NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

An ‘inappropriate’—and possibly inconvenient—truth

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 July, the indefatigable Jane Ferro asked a question about the presence of armed police at two previous meetings presided over by Commissioner James Best.

Shire President Reid replied that it was ‘not appropriate to pass judgement on a previous council’.

Whenever I hear the word appropriate (or its opposite) a warning bell tinkles in my brain.  The word isn’t new.   In the 15^th century, it was used to indicate ownership (think of its cousin proprietor).  A couple of centuries later, it acquired its modern meaning: ‘suitable’ or ‘fitting’, or ‘proper’ as in ‘that’s not an appropriate (i.e. proper) way to treat a lady’.

(Of course, from a politically correct perspective that example is entirely inappropriate, being sexist and condescending, but let’s put that objection to one side.)

Over the past 30 or so years, the word has flourished in official communications like a particularly noxious and invasive weed.  Worse, it’s a contagion spread in schools and universities and through social media. It’s one of those weasel words that silently strangle thought.

Once applied, the word cannot be challenged; a judgement, demanding conformity, has been made and set in stone.  Asking someone to explain precisely why an action or statement is  ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ seems to be the moral equivalent of passing wind in a mosque.

With some misgivings—who wants to be the target of a bureaucratic jihad?—I asked Shire President Reid at the September Council meeting if his use of the phrase ‘not appropriate’ in his reply to Ms Ferro reflected his own views or those of the Acting CEO or his ‘mentors’.

With his customary frankness, the Shire President said that it reflected the views of the mentors.  For me, that statement implied that in this instance his views and those of the mentors might not have been fully in accord, but the mentors had nudged him into compliance.

I also wanted to know what was the legislative basis of the mentors’ opinion, but that part of my question went missing in the wash.

A friend—I still have one or two—referred me for an answer to the Shire’s Standing Orders, which have the status of a local law. 

Sure enough, there it was, in clause 8.4 under the heading ‘Adverse Reflection’:

Members of Council should refrain from adverse reflection of prior decisions of the Council except to provide a statement or reasoned argument setting out factual information relating to that decision.

If the mentors’ opinion was based on that clause, or any provision like it, they were doing neither themselves nor their ‘mentee’ (is there really such a word?) any favours. 

Note that the clause exempts from censure ‘a statement or reasoned argument’ based on ‘factual information’.  Ms Ferro, as I recall, had sought the Shire President’s opinion on Commissioner Best’s request for armed police to be present at two Council meetings.

It was therefore open to and appropriate for the Shire President to provide a statement or reasoned argument on the topic.  For example, he might have expressed disapproval of Commissioner Best’s actions on the (factual) grounds that in living memory no angry mob in York had ever lynched or assaulted a person presiding over a council meeting.  (Of course, there’s always a first time…)

The Shire President might also have felt moved to say that calling in armed police was in his opinion insulting to the good people in the gallery, because it implied that they were a dangerous bunch of blood-thirsty radicals bent on murder or mayhem.  That would have been a reasoned argument explaining why in his eyes the commissioner’s action was unwarranted.  It wouldn’t have breached the clause in any way.

By the way, I think ‘reflection of’ should read ‘reflection on’, but I’ll let that pass without further comment because the intention of the clause is clear enough even if the wording is a bit wobbly.  For the same reason, I won’t go into the difference between ‘should’ and ‘must’ as elements of moral discourse.  I wouldn’t want to be picky about such matters.

My point is simply this: if, as seems likely, the mentors based on this piece of legislation a blanket opinion that it’s ‘not appropriate’ in all circumstances to pass judgement on a previous council, they didn’t understand the law and got it wrong. 

On the other hand, if their opinion was based merely on an intuitive instead of an intellectual response to the issue, which may well have been the case, they had no moral right to impose it on our Shire President, which I’m pretty sure is what they did.

And as I remarked at the close of my question:  Commonwealth and state governments display no reluctance in passing judgement on their predecessors.  Why should local governments be prohibited from doing the same thing?

Over to you, mentors.  Am I right or am I right? 

I wonder what the Department of Local Government’s probity guru, the sainted Brad Jolly, thinks.  Perhaps he’d like to tell me for the blog.

‘Bagging’ York

A friend of mine has told me that yesterday she heard a rival candidate saying that people shouldn’t vote to put me on Council because as writer of this blog I am always ‘bagging York’.

The candidate in question doesn’t know me.  I’ve never set eyes on them.  They probably wouldn’t know me if they fell over me.  (By ‘they’, I mean either ‘he’ or ‘she’.  See if you can guess which.)

I’m certain I’ve never had the pleasure of a conversation with them.  I’m sure I’d remember if I had.

So what could possibly be the source of their ideas about me?

It can’t possibly be this blog or the blog I used to write for.  Why not?  Because I can put one hand on my heart and the other on a stack of Bibles and swear without fear of heavenly thunderbolts that I have never once bagged York in either blog or anything else I’ve written, including emails.  (I don’t do Facebook or Twitter.)

I challenge anyone to find something I’ve written or said anywhere at any time that ‘bags York’.  The only negative comment I’ve ever made in relation to York has been about the climate. 

My comment was that in the depths of winter and at the height of summer York’s weather can be hard to take. 

That was in the context, I recall, of my suggestion on this blog that the best seasons to visit York are spring and autumn.  I think most people who live here would agree.

What my rival and others are doing is confusing two distinct entities:  York, meaning the place and the people, and the Shire of York, which is a statutory body responsible for governance and administration.

Yes, I have ‘bagged’ aspects of the Shire of York, and persons connected with it.  I see no reason at present to resile from anything I’ve written or said.

But I have never—NEVER—bagged York.  There’s no reason why I should.

I enjoy living here.  I love the historic buildings, shopping in the town, chatting with friends and eating lunch in Avon Terrace, having people to stay, enjoying the countryside and in every season of the year taking in the marvellous view from our verandah.  York is blessed with a friendly and welcoming population that deserves much better than unconscionable rate rises, an untrained and incompetent Shire administration and mediocre representatives on Council. 

For over six years, York has been my home.  Along with my wife, I choose to live here.  I don’t have to.  We have a house in Geraldton we could move back to when our tenant’s lease expires.  I doubt we shall ever do that.  Sooner or later, I expect to die here—preferably later, of course.

So please, dear rival candidate, don’t just parrot silly slogans picked up from my detractors.  Look at the evidence and think for yourself. 

You may well find that the authors of those slogans have a vested interest in preventing change.  Never mind that they made a mess of things in the past; they think they should still be running the Shire of York. 

Those are the people who got rid of Matthew Reid, with a little help from a corrupt government department, because he deprived them of power, diminished their influence and threatened their interests and perks.

If you are elected, they will probably expect you to do their bidding. 

I wish you luck in the election.  Please, if you become a shire councillor, maintain your independence of mind and do the best you can for York.  Give the bad guys a very wide berth.

Written, authorised and published by James Plumridge, 14 Harriott Street, York