LEGAL EAGLE FLIES UNDONE

‘We must protect the organisation.’

York Shire President Wallace, in conversation with a ratepayer, 2016.

A lawyer’s letter—every blogger’s dream

Readers may be surprised—and some may be pleased—to learn that I have received from Richard Graham, a defamation lawyer, what is known in the legal trade as a ‘concerns notice’.

Mr Graham is acting for a certain gentleman—hereinafter ‘Mr X’— who used to work for the Shire.

David Taylor has received a similar notice from the same source.

According to the notice sent to me, Mr X is ‘seriously aggrieved’ by various anonymous and pseudonymous comments posted on this blog touching on the circumstances of his departure from the Shire’s employ. 

He claims that imputations contained in those comments have damaged his reputation and that he has suffered loss and damage as a result—not to mention ‘stress, anxiety and depression’.

Mr X is no less aggrieved, it seems, by a report in one of my articles that he had said in the presence of a witness ‘the thing which is not’ regarding the matter of an oversized shed.  

The concerns notice amounts to an emphatic denial of each and every (allegedly) false and defamatory imputation concerning Mr X appearing in the pages of this and David’s blog—especially those pertaining to…well, you know... let’s not cause further embarrassment by spelling it out.

Mr X has instructed his lawyer that ‘each of the imputations…are totally false, without basis and constitute serious defamations of my client [and] that he resigned from the Shire of York due to personal health reasons’. 

(Grammar note: I think that should be ‘is totally false’, because ‘each’ denotes singularity.  You’d think a lawyer would know better.)

So there you have it, folks.  Mr X didn’t do what he was alleged to have done, and he resigned voluntarily because he was unwell, not because he’d done something naughty.

And anybody who says otherwise is lying—or so Mr X implies in his notice of concerns.

I’m sure Mr Graham will have advised Mr X that under section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 an action for defamation is doomed to fail if the publisher of the ‘defamatory imputations’ is able to show that they are ‘substantially true’.

Making amends

The notice invites me to make by or before 10 January 2018 an offer of amends that would include:

(a) publishing an apology and a retraction on this website;

(b) handing over the names, addresses and email addresses of the authors of the offending comments (something I can’t possibly do, because I don’t know who they are and have no way of finding out—and if I did know, neither thumbscrew nor rack, not even the Spanish Inquisition’s comfy chair, would drag the information out of me);

(c)  removing all (allegedly) false and defamatory statements about Mr. X from this website;

(d) undertaking not to publish any more such statements;

(e) providing a signed apology and retraction which Mr X may publish ‘as he sees fit’;

(f)  paying Mr X’s legal costs; and

(g) paying ‘a reasonable sum’ to compensate Mr X for the damage (allegedly) caused to him by publication of the (allegedly) defamatory statements.

Before deciding whether or not to do any of those things, I thought it would be a good idea to get the Shire’s version of what had occurred. 

My email to CEO Martin

So on 15 December 2017, I emailed CEO Paul Martin for an opinion on the lurid rumours winging wildly through the town and alighting as comments on this blog. 

In my email, I summarised very briefly the general drift of public opinion, as expressed in those comments, regarding Mr X and what he was alleged to have done.

I mentioned public concern regarding allegations—

(a) that CEO Martin had effectively condoned Mr X’s alleged misdemeanours by not reporting them to the police (I had pointed out in blog comments of my own that in my opinion he was under no obligation to do any such thing); and

(b) that after leaving his job Mr X had continued to have access to Shire of York assets and resources—notably, that he had been spotted driving a Shire vehicle in Northam a week or so later.

Rumours

Helpful soul that I am, I took it upon myself to advise CEO Martin of certain rumours relating to whatever steps he may have taken to facilitate Mr X’s remarkably abrupt exit from the service of the Shire.   

One such rumour was that he had required Mr X to resign rather than give him the sack, and had authorised Mr X’s continuing use of a Shire vehicle and accommodation. 

Another—in my view more serious—was that the CEO had put pressure on Shire staff to say nothing to outsiders about the circumstances of Mr X’s departure.  Whether or not he did that, or had reason to do it, it would certainly have been in keeping with the standard bureaucratic view that local government employees should be treated as a protected species and exempted as far as possible from normal processes of public disclosure, prosecution and disgrace.

