THE
YORK COMMUNITY v. THE SHIRE OF YORK COMMISSIONER
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT LAW
Any public officer who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse -
…(c) acts corruptly in the performance or discharge of the functions of
his office or employment, so as to gain a benefit, whether pecuniary or
otherwise, for any person, or so as to cause a detriment, whether pecuniary or
otherwise, is guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
Criminal Code of Western
Australia: Section 83
The word ‘corruptly’ is not defined in the Code. It is to be given its ordinary meaning
which, in my opinion, when one is concerned with the quality of the act or
omission which is said to be corrupt, will involve the notion that there has
been a dereliction of duty, an element of fault, some perversion of the proper
performance of the duties of office…If the misconduct of that kind is performed
by the accused for the purpose of gaining a benefit or causing a detriment, and
the misconduct is without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse, then the
offence of corruption, defined by section 83 of the code, will have been
established.
Murray J. The State of Western Australia v Burke
[No.3] [2010] WASC 110, p. 22
[Section 83] is to be read and understood to make criminal an act
undertaken by a public officer, which could include an act which is ordinarily
properly performed by that officer in the conduct of his duties, but which is a
corrupt act because it is performed for the purpose of gaining a benefit or
causing a detriment…
Rowland J. The State of Western Australia v Burke
[No.3] [2010] WASC 110, p.22-23
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
1.
The accused was at all material
times the holder of a public office, namely, Commissioner of the Shire of York,
to which office he was appointed on or about 8 January 2015, for a period of 6
months, by the Minister for Local Government, Hon. Tony Simpson.
2.
The purpose of his appointment
was to perform, in accordance with Section 2.38 of the Local Government Act
1995 as amended, the duties of the Shire of York Council, the Minister having
suspended the council for the said period of 6 months on the grounds that it
was dysfunctional.
3.
It is alleged that throughout
his period of office, the accused failed to establish such a relationship of
trust and mutual respect with the York community as the satisfactory
performance of his duties might be deemed to require; and further, that he has
developed and at times expressed a hostile attitude towards the York community,
which has collectively refused to embrace and take part in his ‘visioning’ and
‘ideation’ workshops.
4.
It is alleged that among the
few friends the accused made in York during his sojourn in the shire were a
business couple, Richard and Nola Bliss of Faversham House.
5.
Mr. and Mrs Bliss were at all
material times the owners of a property in York known as the Old Convent School,
otherwise known as ‘Chalkies’, situated at Lots 800-801 South Street, York.
6.
It is alleged that the accused
facilitated the re-opening of the York Palace Hotel, also owned by Mr. and Mrs
Bliss, by waiving or causing to be waived certain planning requirements, in
particular the requirement to provide disabled access from Avon Terrace.
7.
It is alleged that the accused decided to assist Mr. and Mrs Bliss in their business affairs by purchasing the
Old Convent School for the Shire for the sum of $625,000, which sum would be
raised by means of a loan from the State Government Treasury.
8.
The proposed purchase and
purchase price were listed as a ‘new item’ in the Annual Budget for 2015-16
under the misleading description ‘Town Square – Purchase and development’. However, it is clear that the money is
to be used for purchase of the property only, and that none of the money loaned
will be available for development.
9.
It is alleged that the purchase
price as agreed between the accused and Mr. and Mrs Bliss exceeds by a
considerable amount the current market value of the property.
10. It is alleged that the purchase of this property by the Shire will
bring no benefit to the ratepayers and residents of the Shire of York but is intended
mainly to confer a financial benefit on Mr. and Mrs Bliss, contrary to section
83 of the WA Criminal Code.
11. It is alleged that the accused deliberately set out to thwart the
elected Council, due to return to office at the beginning of July, in the
knowledge that said Council would not assent to the purchase of the property or
to any proposed development of a town square as ‘envisioned’ by him.
12. It is further alleged that the accused is aware that the said
purchase will cause a detriment to the ratepayers of York by imposing on them
the obligation to repay the sum borrowed at a statutory rate of interest, at a
time when the York community can ill afford to waste money on fruitless and grandiose
schemes. The community will lose
rates previously levied on the property and will have to pay for its upkeep and
further development, if any such development occurs.
CHARGE TO THE JURY
As jurors in the Court of Community
Opinion, you are charged that without fear, favour or prejudice, and by the
application of commonsense, you are to decide as to the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
Remember that Mr. and Mrs Bliss are not on
trial. They are not public
officers and cannot therefore be guilty of an offence against section 83 of the
Criminal Code.
We await the outcome of your deliberations.
Meanwhile, usher, take him down.
Sneaky or what? The property to be purchased isn't mentioned. The description 'Town Square - Purchase and Development' is misleading - $625K will only cover 'purchase', there's nothing left over for 'development'.
NEWSFLASH - URGENT
The petition below requires at least 100 signatures to be effective.
It must be served on the Commissioner no later than Monday 29 June 2015.
Copies of the petition are available at Settler's Gift Shop and at the newsagent's, both in Avon Terrace.
Settlers' Gift Shop will be open from 10 am until 5 pm over the weekend.
If you are an elector concerned about recent 'Council' decisions regarding the Annual Budget for financial year 2015/2016, please make every effort to sign the petition.
