Councillor Karen Renkema-Lang has lodged a rescission motion, supported by Councillors Keast and Rice, on Council’s decision last night to sell all of its Blue Haven aged care operations (Blue Haven to be sold).

Her reasons for bringing the issue back to the chamber for reconsideration are that the public were not aware of the nature of the deliberations as the agenda item was entitled forensic accounting assessment. She wants to bring the matter for debate in an open council meeting, so that the views of the councillors can be aired publicly.

The news of Council’s decision last night to sell all of its Blue Haven aged care operations shocked many in the community, given its speed and what they see as lack of consultation.

While Cllr Renkema-Lang voted for the sale last night, she says it was in the mistaken impression that she had to as she had got some amendments made to the motion to strengthen it and put in some more options. On reflection, she has realised she didn’t have to vote for it.

Two councillors who voted against the motion, Jodi Keast and Kathy Rice, have released their reasons for doing so.

They were encouraged by former councillor Howard H Jones to lodge a rescission motion.

“No matter what reasons are given for the sale of Blue Haven or whether those reasons are completely valid, such an important decision should never under any circumstances be debated and resolved in a confidential meeting of Council without any public scrutiny,” says Mr Jones.   

“I encourage those councillors who voted against this fire sale to lodge a rescission motion and fight to have that motion debated in open Council so the community can have access to the reasoning behind the decision and viewpoints of the councillors.

“Most councillors stressed a belief in transparency in their electoral material in the recent Council elections so they should be comfortable in explaining in open Council their reasons for supporting the sale of this community asset.”

Councillor Rice explains for reasons for voting against the motion this way, ““I am concerned with the governance aspects of this decision particularly the care and diligence that is required when making such an important decision for our community.

“I fully expected that the comprehensive financial rationale for the decision would be made available to Councillors to ensure we had applied due diligence before making this decision. I also expected that the essentials of this financial information would have been available to the community before we made this decision.

“At the meeting I expressed my belief that transparency is of great importance and the confidentiality surrounding this decision to date has not been transparent and has not helped bring the community along with us.

“This decision will come as a shock to the community because they have previously been advised that options of keep and lease were also being considered, not just sale.

“In my view, leaving the community with an understanding that several options were being considered has left them out. The financial basis underlying the changed direction was not presented, communicated or explained to them.”

Councillor Keast, who is a member of the Financial Advisory Committee, says, ““I spoke about why I could not support this recommendation based on three principles; transparency, short & long-term solutions, and informed decision making. 

“As councillors, like board directors, we need to make decisions after considering all factors and relevant information available to us. It is my opinion that the process has been rushed through an extraordinary confidential meeting. In my view I don’t believe that all the information I require has been provided, and in a format and adequate level of detail, that allows a sensible decision to be made.

“I expressed my disappointment at the lack of a monthly cashflow forecast, long-term financial forecast, alternate solutions and how these may impact on our financial ratios.

“I was expecting to read of the Blue Haven assets and liabilities and projected sale price, options and other detail and data. I was disappointed that the resolution presented only one option.

“I note that Councillors endorsed the need to develop a Strategic Liquidity Plan. This Plan, as well as the above financial information, would have provided me with the required information to make an informed decision.

“I acknowledge that we need to ensure that Council is a going concern. For me short and long term cashflow is fundamental and in my view selling Blue Haven is not a short-term solution.

“To me it is also essential that we are transparent in our decision making.

“Our community should have been taken on the journey with us. It may be rocky, but we need to ensure they are fully informed, throughout the process.

“Given it was a confidential meeting, our community has not been afforded relevant and important information, to be able to see the decision-making process or be able to be part of the discussion.”

Nick Hartgerink, that author of a history of Blue Haven commissioned by Council for its 40th year in 2019, says one of the reasons for the book was to safeguard Blue Haven from sale by future Council executives and elected representatives who might not otherwise understand its history and its place in the heart of our community.

“Perhaps our latest generation of decision-makers were never shown the book. Perhaps it didn’t argue the case strongly enough. Perhaps they don’t realise how important Blue Haven was to the successful community campaign against the State Government’s proposed amalgamation of Kiama with Shoalhaven Council in 2015-2016.

“Having worked in the media and PR for 45 years, I recognise spin when I see it – and all the promises in the world about the continuing high standard of care at Blue Haven once it is sold are just that – spin. There can be no guarantees.

“In my opinion this is a sad decision for Kiama, and one I fear will pull the heart out of our Council.”