It would also have been in keeping with the narcissistic local government doctrine that ‘protecting the organisation’ trumps ideas of openness, honesty and accountability in the organisation’s dealings with the people whose rates and taxes keep the rickety vessel afloat and support the grotesquely inflated salaries and emoluments of the crew.

(I should mention in passing that the allegations regarding Mr X emanated directly from members of the Shire workforce.  

Moreover, a relative of a Shire employee asked that employee if the allegations were true.  The employee refused to respond and when pressed, simply walked away.   Make of that what you will.

Mr X says he resigned ‘due to personal health reasons’. But why pull the pin on a lucrative job when all you would normally need to do if in poor health is ask for leave?)

The oversized shed

I also raised in my email the issue of the oversized shed, providing the names and address of the lucky applicants.  I said my concern was that the shed ‘had been approved secretly under delegation to keep it out of the public eye’.

Mr X, I said, did in fact assure me that no such approval had been given, and did so in the presence of a witness, whom I named (and who will if necessary give evidence in court).  

As yet, nothing has happened to convince me that the application went before Council for approval in what used and ought to be the normal way.  

Mr X told me exactly as I recounted that no such application had been made and no such approval given.   The meeting at which he said that took place in the Shire office.  It commenced at 11.30 am on Tuesday 6 June 2017.  Later, I got double confirmation that what he had told me wasn’t true.  He claims I was wrong to accuse him of misleading me, or of lying.

I suppose it’s possible that for some obscure reason the application and its outcome had been hidden from Mr X as it was from the rest of us—but I think that would be very unlikely.

Witnesses

I made it clear in my email that if Mr X carries out his threat to sue me for defamation, I will not hesitate to subpoena as witnesses the young women alleged to have been upset by his alleged behaviour. 

If the allegations are true, I cannot believe that those young women would be willing to perjure themselves for the sake of Mr X. 

I will also subpoena the CEO and other staff who may have played a part in facilitating Mr X’s departure and all relevant documentation, including correspondence, file notes and notes of telephone conversations, if any, with the office of the Minister for Local Government and his Department.

And for good measure, just for the hell of it, I’ll subpoena Shire President Wallace.  I’m sure he was kept fully informed of whatever was going on.

The Shire’s reply, or ‘pop go the weasel words’

It turned out that the CEO was away on annual leave, so the task of responding to my email fell to Suzie Haslehurst as Acting CEO.

This was her reply, which arrived in my inbox on 22 December:

Further to your email regarding a letter received from Mr [X’s] lawyer, I can offer the following;

• Mr [X] resigned from his employment with the Shire of his own accord without any pressure or prompting from Paul Martin and there was no inappropriate use of a Shire vehicle, accommodation or any other Shire assets or resources by Mr [X].  No pressure was put on Shire staff.
• I understand the shed application you refer to was dealt with in the normal way in accordance with Shire practices and procedures.

Regards

Suzie Haslehurst

Acting Chief Executive Officer

That phrase ‘I can offer the following’ is a dead giveaway.  The email has ‘legal advice’ stamped all over it.  Roughly, it means ‘I’m going to tell you something that looks like the truth, and that may have truth in it, but it won’t be the whole truth, which I intend to obfuscate to the best of my ability because that’s what the Shire’s lawyers have instructed me to do’.

On the other hand, if the email was all Suzie’s own work, she’s in the wrong job.  She should join the Noble and Ancient Order of Pettifoggers and start dishing out legal advice instead of taking it.

Anyway, this (here slightly edited) was my response, dated the same day.

Thanks, Suzie.  I'm pleased (but not surprised) that the rumours concerning Paul Martin's involvement are untrue.

I'm still puzzled, though.

Saying that 'there was no inappropriate use of a Shire vehicle or other assets or resources' leaves wide open the question of what use the Shire would consider 'appropriate'.  To put the matter simply: are you saying that Mr [X] did not have access to a Shire vehicle and accommodation after leaving the Shire's employ, and that reports of his being seen driving a Shire-owned vehicle in Northam a couple of weeks later are untrue?

Mr X may well have resigned 'of his own accord', but does that mean that the allegations [made against him] are untrue?  By implication in a letter to David Taylor, the DLG has confirmed that such were indeed the circumstances surrounding his departure.

Finally, if the shed application in question was dealt with 'in the normal way', does that mean it was submitted to and approved by Council like previous oversized shed applications?  If it was, at what Council meeting was it approved?  Or does 'in the normal way' indicate that what's normal now is for such potentially contentious matters to be dealt with under delegation in order to avoid public scrutiny?

