Gore councillors divided about releasing Stephen Parry's golden handshake details

Wednesday, 24 July 2024

Gore district councillors were divided about releasing details of former chief executive Stephen Parry’s golden handshake, with four voting against a motion to release the information.

One said “the integrity of the council was at stake’’ if the information was released.

Heavily redacted minutes of a discussion held in committee at a council meeting on June 12 have been released to Stuff under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

In September last year Stuff filed a request under the act for all correspondence relating to the resignation of or severance payment for Parry after he announced his resignation.

The council was ordered to release the details after Stuff laid a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.

The minutes showed councillors Bronwyn Reid, Glenys Dickson, Paul McPhail and Andy Fraser voted against releasing the details of the payout, which totalled more than $290,000 and a vehicle.

The minutes showed a long discussion about a legally privileged and confidential report from general manager corporate support Lornae Straith, much of which was redacted.

Unredacted minutes showed Cr Keith Hovell asked if the amounts were required to be disclosed in the council’s annual report. Straith said the person that payments were made to was not named but it would be obvious, and a grey area was the inducement to leave and whether it was the monetary payment made.

Dickson asked if there had been other similar cases in the past and what had been the outcome. The council could be setting a precedent, she said.

Cr Stewart MacDonell said with an organisation like the council, payments to a chief executive were expected to be disclosed, and he thought the council needed to disclose the payments.

Dickson noted that the income of any person working in a public area was able to be published. She asked whether this was along the same lines. Mayor Ben Bell said only the salary package of the chief executive was published.

Cr Richard McPhail expressed “great concern’’, but it was not clear what is concern was about, because the details were also redacted.

Hovell said the determining factor was that the information would be released as part of the annual report. He was in favour of releasing the information.

Reid asked how often had Stuff taken anyone to court. Bell said he imagined “quite a few times”. Cr Gardyne said the council had to pay either way, and he concurred with Hovell.

McPhail said if the council voted in favour of releasing, it should be looking at contacting the ex-employee (Parry) to advise it was going to happen. It should not be “left up to a legal landslide’’. The council needed a plan to tell Parry before it was released and adhere to some support or welfare for an ex-employee, he told the meeting.

Hovell moved that the report be received and that the council release the information in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendation on or before June 20, and that the actions of the council be communicated to Parry.

The motion was seconded by Cr Robert McKenzie.

Bell asked how the information was planned to be released, and the general manager of communications, Sonia Gerken, suggested the council stick only to the facts.

When the details were released to Stuff, the response said there was an agreed settlement between Parry and the council. Both parties received separate legal advice. It said the payment and vehicle were provided to Parry to resolve employment matters.

MacDonell said at the meeting the council was being forced into releasing the information and had “no choice basically’’.

The general manager – it was unclear from the minutes whether this was Straith or Gerken – said the release would be narrated that it was being released on recommendation of the Ombudsman.

Reid accepted the council was being pushed into it but said it set a very bad precedent. She said she was not happy with it. Dickson agreed and said the ‘’integrity of the council was at stake’’, the minutes said.

Cr Paul McPhail agreed with Dickson and Reid. Respecting confidentiality had not been good in the council in the past. The motion did not go down well with him and he did not like it.

The motion was put and it was carried, with Reid, Dickson, Paul McPhail and Fraser voting against it and asking for their votes to be recorded.