of the Inquiry where I have actually challenged a notice of motion. 20/11/2013 4:15 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1344 D41/32/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Is that (indistinct) - - -?---And I wouldn’t wait for that to end up on an agenda. No. And are those examples that you spoke about, is where you actually had the support of the Mayor in regard to those?---Well, look, I would always go to the Mayor in the first instance on an issue like that. And I’d suggest to you there were far more occasions than not when he would agree with you?---(No audible answer) Yes?---Well, yes. Yes. And he’d have the notice of motions withdrawn?---Yes. Now, something else that Mr McGowan asked you about was the number of staff leaving the Council. He gave you a figure?---Yeah. 260 from memory. three years. I could be wrong there?---Yeah, over Yes. Did you notice, though - and you - you also said that you would have been getting updates from human resources regarding - - -?---Yeah. - - - staff resignations?---Yeah. Did you notice an increase in resignations after you appointed the new executives in late 2010?---No, not that would - not that - no. No?---Not that would concern me. And - - - None that would concern you?---Yeah. Well, wouldn’t it concern you if there was such an increase in resignations?---Well, not necessarily so. You might think that would be a - a good thing because staff were leaving because might not have necessarily agreed with the new regime you had in place?---Well, I think that in any organisation a process of renewal is good. And that it’s also good for the organisation of those who check out the new regime if you like and decide that they don’t like the direction. It’s perfectly legitimate and appropriate for them to move on. So you think in that circumstances that’s a good thing for the City?---It would depend on - on the level of that 20/11/2013 4:20 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1345 D41/32/PW/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 happening. And the numbers that were talked about the other day were not extreme in that sense at all. Mr Dacombe, wasn’t it the case that the City was losing people with considerable years of experience at the Council - or at the City, rather?---There were people that left that - yeah, certainly, there were people that left that had considerable - - So it might not necessarily all be good news for the City to (indistinct)?---Well, you know, obviously with someone who has given good service to an organisation and they move on, they have been a valuable employer then - employee then you’re sorry that they’ve gone. But - but if they’ve decided and it’s clear to you that they’re not going to be a fit in the organisation then overall it’s better for all party. So it’s not a simple yes/no. Sir, I should say I’m not going to finish - - KENDALL, DR: URQUHART, MR: area if I can. That’s fine. KENDALL, DR: - - - today so I’ll just go to one more Yes, please do. Thanks. URQUHART, MR: I just want to refer to some transcript of your evidence last month, Mr Dacombe. And one - the first passage is - it’s document 33 - 3,335 at page 92. This was questions that you gave in answer to - sorry, answers you gave to questions from Mr Renton. That’s the page I think. Just go a bit further down. Question 1: Well, I’ve indicated, though, some of. That’s what I want to concentrate on. there. You’ve said there: And your answer But can I also say I didn’t have, you know, technical knowledge in the engineering area or technical knowledge in the town planning area either so, you know, do you? In the case of leading an organisation like this you put the right people in the right place - that’s a phrase you’ve used today as well: - you ensure that they appropriately trained and developed and, you know, the odd one gets through for sure. But for the most - most part the executive 20/11/2013 4:20 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1346 D41/33/JD/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 team of that Council that I put in place in early 2011 were top performers. Now, you referred there to the “odd one gets through”. Was that from the executive team you’d put in place or was that somebody else?---Just let me absorb that paragraph just for a minute. Certainly?---Um. Like me to repeat the question?---No, no, I - I understand the question. Yes?---Um. Was the odd one from the executive team or from somewhere else?---The odd one - well, basically I was talking more generally I think. But obviously if - if an issue gets through ultimately we’ve all missed it depending on, you know, where - where it gets to. Maybe that wasn’t a very clear. So you're not - you're referring to an issue rather than - - -?---I'm - I'm referring to your - a mistake that we might make from time to time. Well, perhaps the only way of reading that is that you're referring to people: In the case of leading an organisation like this, you put the right people in the right place. You ensure that they are appropriately trained and developed, and the odd one gets through for sure, but for the most part the executive team of that Council that I've put in place in early 2011 were top performers. ?---No, I mean the odd issue, the odd mistake is made. I'm not referring - it might not be well phrased, but I'm not referring to people. But that whole answer that you've given is only a reference to people. You can go above the answer that you start to give there. It's - you're only talking about people. You look up the - the answer that you started to give?