Regards and best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

My fourth paragraph is very imprecisely worded, so I’d better enlarge a little on my reference to the letter to David Taylor from the DLG, which actually wasn’t from the DLG but from the Local Government Minister’s Chief of Staff, Gary Hamley.

David reproduced Mr Hamley’s letter, dated 6 December 2017, in a recent post on his blog.   The rest of the post consists of David’s reply to Mr Hamley.

Mr Hamley’s letter appears to respond to David’s open letter, dated 9 November, to Mr Duncan Ord, Director General of the DLG.  Presumably, Mr Ord referred David’s letter to Minister Templeman.

David’s letter, as is usual with him, pulls no punches.  He makes no secret of what he believes Mr X to have done, what he thinks the Shire and other bodies ought to do about it, and what rather less satisfactory course of action the Shire will likely embark on instead.

And what does Mr Hamley say in reply?  Does he dispute David’s colourful account of what Mr X is alleged to have done?

No, he doesn’t.  This is what he says (emphasis added):

As you would be aware, the management of local government staff is the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), however, I am advised that the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries was aware of the matters you have raised and is informed that appropriate action has been taken by the CEO. 

Ah, that weasel word ‘appropriate’ again.  How would they manage without it?

Finally…

One thing I want to make very clear is that I have absolutely no personal animosity towards Mr X.  I met him only a couple of times, quite liked him, and formed the impression that he was good at his job.

It would give me real pleasure to find out that the allegations made against him are completely untrue, as he claims.  If that happens, I will cheerfully make an offer of amends as outlined in the concerns notice.

But until then, I’m not going to allow myself to be bullied into submission by a lawyer’s letter and concerns notice—not even by a writ.  I doubt Mr X will have any more luck with David Taylor.

I was going to disable comments for this post, but have changed my mind.  If you wish to comment, and feel you have to mention Mr X, please refer to him as that and not by his real name. 

Please note, though, that the primary target of this post is the Shire’s cover-up, not Mr X.  Did the CEO act ‘appropriately’?  If so, how?  If not, why? What did he actually do?

NOTE (added New Year's Day):  After consulting my better half—who as many of my readers will know is a paid up member of the Noble and Ancient Order of Pettifoggers—I’ve decided to remove some but not all of the comments to which Mr X, through his lawyer, has objected.

The four comments removed would tend to identify Mr X and to expose him—so to speak—to the world at large as one given to flourishing his flesh in what Suzie Haslehurst might describe as an ‘inappropriate context’.

Let the record show that I declined throughout to be swept up in what I regarded as a tsunami of moral outrage and calls for punishment.  That doesn’t mean I condone in any way what Mr X is alleged to have done.   

In my view, the alleged behaviour is to be thoroughly condemned but is so unfathomable in all the circumstances that it seems to call for therapy rather than a whipping.  At the same time, I understand and respect the opinions of others who view the situation differently.

I have not removed the comments from fear of legal action.  I shall not be taking up Mr X’s invitation to ‘make amends’.  If Mr X wishes to pursue these matters in court, I am willing to oblige him.  I shall be saying that to his lawyer.

Rather, I’ve removed the comments from motives of humanity and compassion.   I realized that if I didn’t remove them, they might follow Mr X around for the rest of his professional life—at any rate, every time he applied for a job.  What he is alleged to have done is bad, but my wife and I agree it doesn’t deserve a life sentence.

Besides, today is the beginning of what I hope will be a bright new year for everyone, including Mr X.  I just hope he is able to recover from whatever it is that ails him and to get his life back on track.

I apologise to readers whose comments I have deleted—especially to the one whose comment I deleted by accident and don’t know how to restore!

THE DOG’S BREAKFAST SYNDROME

A week ago, the West Australian carried an alarming story by Kate Emery headlined ‘Council rangers abused, spat on’. 

The story told of council officials going peacefully about their lawful business improving the public weal while copping filthy language, threats to life and limb, physical assaults and volleys of used saliva for their pains.

This appalling behaviour seems to have become commonplace throughout the metropolitan area. 

It has been directed not only at rangers but also at other local government officials—for example, members of the City of Fremantle’s ‘community safety team’ (27 incidents in 2016-17 including three of physical assault, suggesting that being a member of the city’s ‘safety team’ isn’t the safest job in Fremantle).