Form 1
[reg. 16]
Local Government Act 1995
Local Government (Administration)
Regulations 1996
REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL MEETING
OF ELECTORS
TO: The President (Commissioner) of Shire of York Western
Australia
1... Under
section 5.28 of the Local Government
Act 1995, the electors of (3) York Western Australia whose
names, addresses and signatures are set out in the attached list and who
comprise (1) 100 electors/5% of the number of electors request that
a special meeting of the electors of the district be held.
2. .. The
details of the matter to be discussed at the special meeting are —
·
The Shire of York Annual Budget
2015/16.
·
Purchase of Lots 800 and 801 South
Street York WA.
·
Borrowing $625,000 to fund the
purchase of Lots 800 and 801 South Street York.
........ ......................................................................................................................
........ ......................................................................................................................
........ ......................................................................................................................
........ ......................................................................................................................
........ ......................................................................................................................
........ ......................................................................................................................
........ ......................................................................................................................
........ ......................................................................................................................
3... This
request is served on behalf of the listed signatories by —
Name:.... .................................................................................................
Signature:
...........................................................................................
Contact details: ...................................................................................
Date:
Monday
29 June 2015
NEWSFLASH
260 signatures were collected. The petition was handed to the Acting CEO this morning. I'm told he seemed surprised to get it - silly man, he's obviously not keeping up with the blogs!
Kommissar Best was out of town.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGuilty
ReplyDeleteI think you will find s409 could be included. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY......
ReplyDeleteI think the Bliss are guilty, greed is what started this rot.The Blisses made a business decision good or bad as business people you take the good times with the bad.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm splitting hairs, but it seems to me there is a moral difference between, on the one hand, two people pursuing their own financial interests without breaking the law, and on the other, a public officer using public money to do them a favour, which is what is alleged against him and is definitely contrary to law.
DeleteWe might not consider the actions of those two people public-spirited or in the community interest, but in my opinion that is the sole basis on which we could condemn them. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe Mr and Mrs Bliss have broken the law. The conundrum here is ethical, not legal. If they are 'guilty', it is not of a crime.
The question we need to ask ourselves is whether, in the same situation with the same opportunities, we would have acted in the same way. I hope and believe I wouldn't have, but I'm painfully aware that self-interest seems to be hard-wired into the human psyche, though not in everyone to the same degree.
The question of guilt of Mr and Mrs Bliss would need questions to be answered.
DeleteIf they gave a favour in return to the public officer for his favour to them. If the answer is yes, they are guilty.
SJEaE
True, Anonymous 27 June 2015 at 01:17. Perhaps the favour was mutual. Then no-one is innocent. Now what if the first favour was to make it easy to reopen The York Palace Hotel. But that was a favour to the town as well, because the place has been pretty dead for a while. Still is, but at least one less venue or shop is shut. Then the next favour: JB wants 'honour and glory' for his work in York, for instance. In return, and to their own advantage to boot, the sellers of 800 and 801 get a reprieve from their debts or costs, whichever it be. But then the Ratepayers get a huge debt. Maybe JB doesn't get so much 'honour and glory' as he hoped (or any at all) because of that, and maybe the ex-"Chalkies" lose customers. Oh my, what a viscious circle.
DeleteDoes anyone know where the stench is coming from that appears to be permeating the York Recreation and Convention Centre?
ReplyDeleteCould it be the stench of incompetence, corruption and deceit?
DeleteOr just the sewage?
Could be sewerage James, I believe it doesn't run up hill very well.
DeleteIs it correct the Shire of York tried to save money by placing pipes under where heavy vehicles drive and the pipes ruptured under the weight of those vehicles?
Has any one seen the plumbing plans for the YRCC building?
I won't be a customer of the York Palace after this grubby deal.
DeleteTalking of the Wreck Centre we still don't know how much this debacle cost the community, suppose The Project Officer is to busy now being the A/DCEO, funny that you can ring any other Shire and they can tell you the exact amount over the phone of their major constructions and it is written in their budgets, but hey we are talking York here! Maybe we could approach one of the TV stations getting a bit sick of cooking shows they could do Uncovered Councils or Local Government the naked truth or My Boss in Local Government promoted me above my capabilities now that's a show.
DeleteI hate those reality shows but hey, you are spot on with this idea. I would seriously consider becoming a convert to reality shows if those two hit the screens.
DeleteThe majority of Australians would be glued to the TV if they ran 'uncovered Council Administrations' and I love the idea of Local Government the Naked Truth - that would be a ripper of a series.
Don't think I could handle 'My Boss in LG' - I am still having nightmares about Ray Hooper!
The idea could become a money spinner for you Ho Hum - go talk to Channel 7 ASAP.
HO HUM - this is worth watching: http://captiongenerator.com/29649/Poor-Ray
DeleteYes but I will give it a miss Anonymous 1:15 and yes I have seen it Anonymous 1:26 very clever little portrayal of Ray
DeleteThank you Ho Hum
ReplyDelete409 (1 c) gains a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person;
or (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to any person; or.....
is guilty of a crime and is liable —
(g) if the person deceived is of or over the age of 60 years,
to imprisonment for 10 years; or
(h) in any other case, to imprisonment for 7 years.
