There has been considerable discussion in the paper and on the street about the perceived conflict of interest of Council appointing a prominent member of the mayors campaign team to a paid position in the town without any opportunity for a member of the public to apply for the job.
While that is certainly a concern — the perception of patronage — it is not by definition a clear conflict of interest.
The clear conflict of interest is a member of a committee proposing a position that they were subsequently hired to fill — as Mr Whitehurst did. Mr Whitehurst was and is a sitting member of the committee that created the job he has now been appointed too. Resigning does not change the fact that he was involved in making the decision.
The definition of a conflict on interest is when you may benefit financially from a decision.
That is exactly why members of council declare a conflict when a topic is being discussed that may have, or be seen to have, a positive or negative financial impact on them. By declaring a conflict they remove themselves from the accusation of the financial impact influencing their decision.
There is no doubt that Mr Whitehurst is in a conflict of interest. If he wasn’t aware of this, then the mayor and Council certainly is and should have avoided the appointment.
For the Council to try and shift the blame to staff for this inappropriate decision is nothing less than a complete abdication of their responsibilities. Council knows they direct staff, not the other way around.
It’s time for this Council to step up and show some leadership — and stop looking for ways to avoid making hard decisions and shift responsibility to others for their poor performance.
Use the links immediately below to comment or forward this post to friends.
Aurora Citizen 