During the same period, the City of Vincent recorded six incidents of ‘ranger abuse’, three involving physical assault, while the Town of Mosman Park recorded 17 such incidents, in one of which a pole was thrown at a ranger while in another the ranger’s life was threatened.

My first reaction on reading Ms Emery’s story was one of gratitude that I live in the peaceful municipality of York, where so far as I know incidents of that kind are extremely rare if not entirely unknown.

My second was to wonder what causes some people to behave so atrociously towards innocent council employees. 

Is it a manifestation of the decay of civility in this godforsaken postmodern era, a process spurred on by displays of psychopathic violence and foul language in movies and on TV? 

Does it relate to the contempt for authority in all its forms that flows from the anarchic forces unleashed by social media?

Or might it, perhaps, have something to with the domineering attitude of some local government folk towards members of the public—the people who pay their wages and whom they are elected or appointed to serve?

Dog days in Mosman Park

The mention of Mosman Park brought to mind a report I read recently of a Town of Mosman Park council meeting.   The report, by David Hudlestone, was published in the Subiaco Post on 30 September last under the alluring headline ‘Dog owners savage ranger’. 

To cut a very long story short, the Mosman Park council had decided to ‘crack down’ on dog owners after an elderly lady hurt herself falling over an unleashed dog.  The mayor, Ron Norris, made it pretty clear during the meeting that the council had acted less out of concern for the wellbeing of frail old ladies than from a fear of costly litigation.

It appears that the ranger was enforcing the crackdown with a degree of zeal bordering on the bizarre and relying on powers that—so far as I know—municipal rangers don’t in fact possess.

 Not surprisingly, Mosman Park dog owners were outraged.  They turned up to the September council meeting in considerable numbers to complain about how the ranger was doing his job.

One resident described the ranger’s behaviour as ‘confrontational’.  The ranger had asked for information about his dog, then fined him $200.  

The complainant continued: ‘Naturally I objected to this as the dog was on the lead and then he said, “what’s your date of birth?” and that’s when I blew up’.

As the complainant walked off, the ranger shouted ‘Well, that’s another $400 for withholding information’.

A resident who told of having received three fines totalling $600 said the ranger had threatened to arrest her for refusing to give him her name and date of birth.

Another resident said that women in their eighties were walking their dogs at 5 am to stay out of the ranger’s way.  He added that the ranger ‘had all the people skills of an SS guard’ and accused him of hiding in the bushes and jumping out ‘on little old ladies and little old men’.

Yet others alleged that the ranger took video footage of people walking their dogs.  They wanted to know where the footage was kept.

To cap it all, the ranger was alleged by a witness to have parked his vehicle illegally in a dangerous position on a local street while confronting the resident mentioned above as having ‘blown up’ when asked for his date of birth.

Mayor Norris pointed out that the council had advertised its intention to enforce dog laws more strictly.  He said there had been a warning period before the crackdown was enforced.  However, he accepted residents' concerns about ‘the manner in which it is being applied’.

There is no indication, by the way, that residents were opposed in principle to council’s decision to enforce its dog policy more strictly—though they might not have been too happy about the size of the fines.  In my experience, most dog owners are responsible people who understand the need to keep their animals on a leash in public places.

What upset the dog enthusiasts of Mosman Park was the bullying attitude of the ranger, who if what residents alleged was true—as the mayor seems to have acknowledged—was hardly the kind of person to entrust with a position that would bring him into daily contact with the public.

‘Man, proud man, dress’d in a little brief authority…’

Unfortunately, his is only an extreme example of an attitude I’ve often encountered in dealing with public servants at various levels of government.   Too many such individuals mistakenly regard being a public servant as a mark of moral and intellectual superiority that sets them apart from the common ruck of humankind.

That’s no less true of holders of political office, many of whom tend to identify more closely with their colleagues, including their political opponents, than with the people whose interests they were elected to serve.

Underlying this phenomenon is a deep distrust of ordinary people. Often that distrust is mingled with contempt. 

I’ve heard politicians refer sarcastically to voters as ‘the punters’.  A friend of mine, formerly a senior public servant in Canberra, once countered my mildly libertarian stance on some forgotten topic by saying heatedly that ‘people need to be managed’. 

And who can forget the opinion of a certain shire president that allowing anyone other than a councillor to chair an advisory group would result in what he called ‘a dog’s breakfast’, i.e. a stuff-up or mess?