---Look, I - - I had a - I had a clear working knowledge of the Local Government Act. You know, I didn't profess to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of - and certainly there were issues raised that could have been 20/11/2013 4:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1347 D41/33/JD/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 answered immediately and if couldn't be answered immediately, they were checked. And then you go on to say: But can I also say - and then you start talking about people, rather than issues?---When I'm talking about the odd one gets through, I'm talking about issues. All right?---That's a reference to you put the best people that you possibly can in place. Right?---You can't have a cast-iron guarantee that mistakes aren't going to be made. Well, do you agree that when you read that it's difficult to elicit?---Well, I'm - - That explanation of your - - -?---Thank you for the opportunity to clarify it, because that's exactly what I meant. I'm glad I could help out there. So the - we do know from the - your answers you've already given that top performers from the executive team - that's Mike - Dr Mouritz?---Yes. Fiona Armstrong?---Yes. Andrew Sharpe?---Yes. Kevin Jefferies?---That's right. What about those that was a very management Charles Sullivan, would you regard him as one of - who were top performers?---Charles I believe competent engineer. Charles caused me some issues with his interpersonal skills. So he's not one of those top performers?---Well, I couldn't - - And I know you need to be careful that this is a public record?---Yes. But then again, Mr Dacombe, you are under oath?---Yes. Well - - - 20/11/2013 4:25 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1348 D41/33/JD/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And that takes precedence over offending anybody?---Okay. Well, Charles Sullivan actually gave us all the issues related around - I mean, basically he had a head-on clash with the Deputy Mayor and that made life quite difficult for him and for me, I think. I can go on and elaborate on that a little bit more if you want me to. But the - the real answer is, and I can suggest it to you if it saves you from any embarrassment, he wasn't one of those top performers. Let me put it this way. You wouldn't put him in the same category as Dr Mouritz - - -?---No. - - - Ms Armstrong, Mr Sharpe and Mr Jefferies?---No. So you mentioned there about the interpersonal factors in your assessment of Mr Sullivan. Were you aware if he was making payments in advance to make it look like the Engineering Department was achieving greater productivity?---No, I certainly wouldn't - I'm certainly not aware of that - - You're certainly not aware of that?---No. That allegation has never been made to me, I don't believe. Have you subsequently become aware of that?---That's never been put to me. All right?---In my recollection I've not heard that. Would you be surprised if that was true?---I would be surprised. It's hardly appropriate conduct, is it?---No. You have no idea who might have instructed him to do that?---Well, no one could have instructed him to do that. Because?---Well, I didn't. You didn't. And why wouldn't have anyone?---Well, he didn't report to anyone else. And sir, just to ensure that's not a groundless question I asked, it's actually the evidence of Mr Merlo and his interview at the Peyton Inquiry. For the record it's page 21, sir, of document 3215. You engaged Mr Sullivan, didn't you?---Did I what, sorry? 20/11/2013 4:30 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1349 D41/33/JD/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 You employed him, didn't you?---Yes, I did. Did you believe Kevin Jefferies was suitably qualified to be the executive of Property Assets and Economic Development?---Yes. You do?---Yeah. So he was the head - to - to use a more simple explanation for it, he was the head of the Planning Department?---That's right. Town Planning?---Yes, which he had done successfully previously. Where?---In the Kapiti Coast District Council in New Zealand. Is that when you were - - -?---That's right. - - - Chief Executive Officer?---That's right. But he had no town planning qualifications, did he?---No. He had no technical knowledge in town planning?---No. No?---That's not the role of the executive, of course. Well, I don't know what existed in New Zealand. But you were aware, were you not, that the executive of - and I'll just call it the Planning Department - would ordinarily appear on behalf of the City at any matters before the State Administrative Tribunal?---The previous - the previous individual did that. Yes. And you're aware, aren't you, that Mr Jefferies wasn't able to appear on behalf of the City in those matters because he didn't have the necessary qualifications?---No, but he had technical staff that were able to undertake that function under his direction. Well, you don't see that as somewhat of a problem?---No. You see, there were three direct reports to Mr Jefferies. One - I think three - actually, there's another question that was asked earlier. It's coming back to me, actually. There was Town Planning, Health and Building and there was a compliance area reporting to him. His role was to manage that area. 20/11/2013 4:30 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1350 D41/34/EB/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Yes?