A councillor is attempting to stop the naming of Pakenham East, alleging top council executives displayed ’inappropriate’ and ’unaccountable’ conduct in the decision to choose ’Honora Fields’.
Announcing on her Facebook page, Cr Stephanie Davies will move a motion in the next council meeting to halt the naming of Pakenham East to ‘Honora Fields’ after she felt something was ‘off’ in the council’s process to finalise the naming.
Cr Davies is alleging an undeclared conflict of interest, ‘inappropriate’ changes during public consultation and acts to hold the CEO to account ‘failing’ – all of which the council leadership denies.
In the July council meeting, it was resolved to name Pakenham East ‘Honora Fields’ in honour of the historic matriarch of the Carney family.
This was a late addition to what was originally five names proposed for public consultation in the April council meeting, moved by Cr Moore after the Carneys contacted the council.
A seventh name was added to the list in the May council meeting by Cr Davies, ‘Hannah’ which was submitted by the local farming family the Duffs.
Cr Davies says she experienced ‘strong pushback’ from council officers on this motion and claims she confirmed the Duffs contacted the council before the April meeting, but were allegedly told by officers that their name ‘wasn’t possible to include’.
Cr Davies also details two confidential briefing meetings in June and July during the consultation process, where she alleges ‘inappropriate’ changes to the rating matrix of public consultation were made behind closed doors.
She says the votes were graded on six criteria, after ‘questioning’ of Cr Moore and Springfield in the June briefing, she alleges it resulted in the criteria being reduced to three.
Furthermore, she also claims the June briefing saw the officers recommending a different name to ’Honora’, but the July briefing saw consultation returning the Carney as the favourite, which was then taken and accepted in the subsequent council meeting.
“I felt at the time that something might be off – but didn’t make the connection, until now – that it was completely inappropriate for the changes on the ranking matrix on the consultation data to be done with full view of the raw data,” she said.
After the name was finalised, Cr Davies said she discovered that a member of the Carney family was an employee of the council.
She said she is not suggesting the Carneys are ‘at fault’ in the matter as it is ‘not about them’, but rather ‘failings in local government process’.
“Is there a conflict of interest? I’m not 100 per cent sure. It is crystal clear in all training, when you work in government, no matter what role or level, that you always should declare potential or perceived conflicts of interest,” Cr Davies said.
Alongside, Mayor Kowarzik, Cr Moore and Cr Radford, Cr Davies is a member of the CEO Employment Matters Committee where she has attempted to follow up on these questions directly to the CEO.
However, with a new independent chair leading the committee she says her questions are being dismissed and that the CEO is being left ‘unaccountable’ by the rest of the councillors who ‘refuse’ to ask questions.
She does not assert opposition towards the name ‘Honora’, but says the families in this case have been used as ‘pawns’.
“What I do know, it is clear that personal preferences for ‘Honora’ over other names have infiltrated the Cardinia Shire Council – organisation and Council,” she said.
“What I believe is that certain councillors and/or staff sought a quick win, an opportunity to gain this powerful local family’s favour, and have deliberately not followed due process, to ensure they got their win.“
Mayor Kowarzik responded saying the council has reviewed the allegations and rejected the claim of a conflict of interest and said the renaming process is continuing.
“It’s disappointing Cr Davies has chosen to not follow legislated processes by posting her allegations on Facebook and distributing them to the local media before they’ve been responded to by independent agencies. The good governance of the council relies on these rules and protocols being followed,“ Mayor Kowarzik said.
“Council would like to reassure the community that there has been no conflict of interest in this matter and that council at all times has followed the correct process for community consultation and naming of the suburb, in line with Geographic Names Victoria naming rules.“
Mayor Kowarzik claimed the ’facts are’, Honora was put forward because it got the most ’public votes from the engagement campaign’. There was ’no issue’ with the name ’Hannah’, but it was ’not considered’ due it being posted ’after the agenda was published’ which would mean the process ’having to start again’. ’Hannah’ will be considered in the naming of ’other features and landmarks’. Lastly, the employee mentioned by Cr Davies was in ’no way involved’ in ’preparing advice or information’ for this matter.
“I can also confirm that, under the guidance of an independent chair, the CEO Employment Matters Committee has considered all matters put to it and the committee has responded appropriately to the council. Council considered the recommendation of the committee at the August 2024 Council meeting in confidential items,“ he said.
“Council continues to liaise with Geographic Names Victoria through each step of the process for the naming of the new suburb.’’
Both Mayor Kowarzik and CEO Carol Jeffs asserted that good governance is ’embedded’ and ’all that we do’, Jeffs said the analysis of the engagement process was outlined by the council and that consultation given by officers is an established practice.
“In this case, all relevant information was included in the council report that was considered at the 15 July council meeting. This report was publicly available on our website six days prior, and council officers are unable to make changes to a council report once it has been published. However, if a councillor wishes to propose a different outcome, they have the opportunity to raise this at the council meeting,“ Jeffs said.
“The council report provided an outline of the process that was undertaken as part of the community engagement process, as well as a comprehensive analysis of the engagement data.
“It is the role of council officers and a normal part of the process for officers to provide advice to councillors on information contained in the report, as well as any impacts that may result from alternative motions.“
Jeffs also reasserted that the employee in question had no involvement with the matter.
The next council meeting is on Monday 16 September.