Cartoon © Judy Horacek from her cartoon collection Make Cakes Not War (Scribe Publications 2007)

NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

STOP PRESS 17 November 2017 Shire President Wallace tries to mend a fence with consolation prize of blooms and bubbly Gift and Travel Register Gift Contribution Register Click here to register contribution Gift Contribution Register  Name Description Name of Contributor Address of Contributor Date received Value Estimated Nature of relationship Cr Denese Smythe Bottle of champagne & bunch of flowers Cr David Wallace RMB 4029, Gwambygine WA 6302 24/10/2017 $34.00 Shire President & Deputy President

Rolling Denese

With considerable difficulty, I’ve managed to find out how Cr Denese Smythe was rolled as deputy shire president in favour of Cr Kevin Trent, a new kid on the block.

Cr Smythe had been led to believe (so I’m told) that the shire president would support her re-election.

It appears that another potential candidate for the position decided not to stand because the shire president had intimated his intention to support Denese.

Come the election, by pre-arrangement the three male councillors and one female voted for Cr Trent. 

So who was the woman who broke ranks, defying the claims of sisterhood?

Yes, I do know, but prefer not to say.  However, here’s a subtle clue, cryptic crossword style—‘By God’s grace neither Austen nor Doe, but in Rome an iron lady (4,5)’.

Sorry, my lips are sealed.  You’ll have to work it out for yourselves.

Shedding principle—again

Some readers may remember that in July and August of last year I published three articles concerning Council’s handling of an application to construct an oversized shed on a property in Lewis Road.

If you’re interested, you can read those articles in order of publication here, here and here.

In summary, I took issue with Council’s disregard of planning policy in relation to that application, arguing, among other things, that policy should be strictly adhered to in order to rule out the possibility or perception of favouritism and cronyism.

In the last of those articles, I cited several tribunal decisions generally supportive of my argument.

Subsequently, I scanned the minutes of successive Council meetings to see if further such applications had been approved.  I found nothing untoward, and foolishly assumed that Council had resolved in future to act according to established principle and the law.

How wrong I was. 

Earlier this year—I think it was in March or April—a disgruntled member of the public informed me that an application for an oversized shed on a property in Andrews Avenue had received Shire approval. 

When I pointed out that there had been nothing in the minutes to indicate anything of the kind, my informant accused me of naivety, saying that approval had been given under delegated authority at the behest of the shire president.  There was nothing in the minutes because the application had not gone before Council.

When I asked why the Shire had taken this course, my informant said it was to make sure that the matter ‘stayed out of the blogs’.

I wasn’t convinced.  I could not believe that a desire to avoid unwelcome publicity on social media would be likely to influence Council, the shire president or the Shire administration.

But a nagging doubt remained.

Fast forward to June, when I took part in a meeting on an unrelated matter with Paul Crewe, Executive Manager Infrastructure and Development Services.

At the end of the meeting, in the presence of a witness, I asked Mr Crewe if the Shire had approved under delegated authority an application for an oversized shed in Andrews Avenue.  He assured me it had not, adding gratuitously that the Shire was ‘wary’ of such applications.

This week, I have received what I consider impeccable confirmation that my informant was correct, and that Mr Crewe’s assurance was at best misleading and at worst an outright lie.

That being so, I’m forced to conclude that councillors (or at any rate the shire president) and Shire officers set out deliberately to conceal a decision that might have attracted adverse criticism if made public.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn’t the only instance of such concealment.  Who knows, perhaps other planning and building decisions have been similarly withheld for similar reasons from the public gaze.

As I’m fond of saying—not that anybody listens—secrecy in government is the first step on the path to corruption. 

It’s also a surefire way to arouse distrust and contempt on the part of the governed, when as inevitably happens in a democracy government secrets crawl or are winkled out and exposed to public view.

Poetry Corner revisited

My close friend Rollo Barker and several anonymous correspondents have insisted that the poem published with my previous post under the heading ‘Poetry Corner’ should be moved to a more prominent position on the blog. So I’m giving it a second airing here and have removed it from its former location.

The poet, larrikin laureate Harry Hogg, has tinkered a bit with the text.  What you see below is the definitive version that will appear in the revised edition of his best-selling collection Tall Tales of the Wheatbelt (Bogside Books, pp. 800, illustrated, available for $1.25 from adult bookstores and under the counter at most rural newsagents). He has reminded me this time to include the poem’s title.

