Saturday, 24 September 2016

NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND


Paul Miles takes over as local government minister

Following the unseemly, not to say bizarre, departure from office of local government minister Tony Simpson last weekend, Premier Colin Barnett has appointed Paul Miles MLA to replace him. 

Mr. Miles, Liberal member for Wanneroo in the lower house of the WA parliament, will not have to exert himself overmuch to improve on his underperforming predecessor.

The new minister was elected to parliament in 2008.  Previously, he had served as councillor for the City of Wanneroo’s North Ward.  He has an impressive record of community involvement, including stints as president, vice-president, treasurer and secretary of the Wanneroo Lions Club.

Since 2013, he has held the position of parliamentary secretary to the attorney general and the minister for commerce.  He has also chaired the parliament’s joint standing committee on delegated legislation.

Hansard records that Mr. Miles in the course of his parliamentary career has made more than 370 speeches covering a wide range of topics.  His inaugural speech (or ‘maiden speech’, as it used to be known before the virus of political correctness congested the lungs of legislative deliberation) focussed on planning and road safety issues in his electorate.

In his life before politics, Mr. Miles worked in information technology as a senior technician.   Last month, he joined the WA Council for the Ageing in hosting a forum in Wanneroo on cyber security attended, according to his website, by ‘over 100 tech-savvy seniors’.

Mr. Miles now faces what I fancy he will come to regard as the challenge of a lifetime—namely, taking control of the multifarious self-replicating shape-changing lifeforms infesting the headquarters of the WA Department of Local Government and Communities in Gordon Stephenson House.

I wish him all the luck he’s going to need.

Hon. Paul Miles, MLA, Minister for Local Government

POSTSCRIPT:  Please note that my mischievous characterisation of DLGC bureaucrats wasn’t intended to apply to everyone employed by the department.  It was aimed solely at the senior staff responsible, among other evils, for the sacking of our council in 2014; for the appointment of James Best as commissioner, with all of its horrible consequences including the shifty purchase for an outrageous price of the Old Convent School; and for the subsequent persecution of Shire President Reid, culminating in his resignation shortly after resuming office.  We know who those people are, and so do they. 

It wasn’t intended to apply to everyone working for the DLGC.  I’m sure many of them at more junior levels were as disgusted as were most people in York by the actions of their superiors. 

*******

Bowled over?  Yes, but not out

In an article posted at the end of August  (Bowling Club President Pat Hooper Bowls for the Jack but Winds Up Well and Truly Skittled) I responded to a complaint from Mr. Hooper, aired in an open letter addressed to me and in a question he put to Council.

The complaint was that in an earlier article I had said that in 2012 the Shire had taken out a loan for the club but had subsequently waived the club’s obligation to repay the loan in instalments of roughly $30,000 per year.

According to Mr. Hooper, the club ‘had never received or sought’ any such loan.  He demanded an apology.

In my response, I apologised for having mistakenly typed ‘2012’ when I meant ‘2008’.  I then drew attention to the minutes of the special council meeting held on 5 September 2008, which record the offer of a self-supporting contingency loan to the club repayable over 15 years by annual instalments of $29,799.

The club had requested the loan to replace its grass greens with synthetic greens in the event of being unable to get the necessary funds from other sources—hence the ‘contingency’.

I admitted that I had failed in my search of council minutes to find later references to the loan.

Questions

Not long after posting my response, I submitted a series of questions—in writing, not in person—to the September ordinary council meeting.  They were framed as a single composite question.  You’ll find those questions and the Shire’s answers on page 7 of the unconfirmed minutes of that meeting, published on the Shire’s website earlier this week.

As it turned out, only three of my questions required answers (the answers to the first two rendered the others irrelevant).  The only questions of importance here are the first two.  They read as follows:

(a) Did the York Bowling Club in 2008, when Mr. Hooper held the office of Shire President, or at any other time seek a loan from the Shire for the purpose of replacing the grass greens at its former premises with synthetic greens or for any other purpose?