---And develop it and - and ensure that it was providing high-quality customer service and sound technical advice. The technical advisors were the manager of Town Planning, whatever the title was we gave them, those three at the next level. That's where I expected that technical level of expertise. Right. Well, he was also appointed, I'm talking about Mr Jefferies, as acting Executive of the Engineering and Executive Services?---That was - yes. The answer to that is yes. Yes. And at the same time he was head of the - I gather, just using the term Planning Department?---That's right. He didn't have an engineering degree, did he?---No. And he lacked any technical knowledge in this area?---Well, he wasn't an engineer. But he lacked any technical knowledge in this area?---Well, I think the thing is in the area of the planning - - Okay. Can you just - can you just answer that question? I'm talking - I'm moving on to engineering now. He didn't have any technical knowledge in that part of it where he was acting, did he?---Well, that's - that's - that is what I was going to answer, because leading that planning area you have to have an understanding of engineering issues, how to apply - obtain and apply the appropriate advice. So I'm qualifying my answer to you by saying he would have an understanding of how to manage all that, if not the actual technical expertise that a ticket would confer. So you - you are answering the question. He lacked any technical expertise or knowledge in that area?---I'm not saying he lacked knowledge. He did not have a technical qualification in that area. He had no - you agree with me he had no previous experience running the Council's Engineering Department?---No, I don't think so. So are you saying that he was also a suitably qualified person to be in this acting position?---In terms of what I wanted him to do, for the period that I wanted him to do it, yes. Well, how long did he end up being the acting Executive for?---Well, he ended up being there for quite a lot longer than was my intention. 20/11/2013 4:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1351 D41/34/EB/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 How long?---I don’t know. He was still there when I left. Yes. Well, Charles Sullivan left in July of 2011?---That’s right. You left in, we’re talking about April 2012 or end of January 2012?---Well, I was physically removed at the end of January. And he was still in - Acting Executive of the Engineering - - -?---That’s right. - - - Department then?---That’s right. So he’d been there for six months?---That’s right. could qualify as to why that is if you want me to. And I Well, I’m anticipating your answer will be it’s because of the difficulties that were experienced in selecting someone to take over that position on a permanent basis. Am I right there?---Um. If I’m not then we’re going to move on. move on?---Pardon? If I’m right we’ll At - at - if - am I right or am I wrong?---Yeah, I’m not going to complicate the answer. I could qualify that as well but - - Okay?--- - - - the answer is he was there a lot longer than I intended and it was beyond my control at that point. Do you agree with me that the Planning Department and the Engineering Department were the two largest departments or sections within the City?---That’s right. And the two departments which had the most problems when you took over?---That’s right. And you’ve already - recall or had a vague recollection of Charles Johnson referring to the Planning Department as a basket case - - -?---That’s right. - - - in conducting his review. So you had one being the executive of both departments for a period of seven months?---Yes. And two departments that still at that time had problems with their operations?---Through the period that Kevin Jefferies was - no, the short answer to that is, “Yes”, and I can qualify that as well. 20/11/2013 4:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1352 D41/34/EB/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Right?---He left both departments far better off than when he found them. But less than ideal?---Well - - Yes?---No, they were - well - - You knew - - -?---No, I will answer that by saying there was a - no, all right. Okay. Do you understand given those circumstances why some elected members would be concerned about that arrangement?---I can - I can understand that they raised concerns, yes. And - but you can understand why they would be raising concerns given that fact that - - -?---Well, I - I - - Is it either “Yes”, or “No”, or you need to - - -?---Okay. Well, I - I will - - If - - -?---I will say, “Yes”, but I can qualify that if you want me to. All right. I don’t really require a qualification because I’m just asking you whether you understood why it would be that some members, elected members would have concerns about that and you’ve answered yes. See, I know what you say about Mr Jefferies’ experience with engineering matters having worked in town planning before but he wouldn’t be able to answer any questions requiring technical expertise at Council meetings regarding engineering issues. Do you agree with that?---He wouldn’t be able to answer any questions requiring - - Technical expertise?--- - - - what - there’s a difference between a legal or technical understanding and a, you know, registered engineer, for example. So he could not provide that level of technical advice, no, and he would have to find a way to be able to present that. And once more, I’m not asking whether they were necessarily right in forming this view or not, I’m just asking you whether you can understand given these circumstances why the Council might want elected members observing the selection process for the executive engineering position?