Mr Hogg assures me that any resemblance to any person or persons living, dead, undead or merely comatose is entirely coincidental.

Song of the Canine Matutinal Repast: or, A Dog’s Breakfast Ditty

As night descended slowly over city, town and bush,

From a farm in York’s back garden strode the Captain of the Push.

He gazed upon us yokels, and his voice rang loud and true,

Saying “Listen up, you mongrels, ‘cause I’m just the man for you.

When perched upon my mother’s knee, a tiny little tot,

I knew that I was born to rule you miserable lot.

Now destiny has smiled on me, and proved that I was meant

Come light or dark to make my mark as shire president.

Gone are the days of fear and fright, when Hooper reigned supreme,

And all Fitz Gerald’s nasty tales are just an ugly dream.

Onward we’ll go and upward, you can join me in that caper,

I’ve made York famous, even got my photo in the paper.

I know that I’m not perfect, I admit that it’s a fact

I’m really not full bottle on the Local Government Act.

Never mind, there’s Paul to help me when my stream of thought runs dry,

That man’s a bloody marvel, always knows what’s right and why.”

On the day of the election, from the town and from the bush

Nigh on six hundred voters chose the Captain of the Push,

And many also voted for his two anointed mates,

Ignoring other candidates concerned about the rates.

Returned as shire president, the Captain is ecstatic,

The wisdom of the voters was decisive and emphatic:

He has a brand new deputy, and knows that yet again

He’ll enjoy the adulation of the lovely Lady Jane.

So the dogs have had their breakfast, and the voters sit at home,

While the Captain takes his orders from a famous garden gnome,

And they’re cursing James the Blogger for his rude audacious joke

About our dear shire president—a most impressive bloke!

Harry ‘Hayseed’ Hogg

(apologies to Henry Lawson)

MEETING THE CANDIDATES

STOP PRESS

Fallen—or Pushed?

Paul Crewe, Executive Manager, Infrastructure and Development Services, has left the Shire’s employ after filling the position for not much more than a year. 

His departure seems to have been unusually abrupt.

31 October 2017

MORE BREAKING NEWS…

David Wallace has been re-elected to the position of Shire President.

The new Deputy Shire President is Kevin Trent.

Congratulations to both.

At their first meeting yesterday, councillors elected David Wallace unopposed.  The deputy's position was contested by Kevin and Denese Smythe, with Kevin winning by 4 votes to 3.  The vote was by secret ballot, i.e. according to the rules, which suggests that previous elections for the position that were decided by a show of hands were very likely invalid.  

(Regarding the conduct of such elections, see Schedule 2.3 of the Local Government Act 1995.)

So I've no idea who voted for whom. 

25 October 2017

An afterthought (30 October 2017):  As mentioned above, Kevin Trent won the deputy president's position by 4 votes to 3. The council consists of 4 women (Ferro, Heaton, Saint and Smythe) and 3 men. Assuming that the men all voted the same way (which might not be the case) it must follow that one of the women voted for Kevin.

It’s possible (though highly unlikely) that one of the men voted for Denese, in which case two of the women would have voted for Kevin.  Of course there are other conceivable permutations, but I think they lie beyond the bounds of probability and need not trouble us.

Because the election was by secret ballot, we'll almost certainly never know which woman (or women) voted for 'one of the boys'.  I have a hunch, based on information from a reputable source, but I don’t intend to share it.  I wouldn’t want to embarrass the lady in question.

 

BREAKING NEWS…

Results of the Shire election

Candidate                        Votes

David Wallace                 562  (Elected)

Kevin Trent                     375  (Elected)

Denis Warnick                349  (Elected)

Trevor Randell               247

Sharon MacDonald        203

David Taylor                 133

Tricia Walters               112

Congratulations to the successful candidates, commiserations to the others.

And thanks to all candidates for entering the fray and to all those who took the trouble to vote in this important election.             

22 October 2017

BREAKING NEWS…

Proposed Allawuna landfill

DWER received 150 submissions. 

Some were signed by more than one person.  One submission contained around 100 signatures. Each signature will count as a separate submission.

The final number of submissions, along with a summary of them, will be attached to the report of the Minister’s decision.

Well done, the people of York.

19 October 2017

 So, how did the meeting go?

Six of the seven candidates turned up to face an attentive audience of an estimated 45 to 50 electors.  The absent candidate was Cr Trevor Randell, who submitted an apology. 