(b) Did the Club accept the Shire’s offer of a loan of $250,000.00 on the terms and conditions indicated above or any variation of them?

Responding to the first question, the Shire confirmed that the York Bowling Club had indeed requested a contingency loan as described above for the purpose of replacing its greens. 

So Mr. Hooper was wrong to suggest that the club had never sought such a loan—but right, of course, to say that the club had not done so in 2012, a fact acknowledged in my article of 30 August.

The answer to the second question was that the Shire had not raised the loan referred to on behalf of the York Bowling Club. 

So I was wrong to suggest that the club had received such a loan, and that repayments had later been waived.

The answer went on to point out that the Shire’s not raising the loan was reported ‘in the financial statements of the 2008/09 Annual Report’.  The 2008/09 Annual Report is my favourite bed-time reading, so goodness knows how I contrived to miss that crucial detail.

I’m happy to stand corrected, and to apologise to the club’s membership, past and present, for my error and for any anger, anxiety or suicidal ideation it may have provoked.

If you see a diminutive figure prowling along Avon Terrace covered in sackcloth and ashes, wailing mea culpa and lashing his back with a nail-studded whip, it will probably be me. 

(Unless it’s Mr. Hooper, belatedly making atonement for his authorship of the infamous ‘Minority Report’.)

An earlier request for money

There was an earlier occasion when the York Bowling Club sought money from the Shire—this time, however, not as a loan, but as a grant of $80,500 to help pay for the replacement of a grass green with a synthetic one.

You can read all about it on pages 72 to 74 of the minutes of the ordinary council meeting held on 15 October 2007, chaired by Shire President Pat Hooper (yes, the very same...).  The transaction is recorded under the heading ‘Late Reports’ as item ‘9.5.1 Application for Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund Grant in 2008/2009’.

The grant (or ‘allocation’, as the minutes describe it) is explained as one-third of the cost of replacing a single green, the remaining two-thirds to be funded equally by the club and the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund, managed I believe by the Department of Sport and Recreation.

Did the York Bowling Club accept this ‘allocation’?  I don’t know, and I won’t risk diminishing the force and value of my apology to the club by taking steps to find out.

One thing puzzles me, though.  In his ‘open letter’, Mr. Hooper ‘reminded’ me of something I hadn’t previously known, namely that ‘the Bowling Club contributed $80,000 to the Forrest Oval reconstruction’.

Would that by any chance be the same money, or most of it, that the club appears to have received as an allocation from the Shire towards the cost of a new synthetic green?
 
Or was Mr. Hooper referring to the club’s agreed contribution to a new green as recorded in the October 2007 minutes?
 
*******


Kerrie and Farren Wheeler are returning to Esperance.  Does this spell the end of the York Carriage Diner? 

From Facebook:

6 hrs ·

Kellie and Farren are terribly sorry that due to personal reason we have had to close the carriage earlier then expected, we are very very sorry for the inconvenience and would like to thank you all again for your support #york #eat

From Michael Watts and Rob Cameron:

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Kellie and Farren for their time at the Diner.

We wish them every success for the future when they return home to Esperance to start their new venture.

The Diner therefore, will be closed indefinitely from the 1st October 2016, in order to negotiate a replacement team; although we will be open for special functions such as the "Medieval Fayre" on the 2nd October and the "All Ford Day" on the 6th November 2016.

Interested parties in either leasing or buying the business should contact Michael Watts of Elders York - 9641 3000 or Rob Cameron on 0451 944 877.

