EDITORIAL: What have they got to hide?

The management structure audit of Gosford Council is a good document.

It reflects the shared perception of the community and many council staff of the problems that exist within the council and the nature of improvements which could be made.

Consultants Richard Lumley and Suzie Ramadan from KPMG should be congratulated for a thorough and thoughtful job.

But will we see the change in "culture" that they have identified as being so necessary?

Rrtepayers have some grounds for being skeptical.

The Council is not releasing the consultants' original report but one which reportedly has replaced specifics with the general term "opportunities for improvement".

This allows an ambiguity of interpretation which could easily result in a perpetuation of the existing culture.

Certainly, no mechanism is evident for the cultural change beyond the appointment of four new staff overseen by councillors.

Ratepayers have even more reason for concern in the context of other recent issues at council.

The treatment of the Correa Bay report is one.

The unsubstantiated claims by council officers that the Correa Bay report, written by a community-based committee, contained "spurious and defamatory" material has successfully suppressed its publication.

The report's authors attempted to provide an understanding of how the Correa Bay problems came about by, among other things, chronicling memos between council officers.

While the committee's account may prove embarrassing, it is only through being specific in this fashion that mistakes can be identified and changes can be made.

The question has yet to be answered: Who has been defamed and in what respect? At this stage, it would appear to be the report's authors rather than its subjects.

With a new council policy allowing the general manager to withhold its legal advice from the public, we may never know whether the claims had any basis.

This inclination to cover-up will frustrate any attempts to change the culture of the organisation.

Councillors may protest that it is their job to supervise the process and that we should trust them to do so.

Unfortunately, their credibility has taken a big dent with the "cars for councillors" decision, first reported in this newspaper.

How much faith can ratepayers have in councillors overseeing the process, when they do not see any impropriety in voting themselves cars?

If the council is fair dinkum about its community consultation, the community needs to know what the consultants had in mind - as reflected in their original report - rather than a vague document that sounds good but could mean anything to anybody.

It is worrying that the action plan at this stage comprises the creation of four extra senior management positions, staff redeployment and a marketing strategy "to target council staff, the community and unions".

Roll out the spin doctors!

In the circumstances, ratepayers can well ask: What have they got to hide?

Mark Snell, editor