I think most of us were sadly disappointed that Cr Randell had pressing commitments elsewhere.  I for one would like to have asked him if he has changed his mind about a rubbish-led recovery for York, now that his friends are no longer likely to be involved in it.

The audience included three sitting councillors, Heather Saint, Pam Heaton and Jane Ferro.

The meeting began with former shire president Pat Hooper, one of the principal architects of York’s current financial misfortunes, launching into an impassioned monologue in defence of his monumental legacy, the YRCC.

This had very little to do with the declared purpose of the meeting, but Keith Schekkerman as chairman generously allowed Pat to orate unchecked for what seemed like an eternity but was probably less than five minutes.

In passing, Pat made joking reference to somebody having christened the centre the Taj Mahal.  This was of course inaccurate.  The name actually given was Splurj Mahal, a play on the English word ‘splurge’, meaning to spend extravagantly, while mahal is a Persian word of Arabic origin that means ‘palace’ or ‘mansion’.

Tourists shopping in Bali will probably have encountered the related Malay/Indonesian word mahal (‘dear, costly’), perhaps in the phrase terlalu mahal, ‘too expensive’. 

Pat would have had no reason to know any of that, so I’m happy to pardon his mistake.

Presentations

Responding to an opening question from the chairman, every candidate affirmed opposition to the proposed siting of a landfill at Allawuna.  That was excellent news for all of us.

On the whole, candidates in their presentations added little to what they had told us in their published election material. 

Kevin Trent, who was first off the block, mentioned that he is a retired road planner with experience in town planning.  He alluded to the need for improved footpaths and drainage in York. 

Kevin expressed concern for the failing bladders of the elderly, repeating his thoughtful desire to see a public convenience installed in Avon Terrace, presumably so that that old fogies like me, when taken short while shopping, aren’t compelled to engage in an undignified sprint down to the toilets in Avon Park.

Next came David Taylor.  I was in the front row directly facing the candidates, so I was able to hear his every word, but others have told me they had difficulty in hearing him because he wasn’t speaking loudly enough.  

That’s a pity, because what he said, especially about shire finances and auditing, was well worth hearing.  Luckily, he has published the full text of his presentation on the other blog. 

I was particularly struck by David’s advocacy of a system of advisory committees rather than the current feebler system of ‘advisory groups’ to help Council in coming to important decisions, and by the scope and depth of his interest in the auditing of shire finances.

If elected, he will call on the Shire to explain why it won’t try to fix past financial mistakes other than by thrusting its hands ever more deeply into ratepayers’ pockets.

Cr Heaton asked David whether, if elected, he would continue writing for the other blog.  He replied that he wouldn’t, because if he were elected, there would be no need. 

I think he was being unduly optimistic about that, but if the need doesn’t go away, he will be welcome to contribute to this one—at any rate, for so long as this blog remains in operation, which it may not for very much longer.

Cr Tricia Walters was by any reckoning the star of the evening.  She spoke clearly, rationally and eloquently in favour of local government transparency, restraint in spending and more open communication between government and the governed.   

Trish argued for closer scrutiny by councillors of the Shire’s budget proposals, an exercise, she said, in which she had received no support or cooperation from her colleagues on Council.

Many in the audience might have been disturbed to learn from her of the restrictions currently imposed on debate at council meetings and when councillors meet among themselves to discuss agenda items.  No less disturbing are those imposed on councillors’ communication as individuals with the public.

By the way, someone has told me that it was the public-spirited Cr Walters, not AVRA, who paid for the hire of the hall and the tea, coffee and biscuits on offer.  If so, it would appear that AVRA has run out of money to fund such events.

Sharon MacDonald followed Trish.  She is well known in York as our local postmistress.  She referred to her considerable management experience, describing herself as a ‘quiet achiever’. 

Sharon made no election promises other than to say that if elected, she would listen to the community and be ‘open and accountable’ in performing her duties as a councillor.

Denis Warnick, a dark horse in this race, revealed that he has an honours degree in environmental science from UWA.  He spoke well and presented his views cogently and concisely.

As a local livestock agent, Denis presumably has close ties with the farming community.   I had the impression that Cr Wallace may have encouraged him to throw his hat in the ring.

Denis spoke of promoting population growth by developing tourism and agriculture and attracting young families to the town.

He suggested that the Shire should take greater advantage of the power of social media,  ‘reduce red tape’ and ‘speed up processes’ to encourage such development. 