*******

40 comments:

  1. James, I'm really worried that things are not changing and if they are its for the worst. A friend sent me a post from the York Carriage Diner which is apparently closing as from next week and is on the market through Mike Watts, the same Mike Watts who's daughter stole $70k from the ratepayers of York.
    Last year ACEO Simpson was stopped in his tracks by the Department of Local Government regarding the lease- back of the Chalkies building to the vendors. He was advised that under section 3.58 LGA- Disposing of property, he could not do it as there is a legislated process for the 'disposal' of LG property, 'dispose' includes to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, whether absolutely or not.
    So once again it looks as though the ratepayers will be getting shafted as the LG looks after its mates and those loyal to the cause. This means that the new CEO Paul Martin will inevitably end up doing what he's told by the likes of Marwick and Boyle, not necessarily these two people but those of similar same ilk.
    The Yorky's Carriage Diner was slipped through by James Best and ACEO Simpson avoiding all the usual hoops that anyone else is required to jump through before conducting business in York. They too were desperate for York to appear to be a thriving prospect, when in reality the only people allowed to conduct business in York are those the establishment choose. It will be interesting to see how much the Shire 'bend the rules' and who they bend them for!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm surprised Mike Bawdan hasn't sleazed in on the act, he's pretty good at making a few bucks from ratepayers with dodgy deals behind closed doors such as the Chalkies scandal.

      Delete
    2. I thought the Shire of York owned Yorkie's Carriage. How come a local Estate agent is handling the lease?

      I find it very disturbing 'certain people' within York can manipulate the Shire Council/Administration to achieve what they want - ie sale of Chalkies, oversized sheds, on-leasing of Yorkie's Carriage but people like the Saints who had one of the most popular eating places in the Avon Valley are shafted by councillors and senior shire staff in the worst possible way.

      Newcomers choosing to 'invest their money' to buy a home or business in York, is akin to marrying into one of the 'born and bred farming families' only to discover the matriarch or patriarch takes a dislike to you when you fail to fall at their feet, worship them, comply with their rules and permit them to make all the decisions for you.

      Where's the 'silent local rules' we are supposed to comply with?

      Delete
    3. The council will probably purchase it as that seems to be the way the council operates. Very similar to buying chalkies from mates fallen on rough times.

      Delete
    4. The born and bred families sold their farms to developers when they were desperate for money and they didn't think further than the money they were going to get. They still expect to be seen as 'important land owners' but that is not how it works.

      There's no reason to worship these people and they should only receive the respect they earn. As far as I can make out most of them have shat in their own nests over the years.


      Delete
    5. If things are getting worse (but they can't possibly get as bad as they used to be), it's not fair to blame CEO Martin. Until last week, he had no senior administrative employees to help him and must have been under colossal pressure of work. My impression is that he's nothing like his grotesque predecessors and has a strong commitment to putting York back on its collective feet.

      No, the problem is a handful of nincompoops and stooges on Council, as evidenced by Council's recent decision to trash policy in the name of flexibility by allowing the construction of an oversized shed. It's our fault, we put them there. If I have a bone to pick with the CEO, it's that I think he might have advised Council more trenchantly of the dangers of ignoring policy, but I wonder if in the circumstances he had much choice.

      I don't believe CEO Martin is a man likely to be bullied by 'yesterday's heroes'. I'm not so sure about our shire president, who regardless of his many virtues is a colt from the same stable as some of his predecessors and may find himself willy-nilly cantering in the same risky direction as did they.

      Delete
    6. Wrong James. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that but Mr Martin will do whatever it takes to advance his own career in local government. If that means rolling to 'yesterday's heroes' then so be it. When Mr Martin is on a 300K salary in the city, do you suppose he'll give York an iota of thought? I doubt it!
      Get this illusion of caring genuine utopian public servants out of your head, there is no such creature.

      Delete
    7. Believe me, I have no such illusions. Leaving aside Mr Martin's personal qualities and inclinations, it is very much in his interest to do the right thing by the people of York if he wants to advance his career. Anyway, let's give him a chance to show his mettle. Even better, when elections come round, let's give him more astute councillors to work with - folk blessed with something more evolved than a rudimentary nervous system with a bony knob at the end. We've got a couple of them, surely we can find a few more.