Now there's a thing: some of us deceived are over 60 and some under 60 (what a headache to calculate proportionally)
Alternative offence: s. 378, 414 or 417.
Summary conviction penalty (subject to subsection (2)):
(a) in a case to which paragraph (g) applies:
imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of $36 000; or
(b) in a case to which paragraph (h) applies:
imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.
(2) If the value of —
(a) property obtained or delivered; or
(b) a benefit gained or a detriment caused;
is more than $10 000 the charge is not to be dealt with
summarily.
On the other hand, the acts may have been unprincipled rather than criminal. Still doesn't make us happy, or renew our faith in 'the powers that be'. Not the 'implanted' ones, anyway, or their bosses.
Now this is noteworthy:
(3) It is immaterial that the accused person intended to give value
for the property obtained or delivered, or the benefit gained, or
the detriment caused.
Your Welcome. There's a few more little wonders that will come to light shortly.
DeleteThe Issue is yes it is a nice thought to maybe have a Public Square, it is also a nice point that the Visitors Centre could be housed in the property 800-801 South St. It also may be nice to extend Peace Park into the car park of the property. but what are the objectives? Is it to rehouse the Visitors Centre? Is it to make the park bigger? Is it to create at Town Square?
ReplyDeleteOops hang on a second, could the Visitors Centre be relocated to some where else on the main street? ahhhhhh what other properties are available on the main street?
Is the park big enough could we get another park happening to give more recreational area, lets say on the other side of the bridge along and behind the Old Yorkies Coffee Carriage?
Last but not least a town square there is a huge ugly block of land that sits in our main street how much is that undeveloped block of land ?
All these questions aside because they could all be good ideas, what I think most are angry about is where the hell was public consultation on this purchase? Its already written in to the budget for petes sake. I talked today with a person and what they were missing is MR BEST and The SHIRE of YORK work for us, again decisions are being made without proper consultation with the COMMUNITY.
Where are the options, yes it may be a good idea but it also may be a better idea to buy a property in the main street for the visitors centre, has a tender gone out? Do we want a bigger Peace Park? Do we want a new or another park? What kind of Town Square do we want? I looked up Town Square and most Town Squares I know are a maze of concrete and pavers?
lastly do you want the Shire of York to keep making decisions when they are supposed to consult the community.
This is what happens when there is no communication and James Best please don't tell me you consulted at any one of your groups about this as I have a friend who always takes notes and there is a blank on Town Square and quite frankly 6 people at an average meeting doesn't express the thoughts of a community.
My friend also tells me Town Square is not in their notes from the meeting at the Castle Hotel either.
It may be a good idea people, but letting the SOY and James Best act autonomously without going through the proper channels may be ok this time because you consider it doesn't affect you, but one day not following the rules will.
Yes, HO HUM, there is another building for sale in the main street.
ReplyDeleteThe Shire may like to also consider purchasing what was known as Saint's Diner. Now that would be a very nice thing for the Shire of York to do wouldn't it. There is way more justification for that deal than the one Best has done with Bliss under cover of darkness.
I always thought Town squares were in the centre of a Town - not in a back street.
Precisely
DeleteNot a good idea to have a park the other side of the bridge - near Yorkies carriage.
ReplyDeleteWhen the power failed (and a seal failed at the same time) several years ago, there was a water fall of sewerage running down from the corner pumping station through the car park of Yorkies and into the river.
Yes you are quite correct Ho Hum - there was no consultation with the community, the Shire thought they had buried it deep in the financials, fortunately some diligent person saw it and sent out the SOS alerting residents, which is why a number of people were collecting signatures today in the CBD calling for an Electors meeting.
ReplyDeleteSeems Mr. Best's forgot to talk this over with anyone but Mr. & Mrs. Bliss. Not even a whiff of it at the visioning forums.
Best is on a roll playing dictator, where the hell do these people come from?
I suspect the Blisses may have been on that list of important people Best was told to contact on arrival. Is this how they managed to open the York Palace without complying with disable access?
I put this information on the other blogspot but want to be sure everyone sees it so am submitting it here, as well.
ReplyDeleteThis afternoon, Richard Bliss confirmed Chalkies has been for sale for a couple of years. Re A. Business’s list of reasons - supposedly put forward by Mr Best at different times as to why he had to act without community consultation, then disregarding strong opposition to the proposal once it became public at the Special Meeting Thursday evening (which very few residents knew about) - where are all these other phantom buyers? Were they hiding in the wings for the past couple of years, just waiting for the Shire to offer more than anyone else has been prepared to offer?
Mr Bliss told me we should ask him and Mrs Bliss upfront for clarity about matters rather than make up 'stories' (eg, the Economic Development breakfast they hosted). So I decided to take him up on this offer and asked what he paid for the property, when they purchased it, had it been officially valued for the Shire and (when he responded ‘yes’), how long ago. There was an initial refusal to answer my first question (Richard asked me when I last had a shower!), but eventually some figures were forthcoming. All I’ll say here is that the Blisses are receiving more than they paid approximately 3-4 years ago. Considering the value of real estate over this time period, is it reasonable to accept that values for property in York have increased?!? Somehow, I don’t think so, unless there have been some very significant improvements on the property to increase its value….