---I demonstrated I understood that by my actions. So the answer to that is, “Yes”?---Yeah. 20/11/2013 4:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1353 D41/34/EB/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 And when - I’ll just finish off with this; when Charles Sullivan suddenly left, it - it caused a major headache for you to find someone who could fill in?---Yeah. It did. That - and I’m just filling in that role of Acting Executive?---Yes. And I’m only saying you didn’t believe anyone was appropriate to fill that position within the Engineering Department?---That’s right. Right, yes. And did it get to a point where you actually considered - - -?---Sorry, can I just say there was no one - there was no one appropriate or able to be released from other duties. I understand. And did it get to a point where you actually considered appointing a manager in Community Services to be the Acting Executive?---I did consider that. And that was Tania Trengove?---I did consider that. So a lady who’d had all her experience, as far as you understood, in Community Services?---That’s right. To then - - -?---Who was looking for a management challenge and I did contemplate a short-term acting role. But do you agree with me that unlike what you’ve said about the Planning Department and the Engineering Department there really is no overlap between Community Services and Engineering?---And that would be one of the factors I took into account in finally not going down that path. Well, isn’t the factor of not going down that path was because she said, “No.” It was actually offered to her, wasn’t it?---I can’t recall. I don’t think it was offered to her. I think - I think I stopped short of - she was it was certainly discussed with her whether she was interested in it. Yes?---I don’t believe I got to offer it. Is it all right with you, Mr Dacombe, if I can just complete this area, and whether with you, sir? KENDALL, DR: Yes, that’s fine. URQUHART, MR: Is that all right with you? I know it’s been a long day. On the subject matter of executives the 20/11/2013 4:35 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1354 D41/35/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 person that - the executive responsible for preparing the City’s budget would be Andrew Sharpe?---Yes. Is that right?---Yes. Anyone else?---In - - Either executive or - - -?---The - for preparing it? of the executives were involved. All Okay. Did Fiona Armstrong have any involvement therefore in preparing the budget?---She was involved as an executive. Yes. You said yesterday she had no accountancy qualifications?---No, that’s right. Yes. Now, I know you disagreed with Mr McGowan’s proposition yesterday that Ms Armstrong presented the 2011/12 budget to Council, yes, and you maintain that, don’t you?---I do. Yes. But do you know whether she gave the presentation for that draft budget for 2011/12 at a budget workshop?---I can describe her involvement if - - So the answer to that is you - do you know that she - - -?---I did - - You do know she had - - -?---I did - no. You asked me sorry, just - it is - it is late so - - Yes?--- - - - and I’m not trying to be difficult. You asked me whether I knew whether she gave the opening presentation. Now, I - I would say I don’t believe she did give the opening presentation but the budget process had a front end to it which was a process through the month of June 2011, I think, where we worked with elected members on their strategic goals. Okay?---And so she - she definitely was involved in facilitating that. Let’s go back a step?---And I can describe that further if you want me to. There were budget workshops?---Yes. You agree with that? finalised?---Yeah. And this is prior to the budget being 20/11/2013 4:45 DACOMBE, M. O. XXN Merrill Corporation Australia 1355 D41/35/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Okay. And so these budget workshops involved Councillors?---And executive. And - yes, yes. You see, you said you don’t know if Ms Armstrong gave a presentation of the draft budget at such a workshop?---She didn’t give the presentation of the draft budget. Were you present?---I believe I was. Yes. Well - well - - -?---I believe - - - - - - I’m - I’m saying to you that she actually gave a presentation of the draft budget instead of the executive officer that you would expect to be doing that who was also there, and that is Mr Sharpe. Now, can you recall a workshop that took place in that situation? She gave the presentation. Mr Sharpe said nothing?---So she presented numbers. Is that what you’re saying? She presented the draft 2011/’12 budget?---No. She got up in front of them, the Councillors, and gave the presentation, and Mr Sharpe did nothing?---That - I don’t recall that at all. Don’t recall that?---But - but having - I mean, I can - I can - I can describe - - Now - - -?---- - - more fully what her role was through that process if you wanted, but I am saying - - I’m just talking about - - -?---- - - no, I don’t recall her presenting the budget. That would be unusual, wouldn’t it?---Yes. And it would be cause of some concern to Councillors if they - if that happened. You understand why there might be some - - -?---Well - - - - - (indistinct) concerned about that?