      Delete
    8. Believe me, I think Anonymous 26 September 2016 at 03:09 has a point, it'll be interesting to see if you think the same after his five years is up.

      Delete
    9. Hey people, give the bloke a chance. At least Mr. Martin had the guts to relieve us of TC, GM and GT (CMT club). Now he has 'new blood' in Managerial positions I am sure they will quietly assess all the staff under them and if any are identified as not meeting the standards required they will join the unique CMT club.
      I am sure the CEO is aware we had a psychopath ruling our easily swayed/incompetent councillors for a long time and some of those councillors are still making decisions for us. Just remember the CEO has no choice but to take orders from them. Those councillors have been joined by one or two new councillors who were 'appointed as a puppet' or 'rolled over' after they were elected.
      The oversized shed application is a classic example where certain councillors voted to go outside the Policy they themselves recently reviewed. Was their decision to support the application made to placate their friends? Only they know the answer. They have to live with their conscience and the knowledge they are responsible for setting a precedent.

      I agree with Mr. Plumbridge - we need to find 'independent' candidates for the next election who wont be led/swayed/bullied by current councillors or ex councillors who cannot accept the fact they are no longer on council.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous26 September 2016 at 03:09 - I hope Mr. Martin won't make the same mistakes as previous CEO's - ie listening to 'yesterdays failures'.

      He does not have the personality of a psychopath.

      York is Mr. Martins one and only chance to make a name for himself as Mr. Fix The Mess within Local Government circles. He won't blow this chance by being controlled by people who are failures within the eyes of the community, or setting aside his ethics.

      Remember there is a state election next March and it is unlikely the Libs will get back in. If this happens, those 'yesterdays failures' will lose their clout with the little man on the hill.

      Delete
  2. York's Coffee Carriage failed because the owners did not know anything about the food industry. The owners relied on full staffing of the carriage leaving high wage bills.The carriage needs to be owned by experience owners and it would survive. York needs more business and we have 2 closed now in weeks of each other and how many more are going to close before the town and council have nothing left.York and the small group of people have caused this and those people need to pull their heads in mind their own business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's the other business that's closed down in weeks?

      Delete
    2. Grandmas Kitchen

      Delete
    3. Did Grandmas Kitchen have anything to do with that twat Gordon Tester?

      Delete
    4. Was Tony Boyle involved financially in the Yorkie's carriage?

      It was the watering hole and fast food outlet for members of the 'self appointed council'. Tony Boyle, John weeks and Terry Davies.

      Delete
    5. I only went to the Carriage once and that was recently.Those people had no idea how to run a business - it took 3/4 hour to get a luke warm cup of coffee.

      Delete
    6. Does Grandma know?

      Delete
  3. So, the Bowling club DID apply for a loan from the Shire and PAT HOOPER is proven WRONG.

    Mr. Plumbridge, at least you had the guts to admit your mistake which is more than Pat Hooper has. He can't seem to find the gumption to admit his mistake and apologise for SHAFTING his leader Matthew Reid, fellow councillors and the residents of York with his MINORITY REPORT.

    We must be forever grateful Pat Hooper is no longer a Councillor. Pat lost the respect and trust of the people when he shafted Matthew. It must have slipped his memory (like the loan application) that Matthew received the support of 980 voters.

    Not sure I'd be game to lift the sackcloth to offer a kind word and sustenance just in case it's Hooper, probably safer to say 'hullo' and see if we receive a grumble first.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lets give Paul Martin a chance to look into this Coffee Carriage situation before condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you cut Cr Randell's legs off, would that make him a tall dwarf?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it would simply leave him short of legs.

      And he'd still be taller than me.

      Delete
    2. He'd just walk on his knuckles like Pat Hooper.
      On a serious matter, I don't believe small power bases like York should be leasing anything out. These are assets which belong to the ratepayers not to the council and certainly not the administration department.

