Liverpool Council general manager's resignation has left Liverpudlians questioning whether he left of his own accord or was pushed into it by a group of hounding councillors.
As usual in Liverpool, opinion is divided.
But one thing is crystal clear to everyone. This isn't good for Liverpool's image. Yet another scandal at Liverpool Council, yet another negative news story about Liverpool, yet another well regarded person giving up on the area and of course, yet more discord. It's the same old story and it's very disappointing.
I've written several blogs touching on Mr Tolhurst's role at Liverpool Council and how influential he was. I've also commented on councillor concerns that he was wielding too much power and not providing them with information that they needed. There have also been rumours that he was closer to the mayor and other Labor councillors than to the rest of the council.
There has also been speculation, especially since he resigned, that Mr Tolhurst did not adjust well to the elected council. He was so used to dealing just with the Administrator, Gabrielle Kibble, so used to fulfilling the role of mayor in many situations during the four years that the council was under administration, that he did not take the views of the elected councillors into account when things changed. I believe there is a bit of truth in all of this speculation.
But by all credible accounts and in my own personal experience, Mr Tolhurst was a very friendly, courteous, professional, helpful and knowledgeable general manager. Many have commented that he is one of the best general managers that they've come into contact with.
I can't comment on that myself because he's the only general manager I've worked with as a council reporter. But I've never had any doubt that he was a very hardworking man and very committed to his post.
So why would he leave so suddenly?
Many, including the Labor councillors, have said it is because the majority councillors, the Liberal, independent and Liverpool Community Independents Team group were hounding him with incessant questioning of his capabilities and his performance. Second guessing everything he did and demanding to see documentation and information that was either difficult to access or outside of their domain or both and being disappointed, to the point of abuse with slow responses to their queries.
Liverpool Mayor Wendy Waller told me this week that the disrespect and constant questioning served out by the non-Labor councillors is what forced the general manager to quit his job so unexpectedly. She said she is disappointed with his decision but understands that
he has done the best for his wellbeing because the stress that he was feeling due to the councillor's behaviour could not be good for anyone's mental health.
But I don't know; it seems unlikely that a grown man and a strong and professional person like Mr Tolhurst would leave because he was being asked too many questions. There must be more to the story and its pretty much one of two options: either the councillors were harassing Mr Tolhurst in a more serious way behind the scenes, or he has his own reasons for leaving so suddenly.
There has been a lot of criticism of the councillors since the general manager decided to step aside, but I genuinely believe they were not trying to intentionally push him out. The vast majority of them were completely shocked at his decision and quite upset by it as well.
They all expressed their sincerest feelings of friendship for him, when asked about him after he resigned.
So it's got me thinking that maybe Mr Tolhurst has other reasons for departing. Mr Tolhurst has chosen not to comment on his motivations. Obviously, it is his prerogative to decide whether he wants to do this or not. It's understandable that he just wants to leave quickly and without fuss. But it does leave me wondering.
It's still all very sudden, I mean he apparently only decided to resign last Friday and this Friday is now his last day? That is awfully quick for a general manager with 650-odd staff to depart. The ironic thing, of course, is that he will be taking his leave until June 2, his actual last day. It's funny to think that a lot of this has come from an extraordinary meeting about the council's long service leave liability and now the general manager is taking his long service leave and probably getting a generous payout package to leave as well.
But obviously, the meeting is not what caused all this. I was at the meeting and the councillors were questioning the general manager in great detail about what he told the staff about their resolution on long service leave and what he has been doing to reduce the liability.
They were being disrespectful and slightly aggressive, in my opinion. It was unpleasant to watch and I could tell the general manager was uncomfortable.
But as the councillors have said, they were just doing their jobs, at least as they see it, they were trying to find out how council operates and get some answers on the long service leave issue. They were concerned that the general manager had not explained their motion
over long service leave to staff affectively and accurately leading the staff to the conclusion that they must take their leave immediately.
Cr Nadia Napoletano went to pains to explain that the councillors had not asked for leave to be taken straight away but rather for the liability to be managed and most importantly for it not to increase in the coming years. The confusion seems to arise from the fact that
the motion calls for the liability to be reduced by June 2015, only five years away, so in order for that to happen staff need to start taking leave now. And councillors said at the meeting that this leave should be taken and it wasn't there to be stored up and used as a ``golden handshake'' before retirement.
So it is a bit of a confusing argument, they want the leave reduced, but they don't want to make it look as though they are forcing staff to take it themselves. Basically they want someone else to be blamed for the decision, i.e. the general manager who is the person responsible for all operational issues.
Staff are obviously very concerned about this issue because they don't want to be forced to take their leave, when they've never been before. And apparently it isn't industry practice to keep to the award in enforcing the leave. Apparently, staff could just transfer to another council and keep their leave. So its obvious that this could have some negative impacts on staff morale and staff numbers and so the councillors want to avoid any future blame.
Understandably the general manager may not have wanted to cop the blame for this either. So maybe that could have been one of his motivations.
I think that his decision was triggered by a combination of factors. As usual nothing is as simple as it seems, obviously he wasn't keen on being blamed for forcing staff to take long service leave, he was sick of his decisions being questioned by the councillors and maybe
he there was more going on behind the scenes too. We'll probably never know for sure.
And of course what matters now is the future. Farooq Portelli will be the acting general manager, for now, an interesting choice because he has never been an acting general manager before. This decision seems a bit strange to me, because I was sure that someone like
David Tuxford or Milan Marecic would be taking over the reigns temporarily.
It seems to me that this is the work of the non-Labor councillors, they're obviously looking for someone that wasn't particularly closely aligned with Mr Tolhurst. And obviously saving money has been their main preoccupation of late, so the director of financial services
seems like the perfect candidate in that case, because he would presumably be used to slashing funds or at least trying to, in that portfolio.
But the long term future is what really matters of course and I think that is where the real challenge will lie. It won't be easy to find another general manager of Mr Tolhurst's calibre and unfortunately the information about the circumstances surrounding his resignation
may well reach other people in his profession. Councillors have mentioned to me that they would prefer an outside hire for the position because they think a fresh approach and a culture change is what is required at the council.
So we're definitely in store for a change, it should be interesting to say the least.
Email a friend