Oh, by the way, the valuation was done by a Bank - described as a very conservative valuation as Mr Bliss said we know banks do. Well, not from my understanding of banks when they're looking to do business / offer mortgages or loans. They actually inflate the values so you can borrow more money against their valuations of properties you already own.
I’m so glad Mr Bliss came into the gift shop today, even though he wasn’t in the most pleasant frames of mind….
If you haven’t already signed the petition for a Special Meeting to be called in the near future so we can bring this matter to the attention of all the residents. I urge everyone to go to Pert’s Pantry between 9 and 4 or to Settlers’ Gift Shop between 10 and 5 to add your name to the growing lists.
In my experience, a bank valuation, conservative or otherwise, may not be particularly reliable.
DeleteThe only valuation that matters is a sworn valuation from a licensed valuer.
Did the shire get such a valuation? If so, was it issued within the last 6 months, as I believe the law requires?
Most of us will be surprised to learn that the value of any York property has increased over the past 3 or 4 years. If so, it is certainly bucking the local trend, which seems to have gone consistently 'down, down' like the big red hand from Coles.
Yes, James. That issue about the sworn valuation cf. a bank one; could be v. important.
DeleteShow us the sworn valuation Mr. Best - it's called duty of care. It us who will be paying for your decision!
DeleteAnonymous 4:47 I went for a small walk on the internet it seems there a quite a few property's for sale that could be utilised and some a darn site cheaper even more practical and I believe some even Historical.
ReplyDelete155 Avon -The Old Bank/Morgue $ 449,000 Wow now that's got a great room for a visitors centre and offices to boot.
152 Avon - The Old Backpakers $650,000 I'm sure they would negotiate for a sale. possibilities for further expansion and rental there.
161 Avon - A lovely house on the corner of Pool and Avon $525,000 doesn't look like it needs any work.
91/93 Avon - Old Sargents Pharmacy $529,500 my goodness are we all not wanting something to be in that beautiful building and what a position for a Visitors Centre.
166 Avon - $ 199,000 yes I know in its current state not good but for that price there is room for re development. James Best was keen on Development at the Castle Hotel Meeting I hear.
Saints Diner - Avon - as you mention is for sale I don't know how much for but it has historical value being the Old Ambulance Station it is in a good position next to the CRC and backs on to Peace Park.
Last but not least what about that eye saw vacant block on the corner of South and Avon I believe that is for sale. or even better still is one of those blocks (60) of land that the Shire already own I am told James Best talked about at the Castle Hotel Meeting and agreed they needed to push for development ?
How about the people that own property on the main street or it seems close to that if a proper tender went out or there had of been better consultation may have the perfect property and at the right price. Just a bit Deceitful of James Best I think.
Anonymous 4:50 That's precisely why we need public consultation, I was not aware of that event, in saying that I used the park behind Yorkies as an example of talking to the Community not acting autonomously as it seems James Best has.
ReplyDeleteIts astonishing that the same Council used our recourses to close one particular business(s) down because it had an immense dislike for the operator(s), yet it will use the same resources to bail out a business who's operator it likes. Doesn't make any sense, I question how any of these actions are in the best interest of the community.
ReplyDeleteHO HUM 27 June 2015 at 07:06, a great systematic look at what is available. Glad someone put this up. I myself was thinking that the Old Sargent's Pharmacy would be good. It is right near the CRC and makes sense that two similar-but-different businesses could be near each other. Tourist buses already park opposite there, so it is handy. If the vacant block opposite were bought for a Town Square, the owner of both (same man) would 'make a killing'. Trouble is that to buy both would be unaffordable. But if the Town Square is the main thing we want and the Town Hall could still be the Visitor Centre (albeit renovated to be more efficient) then the Town Square on the empty block referred to would still be good. Its owner is showing no signs of doing anything with it and we are just being 'held to ransom' by it. Back when we had really good classical music festivals bienially and great Jazz Festivals Annually that area was all (and the block between it and Shell) used for pop-up stalls, bouncy castle etc...
ReplyDeleteIts too small. If your going to invest mega bucks into a new visitor centre do it once and do it well I say.
DeleteI think we need something for visitors to do before we worry about a new centre anyway.
Information is free and there is no return on visitor centres.
And do we want the shire running it?
Yes, lets have the Town Square in the centre of Town, like in Avon Terrace. The block (now fenced off) Cr. South and Avon Terrace was another dodgy deal conducted in the shadows behind closed doors. That block would make a fantastic Town Square and the Historic Sargents Pharmacy would be a more appropriate position for a Tourist Information centre.
ReplyDeleteWhy not ask the locals what is best for them Mr. Best instead of you popping into our Town, not knowing anything, but deciding our future for us. Not good enough.
At the Ordinary Council Meeting on the 22nd of June 2015 some one asked the question what does PPR stand for or mean James Best answered that it was the consultants,PPR Professional Public Relations on the night of the Castle Hotel Meeting on the 23rd of June 2015 we got to meet Tim Larcombe Senior Counsel PPR, here is a bit about him taken from their web site.
ReplyDeleteTim has managed communications for a number of high-profile and politically sensitive events. These include for Alinta Energy following the Varanas Island gas explosion, for Canal Rocks Pty Ltd during the Corruption and Crime Commission investigation into the large-scale Smith’s Beach tourist development, and for King Edward Memorial Hospital during a period which included government and coronial inquiries.
