AFTER a marathon closed meeting in the New Norfolk Courthouse tonight, it has been decided that the Derwent Valley Council and its general manager of three years are to part ways. Addressing the public after re-opening the meeting at 11pm, mayor Michelle Dracoulis said general manager Dean Griggs would not be returning to work.
All councillors were present for the meeting, which included a lengthy session with a legal adviser. “We resolved to part ways with general manager Dean Griggs and will commence the recruitment process for a new general manager,” Cr Dracoulis said. “Council wishes to thank Dean for his contribution and wishes him the very best for his future.”
Speaking after the meeting, Cr Dracoulis said negotiations would now be conducted between the council’s lawyer and Mr Griggs’ legal counsel to formalise and finalise the separation. She would not be drawn on the nature of the separation other than to say it was in accordance with Mr Griggs’ contract.
Cr Dracoulis said the council’s executive manager for infrastructure, Ron Sanderson, would serve as acting general manager while the recruitment process was carried out. Mr Sanderson, a former 15-year chief executive of neighbouring Brighton Council, said he did not intend to apply for the top job himself. Mr Sanderson has been with the council since July last year and said he was looking forward to returning to his role at the council works depot once a new general manager had arrived.
Pictured: Acting general manager Ron Sanderson, left, and mayor Michelle Dracoulis, after tonight’s council meeting reopened to the public.
3 Comments
Another one. Perhaps if Mr Griggs felt he was constrained by council from meeting his obligations under the LGA or any other Act, he could express his concerns in this fine publication.
More interestingly, how did another publication get the information before it was legally announced?
I’d like to know the motivation of the person who leaked this information. If leaked to another publication who has an open comments page there is the potential for defamation, smear, inuendo and humiliation. Is this what the leakee intended? It has to come from a privileged few doesn’t it? We the ratepayers have to wait for legal reasons for information. Council seem to hide behind confidentiality when it benefits them but if there is an agenda to disrupt information leaks like a sieve.
It’s ambition is not community cohesion. Perhaps the privileged person who leaked this information could now stand up and tell the general public and ratepayers how disclosing this information before legally permissible was in the best interests of the community.