What to do with Clarence Care and Support (CC&S) has been on Clarence Valley Council’s (CVC) agenda since the April 2018 council meeting; two years later at the April 2020 meeting, councillors resolved to accept a tender from Wesley Community Services Limited (trading as Wesley Mission).
Meanwhile, in the background, a motion put by Cr Andrew Baker, which was unanimously supported, has saved CVC and ratepayers $1.9million.
Most of what has been discussed has taken place in confidential sessions, in accordance with the Local Government Act, because the “report/s contain/s information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business”.
However, following the August 2019 CVC meeting, the councillors’ resolution was made public 14 days after the meeting.
Cr Baker’s unanimously-supported, 10-point, 500-word motion led with: “That Council, having completed a thorough investigation and consultation period of some 12 months:
“1. Decline to transfer all of Clarence Care + Support (CC&S) from Council to a non-Council, not-for-profit entity as proposed at a cost to Council in excess of $1.9 million.”
Cr Baker’s words infer that staff had recommended the transferring of funds; the mayor, Jim Simmons, confirmed this.
“Yes that is true,” he said.
“But it also true that councillors would not have adopted it [the transfer of $1.9million to a not-for-profit entity] … because there were serious concerns.
“[However], Cr Baker should be given credit in that he led the way with the motion.”
Point 5 of Cr Baker’s motion called for the tabling of the “proposed constitution and a report on any other transitional and loan funding requirements required to enable an orderly transfer of CC&S” at the November 2019 CVC meeting.
At the November meeting, councillors amended Cr Baker’s original motion (retaining the $1.9m point) and unanimously decided to “reject all the tenders received at the 22 March 2019 meeting … and in accordance with clause 178.3(e) of the Local Government Act, enter negotiations with the 3 [three] organisations identified as 2, 3 and 4 in ‘Key Issues’” which were: the entity must be separate from Council legally, financially and managerially; the impact on Council from a financial perspective must be duly considered: is Council currently viable? and; what is the impact of the proposal on existing Council staff?”
However, come the December meeting, staff tabled a report stating that November’s eight-point decision was “sufficiently flawed that it is ‘unlawful’ and does not constitute a decision of Council”.
Councillors reaffirmed their decision to decline the $1.9m transfer and also proceeded to call for an “open tender, to ensure transparency in its [CVC’s] actions”.
Councillors also endorsed “inclusion of a budget variation of $20,000 … for preparation of tender documentation that supports the continuation or expansion and improvement of services currently provided by Clarence Care and Support in the local community”.
The result of this process was tabled in a confidential session at the April 2020 meeting.
It was decided that no details would released publically (under the Local Government Act 1993 Section 10A) “until the matters are resolved”.
At the May 26 CVC meeting, councillors received and noted a report (without debate) that provided “an update of the transition of Clarence Care and Support services to the tenderer accepted in the Confidential session of the Ordinary Meeting, held 28 April 2020”.
In the interim period, CVC put out a joint media release announcing that Wesley Mission was the successful tenderer and that it would take over the service as of July 1, 2020.
At the time of writing, CVC was not prepared to release details of the successful tender or how much the transition is costing, however, acting general manager, Des Schroder, said that CVC would only have to meet “minimal costs”.
“The only cost to council will be the transitional cost,” he said.
For his part, Cr Baker said he “appreciated they [the other councillors] were prepared to look at this, not just at a staff recommendation”.
Cr Baker “acknowledged the astuteness of all of the other councillors in questioning the advice put too us”.
“It’s important to me that this shows, at times, we can all come together to make, if you look at it now, the absolute right decision.”
Cr Simmons said: “It’s fair to say, with the original proposal, that all of the councillors had concerns … it’s a good result for everyone.”