Prior to joining PPR, Tim was Public Affairs Manager for INPEX, operator of the Ichthys LNG Project. Tim was instrumental in designing and implementing the company’s successful community and media relations programs during the critical period of formal environmental assessment.
On PPR's website, Tim Larcombe is described as 'senior counsel'. Now, a very good friend of mine is a 'senior counsel' - a very high honour conferred upon (not assumed by) lawyers and usually based on many years of outstanding practice of law.
DeleteI wonder when the public relations racket filched the designation, presumably to make their tawdry business look 'professional', which like many business activities described as professional nowadays it most certainly isn't.
Ask yourselves what 'managing communications' really means. Another term that describes it is 'spin', a form of dishonesty that involves twisting the facts to make your 'clients' look better than they deserve.
You can see examples of spin every fortnight on the 'Voice of York' page of YDCM.
No offence intended, Mr Larcombe, just a sociological observation on an aspect of life in the postmodern era.
I did take note that PPR (for which we residents are again paying) was called in when JB couldn’t make any progress in the way he was ‘handling’ the envisioning groups. It was pointed out to me by someone who had attended some of those go-nowhere ‘envisioinings’ that there was no mention of the ideas they put forward in the chart created as the ‘draft action plan’ for the Business Development Workshop held at the Castle Hotel on the 23rd.. Only input from the York Business Breakfast on 5th May was included – both workshops run by Tim from PPR, by the way. JB was the scribe on the 23rd, bursting at the seams with pride over how the workshop buzzed under Tim’s guidance! At the time (I was invited and did attend the BDW on the 23rd), it became apparent that JB’s skills as a consultant – whatever they are supposed to be – don’t extend to successfully running workshops so someone had to be called in (and paid!) to bail him out. I’m sure PPR will add the dire situation in York to their credits!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I understand a public relations firm has been writing “The Voice of York” in our Community Matters for JB. If you go back and read them, you may think it sounds like a public relations exercise! No wonder JB refused to answer this question I asked at the last Council Meeting - on the grounds the allegations were not for public release:
In your ‘Voice of York’ article, you stated that the CCC had finished its investigation into allegations of misconduct at the Shire, with no adverse finding made against Shire officers or councillors. Further, you were pleased that the CCC determined that all allegations have been dealt with appropriately. Exactly what allegations are you referring to?
When I probed further without getting anywhere, I commented that he opened a Pandora’s box by making such a statement in the article without being prepared to explain the alleagations. Perhaps JB should have more carefully edited the PPR’s efforts to make him look good in order to avoid being put in the ‘hot seat’ by those who aren’t satisfied with the rhetoric.
Speaking of public question time, Liz Christmas asked what ‘PPR’ stood for in an agenda item as it was an acronym used without any initial clarification, as should be done when using acronyms. ACEO Simpson was not very pleased with the question. Rather than acknowledge he should have made the meaning clear, he told Liz it wasn’t necessary to explain an acronym when used to refer to a business (or some similar explanation). Then, grudgingly, GS said it stood for ‘Professional Public Relations’. I couldn’t help but think JB and GS were attempting to fly this one under the radar as well…. It will be interesting to find out what this has cost York’s ratepayers.
In closing, thank you, Minister Simpson, for sending someone as incompetent and inept as JB to assist our town in drawing the conclusion that our suspended Councillors are SIMPLY THE BEST (Go Tina Tunrer)!!! They don’t need any assistance in successfully running meetings / workshops / committees that are productive – much better for York’s budget
Can someone advise where the need for a Town Square has been identified? Is it part of the Town Planning Scheme (answer - No)? Is it an outcome of the Visioning Forums (Answer - No)?
ReplyDeleteConsideration for moving the Visitor Centre has been undertaken before, and not progressed because this would leave the Town Hall unattended (and thus possibly closed) and it is recognised that the Town Hall is a significant Building of interest to Visitors. Previous discussions have also always considered the benefit of keeping the Visitor Centre on the main street even if it was moved.
On the basis that there is no demand for a Town Square, and no drive to move the Visitor Centre off the main street, then the purchase of the lots in South Street does not appear to be in the public interest. If not in the public interest, then are there other options than private benefit?.
You're right, there has been no community demand for a 'town square'. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone pressed for the Shire to buy back 'Chalkies'.
DeleteAs I see it, the trouble is that the commissioner is determined, for good or ill, to leave his mark on the Shire. This will enable him to say to prospective clients, 'I gave York its new town square. The York community didn't ask for it, but as befits my name I knew better than they did what was best for them, so they got it anyway. It's the most wonderful and amazing thing I accomplished while in York. Now, about my fee...'
This is monument building on a pharaonic scale, as at an even more impressive level was the decision to build that Great White Elephant, the YRCC, also known as Ray's Biggest Erection, the Financial Black Hole and the Bungle-Bungle.
A friend of mine, pointing out that the perpetrator of the town square nonsense will shortly cease to hold office as commissioner, has likened his action to a stray dog peeing against a pole to make his mark, then nonchalantly wandering off home.
People are saying that we're stuck with the commissioner's decision because both parties have signed a binding contract in the form of an offer and acceptance. I'm not so sure. This is why.