      Delete
    3. If Randell's legs were cut off, he would be legless!

      He does appear 'legless' (under the weather) in some of the photo's he posted on his Face Book.

      Delete
    4. It's time to stop these attacks on Cr Randell. If we don't, he might resign. He's just missed two consecutive council meetings. One more, and according to the rules he's out.

      I'd be sorry to see him go. If he does, who might replace him? Better the devil you know.

      Besides, all he has to do to become a good councillor is to rethink his priorities and redirect his loyalties to the whole community and council policy rather than to the established families of York. There's evidence that he's already taken himself in hand (no lewd comments, please) regarding use of social media, but his attitude to us 'blow-ins' also has to change. We're here, we're staying put, get used to it.

      Delete
    5. Indeed lofty, pursuant to section 2.25(4) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), a council member who is absent, without first obtaining leave of the council, throughout 3 consecutive ordinary meetings of the council is disqualified from continuing his or her membership of the council.

      In Shire of Waroona v Fitzpatrick [2007] WASAT 219, Western Australia’s State Administrative Tribunal considered an appeal by a member who had been disqualified pursuant to section 2.25(4).

      Background
      The council member had been absent from three consecutive ordinary council meetings between February and April 2007 without seeking a leave of absence from the council, though on each occasion he had tendered his apologies. The CEO of the Shire found himself bound to serve a notice on the council member given the mandatory provisions in section 2.27 of the Act. The council member then appealed against the disqualification to the State Administrative Tribunal.

      Consideration by the Tribunal
      The Tribunal noted that the absences by the council member were caused either by unforeseen
      circumstances or arose from overseas business commitments. The Tribunal also noted that although the council member did not seek a leave of absence, the minutes of the relevant council meetings recorded the council member’s apologies. In a letter to the Tribunal, the CEO of the Shire stated that the council member is: “a Councillor of good standing and has represented the interest of the Shire locally and through much involvement at a regional level. It would be a loss for Council and Community for Councillor Fitzpatrick to be disqualified under these circumstances.” The CEO also informed the Tribunal that apart from the possible loss of the council member there had beena further resignation, placing a further burden on remaining members.

      The decision
      In handing down its decision, the Tribunal reviewed the relevant provisions of the Act and, in the circumstances, held that the Tribunal had no discretion and was obliged to declare that the council member was disqualified. The Tribunal noted that in the particular circumstances of this case, the outcome could cause considerable inconvenience to the Shire and was harsh on the council member. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the council member’s observation that a councillor would be disqualified where, having missed two consecutive previous meetings and some unavoidable event, such as sudden illness or a car accident, prevented attendance at the last minute of the third meeting then, given requirement that leave must be “first obtained”, it would be too late for leave of absence to be granted at the third meeting. The Tribunal also noted, however, that there was nothing in section 2.25 of the Act which requires the attendance of a council member at the meeting at which leave of absence for some future meeting is
      granted. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that there would be nothing to prevent a council resolving to grant leave of absence to a council member in respect to the following meeting despite the absence of that council member at the time the motion was put and carried.

      Conclusion
      Although the Tribunal conceded that the object of section 2.25(4) is to impose an obligation on council members to attend meetings, the Tribunal was clearly concerned at effect of section 2.25 in the circumstances of this particular case. In view of those concerns, the Tribunal proposed to forward a copy of the decision to the Minister for Local Government, presumably with the understanding that its decision be considered and some thought given to importing a degree of flexibility into the Act.

      Delete
    6. Thanks for this excellent clarification of the law relating to councillors' attendance at council meetings.

      Did the minister or one of his successors review the legislation to make it more flexible as the tribunal seems to have recommended? Or does it stand as it was 9 years ago?

      Delete
    7. I suggest we stop inferring certain families in York are more special than the rest of us.

      If we own a home in York we pay Shire of York Rates, this makes us an established family including you Mr. Plumbridge.