He said he would make no promise to support a reduction in rates, which I took, perhaps wrongly, as an indication that he would be unlikely to join Cr Walters in seeking out possible cuts in expenditure when reviewing the annual budget.

Finally, Cr David Wallace took the floor.  He told us he was born in York in 1968 into a long-established York family and runs the family farm.  He has served on Council for the last four years, for two of those years as shire president.  

David said that a vote for him would be a vote for good governance and stability on Council.  He stressed that he is always available to meet with members of the public to discuss Shire issues and affairs.

Questions

Before the meeting, I handed Keith Schekkerman a printed copy of the questions I hoped to raise with the candidates.  They were virtually identical with those displayed in my previous post. 

I also placed a copy for each candidate on the table at which they would sit.

Someone has written in a comment under my previous post that Keith stopped me from speaking.  That isn’t quite true. 

What is true is that he manifested from time to time a considerable reluctance to let me speak.  That isn’t my opinion only.   Other members of the audience noticed it too, contrasting it with the indulgence he had displayed earlier towards the redoubtable Pat Hooper, author of the notorious ‘minority report’.

Leaving aside that my questions were carefully framed and based on statistical research, I had no special reason to be thus indulged.  So I’m not complaining, merely reporting an observation.

However, I did get to ask my first question in full, the one asking why York’s rates are so high compared with those of some metropolitan councils offering superior amenity, and what steps candidates would take, if elected, to lessen the financial burden imposed on what the 2016 Census shows is a relatively impoverished community. 

Some of the answers surprised me.  Kevin, speaking from a wealth of local government experience, claimed that one can’t compare different local government areas. 

In many respects, that may well be true, but it seems reasonable to make such comparisons when rating disparities are outrageously high compared with the levels of amenity and service provided.  

David Taylor remarked that York councils have made ‘massive financial mistakes’ for which ratepayers are picking up the tab.  I suspect he had in the forefront of his mind costs associated with the YRCC, which for most of the evening remained the white elephant in the room.

Trish reminded us that Landgate doesn’t set the rates, as is often supposed.  It’s the Council that sets them in response to the exigencies of the Shire’s budget. 

Landgate only determines the Gross Rental Value (GRV) of residential properties and the Unimproved Value (UV) of rural land.  What you pay as rates is a percentage, determined by Council, of GRV or UV expressed as cents in the dollar.

It was Trish’s view that Council could reduce rates by adopting a more critical approach to asset planning and cutting back spending on services that lose money.  Again, I suspect she may have had the YRCC principally in mind.

David Wallace, who apparently had paid little or no attention to anything Trish had said, did his best to throw the blame back on Landgate, while Denis, having expressed agreement with the premise of my question, remarked that the Shire provides ‘a good level of service’—which wasn’t in dispute.

I didn’t get to ask my second question, about employee costs, but was able to introduce its main elements as a point of information. 

Somebody else—I think it was Pat Hooper—asked a question about the YRCC, which in Keith’s opinion (but not mine) rendered my third question superfluous.  Pat said, without addressing the issue of competitive neutrality, that the bar and kitchen should be run by the sporting clubs.  (I agree, so long as the Shire ceases paying for operating costs and subsidizing the cost of food and drink.)

Pat also suggested—either at this point or during his earlier effusion—that the YRCC should function as a community centre.  Kevin agreed with him, on condition that it must be managed correctly, adding that the Shire should hang on to the bar and café.

I did manage to squeeze in two further questions.  The first was ‘What do you regard as the most important aspects of a councillor’s role as defined in the Local Government Act 1995, and why?’ 

Kevin replied that the most important aspect was communicating with the public.  As I recall—I wasn’t taking notes at this point—other candidates agreed with him, as do I. 

Cr Wallace grumbled about the question, saying that it would need to be googled.  I responded, somewhat severely, to the effect that candidates for elected office ought to know what it is they are supposed, if elected, to do.

My final question was about the desirability of a ward system in York, where councillors would each represent electors in a particular district.  I don’t think there was much enthusiasm for the idea, but I still think it’s a good one that would make councillors more accessible to the public and more likely to communicate with the people they represent.

I’ll finish by congratulating Jenny McColl of Oringa Park on her eloquent reminder of the threat posed to local farms by the renewed prospect of a landfill at Allawuna.  I hope she has shared her fears and opinions with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.