First, the contract will presumably be conditional on Treasury granting a loan, which it may decide or be under political pressure not to do.
Secondly, there is some doubt that the acceptance of the Annual Budget was properly arrived at, that is, the proper process may not have been followed.
Thirdly, it is not clear that the Shire obtained a sworn valuation from a licensed valuer, as I believe it is required to do. My understanding is that such valuation has to be no more than 6 months old.
Fourthly, if the commissioner acted in this case ultra vires, beyond his power and authority, there is the teasing prospect that he might find himself personally liable for the purchase price of $625K.
We really need legal advice on this, in the form of (senior) counsel's opinion. Matthew, Denese and David, over to you. Next week you'll be back in office. I know you won't be able to spend money, but you will be able to resolve to seek such an opinion on the legality of the transaction.
There is a further possibility, that Richard and Nola will withdraw from the sale, having recognised and respected the strength of community opposition.
Anonymous28 June 2015 at 20:45 - A Town Square we don't need.
DeleteIt is not in the Town Planning Scheme. I thought any changes to the TPS had to be advertised and ratified by council.
Maybe it was a blissful thought bubble.
Yes, Anonymous 28 June 2015 at 20:45 there really is a point about keeping the Visitor Centre in the Town Hall (albeit as I say it needs a bit of rearranging to make it more efficient, and I do believe that a certain now abolished Shire Advisory Group's members did discuss the need for rearranging it for efficiency). Your point about it being open and therefore the Town Hall being open when it is, is an important point. I have observed when in the Town Hall for reasons to do with events, that when people come to the Visitor Centre a large proportion of them stop enter the Hall itself and ask to see upstairs etc... because it is such an interesting Town Hall with its design and pressed tin ceiling and its place in history. Many are truly impressed.
DeleteBecause vandalism is not unusual around town and some groups of youths have done vandalism even relatively recently at the Town Hall (e.g. completely broke off a tap outside the kitchen), staff at the Visitor Centre keep out an eagle eye. In fact, one day the staff member in charge had to shut herself and the visitors there at the time inside the VC because this troop of youngsters were getting 'restive'. Said youngsters have also traipsed up and down the jarrah steps inside and been a worry, but the VC staff have kept an eye on them.
Without the VC being there, I doubt, indeed, whether the Town Hall could be left open without some other 'visitor relations' or 'customer service' or 'guard' being hired to show people around and keep an eye on things; that plus CCTV throughout.
Just another bit of Bullshit Debunked Graeme Simpson stated 28/4/15 answers from question time taken on notice.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 4: Is not Freedom of Information my right?
Response
If, by that question, you mean do you have the right to use the Freedom of Information Act 1992 to seek copies of documents from the Shire, the answer is, clearly, yes.
Every person who resides in Australia – not just in Western Australia – has the legal right to make an FOI application to all State and local government agencies,
**** "except those agencies that are exempted from the FOI Act. One such agency is the Crime and Corruption Commission. An FOI application can’t be made to the CCC.
Well that is sort of true but if it is information provided on your behalf you can put an FOI into the CCC or the agency that put the information in on your behalf. because how would you know if the information was conveyed properly.
Information given by the CCC.
This is a post I also posted on the other Blog.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 18:24 your right poor York but let me put this to you, by your comment I assume and please correct me if I am wrong have not suffered at the hands of the Shires actions in the past, some people in town have suffered financially, to their health and more because procedures policies laws and codes have not been followed.
For this community to pull together for the benefit of all not just some there needs to be honest and open accountable policies and procedures put in place.
A outstanding example is recently at a few council meetings the topic of FOI was on the table, people that required FOI which is a statutory requirement ( meaning the Shire has to provide certain information pertaining to you or things that you need to know or want to know) people at the meeting objected to the cost of this being on the agenda apparently $80,000 odd for something they have to do FOI is Statutory the decision only creating dissention in the community between those asking for FOI and those not.
Commissioner Best said as justification for this to be on the agenda and I quote those there can verify this " it is important to keep the community aware of where their ratepayer money is going it is his obligation to the community" and then goes and purchases or commits to purchase a building for $625,000 without telling anyone not only that he has committed to it its in the budget a document that not many of the average community member reads.
Where is his obligation to the community to tell them where their rate paying money is going to here? I have also put this on the other Blog Voice of York as I think that question needs an answer.
Exactly the question someone asked previously - how do we know James Best told the CCC the truth in his finding?
ReplyDeleteFor all we know it could have been his or the senior staff's version of events. Lets face it, he wasn't even here when all the crap happened so how the hell if the staff are telling the truth or not.
The same goes for that Minority Report - IF Pat Hooper wrote the truth in his Report, why is he so scared to let Matthew Reid read it? Funny how Pat seemed to have plenty guts when he had control of the Gavel, reckon its time he found them again and released the Report.
So not only did he verbally make the remark I Quoted in the previous post but also states in Minutes of the 28th April 2015 financial management duties and obligations does the act only apply to FOI I think not.
ReplyDeleteTaken from minutes 'It is incumbent upon the Council of the Shire to, given its financial management duties and obligations under Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1995, to adequately and purposefully explain to all ratepayers why rates and charges are being increased and what the actual costs are that all ratepayers bear as a result of the Shire’s officers dealing with FOI applications received by the Shire'.