      Time to drop the terms 'blow-in and 'newcomer'. Every single person who lives in York is a local and those who say we are not need to wake up, consider doing some serious work on their self esteem and realise it is 2016.

      York is approximately one hour from Midland, less from Mundaring and has moved on from being a 'family run rural Town'.

      Delete
    8. Perhaps a meeting reminder 'News Flash for Cr. Randell' could be put on both blogs.

      I am sure Cr. Randell reads the blogs several times a day so he would be sure to see the notice.

      This would ensure he can make a special effort to fulfil the obligations of his commitment to the people he is supposed to represent.

      Delete
    9. No, the legislation still stands, three strikes and he's out!

      Delete
    10. Does Trevor still receive sitting fees for the meetings he has missed?

      I thought he took an oath to represent us - doesn't that mean he is supposed to turn up to meetings?

      Delete
  6. Yorkie's Carriage is an asset of Ratepayers of York, what other option is there for the Shire of York Administration than to lease this venue out - sell it to one of their mates like they did Chalkies?

    The Shire leased the Carriage to Mr. & Mrs. York for years and it worked. The Shire Administration and Council need to make absolutely sure the power pushers of York keep their fingers out of the process.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re - Yorkies' Coffee Carriage. It is the LAND that the shire owns. That is what the 'Yorks' leased from the Shire. The carriage belonged to Mike and Jenny and they installed the infrastructure to support the business. You may all recall a few times when the river flooded and Mike had to get his tractor and tow the carriage up out of harms way. When Mike and Jenny 'retired', it was the carriage, infrastructure and business that they leased to the new 'owners' and would have 'sub-let' the shire land to the people, as they would have had a long term lease from the shire. When the new people renovated the whole property and then lost it all in a fire, they left and the whole lot closed down. I expect the was sufficient insurance from all parties, to cover costs and losses involved.

    I assume that the recent involvement of former councillors and friends came about when 1. the lease of the land expired, and so was taken up rapidly by those with dollar signs in their eyes and 2. suspect did a deal over the carriages, or purchased new ones and 3. found some poor souls who thought they could do it, but actually lacked experience, and possibly had to pay a high amount to lease the land and/or infrastructure.

    See it happen so many times in this town. Unfortunately people take on these businesses without experience or proper research or business acumen and/or a good accountant. They also assume that because York has a reputation as a tourist town and it is thought this is where the $ will come from. NOT for a long time, 'blossoms'. The outcome for the majority of them is usually a huge loss from the hip pocket. Prime example - Grandmas' Kitchen in yet another heap. And at least the second time, possibly third time, it has been called Grandmas' whatever, "Brownsies"?

    Now the latest folk have closed their doors, it might be a really good time for Mr. Martin to peruse all documents relating to same and clean up any little side deals that might have been getting worked.

    Have to say a bit puzzled as to why it didn't work for them, as I understand that the "Grey Nomads" who have been parking at the Park, where eating there, would have thought that would have provided some income. Having said that, I have also heard that the service moved at snails pace, the food was highly variable in quality, and cost, and wasn't always hot or served within a reasonable time span.

    And so another one bits the dust!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Customers died of starvation waiting for their orders to arrive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I expect i asume i suspect then go on to right a novel on how you think people should run a business .do you think people start these businesses

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh and dont forget what you heard pretty quick to right a review i bet you have never been a patron of either establishment keep it positive uou say

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 28 September 2016 at 05:48 & Anonymous 28 September 2016 at 05:53, your intellect suggests you may have been a regular customer of the ill-fated Carriage Diner?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous28 September 2016 at 19:10 - I agree. Members of the 'failed councillors' group?

      Delete
  11. I was served a cold Cappuccino after waiting 45 minutes for it.
    We were the only two customers at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Surely you can't sub lease Shire land which has a peppercorn lease without written Shire approval?

    ReplyDelete