---- - - well, I would expect if they - if that happened and if they had a concern they would have come straight to me. I under - no. Asking can you understand why they would have a concern. The answer to that is yes?---If she presented the budget, yes. 20/11/2013 4:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1356 D41/35/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 A criticism, or an observation at least, that Councillor Barry had of how the City operated in 2011 was that it was often difficult to work out who amongst the executives was doing what, okay? I’m just putting that proposition to you. You may have read that in his evidence that he’s given at this Inquiry?---Yes, I’ve heard evidence of that. You see, Dr Mouritz, for example, he was the executive city futures?---Yeah. But wasn’t he also involved in the Brownlie Towers Project?---Absolutely. And wasn’t that part of the planning department’s responsibilities?---Not after I changed it, no. No. But it was initially the planning department’s responsibility?---The - the previous planning - the whatever it was called, strategic and regulatory services, had that under its wing, yes. And did he not also assist Mr Jefferies when Mr Jefferies was the acting executive of the engineering department?---I’m - in what - I don’t - - Well, you see, you don’t - you don’t - you weren’t aware of that?---No, I think - I - I’ll let you answer - ask the question. I’m not aware of Dr Mouritz getting involved in the engineering department. Were you aware of any executives assisting Mr Jefferies? Because - bearing in mind he’s doing two jobs at once?---Dr Mouritz and Kevin Jefferies worked closely together on at least two key projects, and they were the Cannington City Centre and the Brownlie - the Brownlie Precinct, and - and possibly they were collaborating over waste issues as well. I was going to ask you about that, yes?---Yeah. Can you recall whether this overlapping was ever brought to the attention of the elected members?---Yeah, it was. Sure?---Well, it was - it was certainly discussed with them when I was setting up the structure. Certainly written into - it’s written into the document. The green document that has been raised during the day I believe talks about the way - the way of operating. 20/11/2013 4:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1357 D41/35/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 Yes, but not precisely. Like, for example, to use the waste management service as - example, that’s the province of the engineering department?---Operationally it is. Yes. So suggesting to you Council weren’t advised specifically that Dr Mouritz - there’d be occasions when Dr Mouritz will be, for example, answering any questions they might have regarding waste management services?---Well, I - I would say they were through the process of setting up the organisation. From reading the material they would have worked that - - -?---No, no, they were - there were regular sessions that I had with Council through that Refocus program. And finally, because I know we’ve hashed this over a lot, this is document 1,947, which was the - the advice from McLeods that was given to Mr Gomes in January of 2011, but we saw that it was CCed to Mr Kevin Jefferies - - -?---Yeah. - - - but then we also saw in some - an email trail that was shown just after lunch today that he was contacting you regarding that matter just the day after the date of that letter. Do - do you recall that email? I don’t know whether - be necessary - - -?---Yeah, I recall the email - - Yes?---- - - that was shown to me earlier. But Mr Jefferies at that point in time’s got nothing to do with engineering, has he? The engineering department?---No, I don’t think so. I mean, he - he was there and took the call in the absence of Charles Sullivan and myself, I believe. And that’s how he became involved?---I think so, yes. But I would suggest to you, looking at - on the face of it of that letter, that he had been involved prior to that, because he was actually CCed in on the email - - -?---I think - - - - - sent to Mr Gomes?---- - - actually think if you go back to the documents I think you’ll find that - that - I think you will find that his involvement in that letter was to do with taking the call from Jeff Owen. 20/11/2013 4:45 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1358 D41/35/ACJ/WADC/CIV/IND/CAN/2013 All right. Well, the dates will speak for themselves, and I won’t bother doing that now at 10 to 5, sir, and that should complete my examination for today. KENDALL, DR: All right. Thank you, Mr Urquhart. Mr Renton, I’m just looking at the schedule and the witnesses that still are to come. I wonder in the circumstances if it might be appropriate to start tomorrow morning at 9.30? RENTON, MR: Thank you, sir. Can I just note as well that we’ll identify those emails that were put up during the course of Ms Saraceni’s examination and have them identified with Inquiry numbers so they can be accessed by other counsel, should there be a need. KENDALL, DR: All right. And I just note as well, Mr McGowan, thank you for bringing that error to our attention this morning. The transcript has now been fixed and it now says, “Rogue”, not, “Rouge”. Appreciate that, thank you. All right. Thank you. We’ll adjourn until 9.30 tomorrow morning. McGOWAN, MR: Thank you, sir. (THE WITNESS WITHDREW) AT 4.53 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2013 20/11/2013 4:53 Merrill Corporation Australia DACOMBE, M. O. XXN 1359