I had heard the Commissioner made a comment during the Special Council meeting that he, in his CCC Investigative roll, had interviewed all but two of the people in the Fitz Gerald Report.
ReplyDeleteI spoke again this morning with a person I consider to be very reliable and that person confirmed again the comment was made.
So, I decided to write and ask James Best why I had not been interviewed.
The emails below are in the order they were sent and received.
Subject: CCC investigation
From: Roma Paton
Date: 28 June 2015 4:01:55 PM AWST
To: J. Best
On 28/06/2015, at 4:01 PM, Roma Paton wrote:
Good Afternoon James,
I have now heard from several people you announced at a Shire meeting that you were chartered by the CCC to investigate the Fitz Gerald Report and that you had interviewed all but two people. I was one of those you chose not to interview for the CCC investigation, would you be kind enough to explain why I was not included?
Kind regards,
Roma
From: James Best
Date: 29 June 2015 9:26:20 AM AWST
Subject: Re: Fitz Gerald Report -- meeting with Roma Paton
To: Roma Paton
Cc: Records ,
Hi Roma,
There is no connection between the CCC investigation and the Fitz Gerald Report.
I am very happy to meet anyone concerned about either Report. The two people mentioned was in the context of having been through mediation we were not able to resolve the differences of opinion.
Would you like Helen to contact you about making a time to meet ?
kindest regards
JAMES
James Best
Commissioner
Shire of York
Subject: Re: Fitz Gerald Report -- meeting with Roma Paton
From: Roma Paton
Date: 29 June 2015 9:55:11 AM AWST
To: J. Best
Good Morning James,
I am somewhat confused, you mentioned below you are happy to meet anyone concerned about 'either Report' , does this mean you are prepared to discuss the CCC Report as well as the Fitz Gerald Report?
Kind regards
Roma
From: James Best
Date: 29 June 2015 10:11:41 AM AWST
Subject: Re: Fitz Gerald Report -- meeting with Roma Paton
To: Roma Paton
Cc: Records
Hi Roma,
I'm happy to discuss any concerns about anything -- although the CCC Act prevents me from being specific about the nature of the CCC complaints, as I'm sure you can appreciate.
Cheers
JAMES
James Best
Commissioner
Shire of York
Subject: Re: Fitz Gerald Report -- meeting with Roma Paton
From: Roma Paton Date: 29 June 2015 10:23:00 AM AWST
To: James Best
Good Morning James,
Thank you for your quick response and thank you for the offer to meet.
At this point I believe it would be unwise to meet with anyone from the Shire of York regarding the Fitz Gerald Report until I have sort (see spelling correction next email) Legal Advice.
Kind regards
Roma
Subject: Re: Fitz Gerald Report -- meeting with Roma Paton
From: Roma Paton
Date: 29 June 2015 2:12:36 PM AWST
To: James Best
Cc:
Good Afternoon James,
Please accept my apologies for the incorrect spelling in my previous email for the word sought.
Kind regards
Roma
Thanks, Roma. I'm none the wiser, though presumably better informed. His remarks about the CCC are suspect, to say the least. Every now and then reports of CCC investigations make their way into the media. Precisely what section or clause of which legislation prevents him from telling us what topics he was asked to investigate?
ReplyDeleteI think Kommissar Best's 'investigative roll' is turning out to be - in theatrical parlance - 'a ham role.'
I wouldn't advise anyone to meet with Messrs Best and Simpson unless accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel or a top lawyer, whichever is nearest at hand.
I for one certainly agree on your last sentence, James the Good. (James Plumridge 29 June 2015 at 02:04)
DeleteEven a small group of the citizens meeting with him would only make them at risk of being added to the list of 'troublemakers' etc...
It requires a meeting such as has been canvassed — a 'whole town' one, and then he can't brand us all as nuthatches, troublemakers, etc..... Lawyer, yes, for any small deputation. Maybe we should have a lawyer or two present at the proposed Elector's Meeting as well.
If the purchase price of the lots in South Street is $625K, where is the money for the Stamp Duty coming from (or is that not payable on this purchase)? Where is the money for the upgrade to the property to current compliance standards coming from (eg disabled access)? Where is the money to install the Visitor Centre coming from? Where is the money to create the Town Square coming from (or are we supposed to think that a carpark equals a town square)? Not to mention the new signage? And lets not forget the ongoing maintenance costs, heating, lighting etc etc . Have all these costs been included in the so-called business plan?
ReplyDeleteWell, the Big C's intention for the carpark is to add it to the existing Peace Park, turf it too, and then declare the whole combo of the two to be The Town Square. That is what he said in the meeting on Thursday 25th June. As far as the rest of what you have said above, Anonymous 29 June 2015 at 04:27, HERE, HERE!!!
DeleteOne of the two senior females in the administration must have forgotten to tell James Best that Ray Hooper sold that building because it was costing too much for maintenance and running costs.
DeleteSilly silly decision Mr. Best, you should have consulted some of those 'trouble makers' in York, they can spot a dodgy deal with their eyes closed.
Are you kidding? Do you really believe the Shire people involved in the commissioner's hare-brained 'vision', and the commissioner himself, would have had the nous to think through its social and financial implications?
DeleteAh, Mr Jolly, why not a probity audit into the circumstances of this deal?
