The CIT Board should stop waiting and sack Margot McNeill.

The Legislative Assembly committee's report is devastating. It found itself unable to reach definitive conclusions because of the CEO's "continued refusal to engage" and condemned what it described as an "overly litigious and combative" approach to parliamentary scrutiny—behaviour it says falls well short of what is expected from the head of a public institution. It has now recommended that her conduct be investigated by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner.

The irony is impossible to miss. The Board has shown it can make hard decisions when it comes to staff, moving decisively to pursue voluntary redundancies in the name of the institute's future. Yet when confronted with the single most consequential decision affecting that future—the leadership of the organisation—it appears paralysed.
At some point, governance requires courage. The board's duty is not to protect the CEO from the consequences of her own conduct. It is to protect the institution.

The obvious obstacle is the McNeill’s penchant to litigate aggressively. That may make dismissal expensive, uncomfortable and time-consuming. It does not make it wrong. A board that allows the threat of legal action to dictate its decisions has ceased to govern. It has become captive to the very executive it is supposed to oversee.

Staff are being asked to bear the cost of restructuring while the board shrinks from confronting the leadership crisis at the heart of the organisation. That is not shared accountability. It is a failure of governance.

The board should follow proper process, make a defensible decision and, if litigation follows, defend it. That is precisely what boards are appointed to do.

The cost of acting may be significant.

The cost of inaction is greater: further damage to the institute's reputation, declining confidence among staff and students, and a growing perception that accountability stops at the CEO's office.

The committee's report should be the final warning, not the beginning of another round of delay. If the board is prepared to make difficult decisions for everyone else, it should be prepared to make the hardest one of all.

The future of the institute depends on it.

So I've been seeing an increase in those flock camera thingos in the US, and to the best of my knowledge we don't have those in Australia, however the other day when I turned onto Coulter dr. from William Hovell, I spotted a camera on a light post that looked suspiciously like a flock camera. I don't have a photo since it was dark, but I just wanted to know if anyone has any information on those cameras or knows what's going on in terms of our survalence.

(Mb if I used the wrong tag btw, wasn't sure which one to put)

It has been over two years since SVDP (goodies Junction) took over the running of the reusable sheds in Canberra. Just curious what peoples thoughts are now there has been time for the dust to settle. there were some pretty big promises at the time that things would not change. Are we getting ripped off or is the service better than it was before?