Nah, I doubt any of them had the nous to think through the financial implications for the community. They don't seem to care about any of the Social implications for anything they do.
DeleteYou would have thought the two senior shire females would have at least told James Best the CEO flogged off the building some time ago. Whats with the Shire selling off then buying back buildings - are they mad?
Next thing we know the Shire will negotiate to buy back the old Convent.
Does anyone know if the Shire produced a business plan for the proposed Town Square development? I can see no evidence in Shire minutes and financials to indicate that any such plan was prepared, conceived or even mooted.
DeleteIt was my understanding that 'key employees' of the Shire, as well as councillors, this year received training provided by the DLGC. If so, they should have known better than to let this Town Square idiocy get as far as it has without warning the commissioner about the banana skin lying directly in his path.
The Shire demands a Business Plan for anything people in the Community do that involves grants from the Shire - where is the Business Plan for justifying paying $625 K of OUR money Mr. Best.
DeleteThe Commissioner needs to show the people the following documents -
The Sworn valuation certificate
The Independent Engineers Report on the state of the building.
The Business Plan for the next five years.
The Whole of Life cost of the building.
Its on the front page of the YDCM Mr. Best is calling a special meeting to consider a draft Business Plan for purchase of the chalkies building.
DeleteClearly he has not followed what is referred to in Local Gov. speak as 'due process'. Surely a Business Plan should have been done well before taking the step to purchase the premises.
Well it seems talks are following through with Commissioner Best meeting with the Blisses this afternoon at the Shire, some promises may have to be broken or maybe cementing the deal guess we will find out any news on the elector meeting?
ReplyDeleteAnother meeting today and it didn't sound like a joyous occasion at all.
DeleteMr. Bliss left the building looking as glum as someone who had just discovered they had lost their 1st. Division Lotto Ticket.
TODAY'S NEWS:
ReplyDelete260 York residents were able to add their names to the petition for a Special Meeting of Electors to discuss:
1. The Shire of York Annual Budget 2015/16
2. Purchase of Lots 800 and 801 South Street, York WA
3. Borrowing $625 000 to fund the purchase of Lots 800 and 801 South Street York
Many residents wanted to sign but couldn’t with the limited time we had: Saturday and several hours on Sunday. Many came into the gift shop today with the intent of adding their names to the petition. Had we had a few more days, the number would have increased many times over.
The petition was presented to ACEO Simpson this morning (Monday). I was told) he was visibly shaken. James Best was not in the office this morning, but no doubt he was made aware very quickly.
The Special Meeting of Electors must be advertised in a local paper and give a minimum of one week’s notice for those wanting to attend. Once the date and time are set, we will publish the information on the blog, broadcast it through our databases, put signage up around time (possibly a banner in the empty car park on the corner of Avon Tce and South St) and ask everyone to spread the information. We want the Town Hall filled to overflowing to discuss these important issues.
Pity we didn't have time to get the higher numbers, but we got a great number considering the time we had. As one among many, I say thanks to those who twigged what was happening, to those who put up the idea of the Petition for an Electors' Meeting and found out the requirements, to those who canvassed round town, to Jane's and the other venues who had the petition on hand for signing, and all who signed it. We are not just sitting back and taking it all lying down (the Big C is known to have said when we first came to York that our problem was that we hadn't 'taken the power back' when people were maltreated or cheated or deceived by the previous régime. As certain persons are known to have told him, we absolutely did try; but we were (and are) up against 'powers that be'. But we are still trying. No doubt he is finding it 'trying', too; and so he should. He has colluded with 'powers that be' who have turned white black and black white. We absolutely must 'call him on it'.
DeleteThanks, too, Jane, for your suggestions of how to broadcast the announcement of the Meeting when it happens. Yes, a whole Town Hall full to overflowing would be great.
Great work everyone involved marvellous PR work, maybe you could get the contract from PPR save us a bit of money for the town, I can read it now front page PPR Professional public relations gets 60 people to sleepy country town meeting at local Hotel, locals get over 260 people to meeting in Town Hall well done , well done.
DeleteI don't think Simpson would have been the only one shaken how many more than 6 is that never been Best at math.
James Best at the meeting at the Castle Hotel on the 23 of June 2015 wanted every body to follow the S.A.I.D. Method and gave every one a handout on this miraculous method Situations, Attitudes, Important, Do presumably "a straight forward process for facilitating discussions, solving problems, planning and deciding what actions to take". good one James did you print this of without reading it yourself, James this town doesn't have a problem, the problem is local government acting without discussion not solving problems planning and deciding what actions to take without going through the proper process ' for petes sake James foot in mouth, and not engaging your brain in gear are two things that come to mind. Its like a teenager telling his parents how it is. another waste of paper.
ReplyDeleteActually, he had a large sheet, and he referred to the method being S.A.I.D., but when the complicated sheet was handed out, the connection between S.A.I.& D. and it was not remotely clear. It had a lot of sections to be filled out and groups got through more or less of it, and some had to just select a few bits off it to report on because there was insufficient time. The sheets were handed in, and who knows whether all the information on them will be actually used. I also suspect how much attention is paid to any one group's contribution will depend on what someone deems important and what not.
ReplyDeleteHow dare Bliss send a letter to the editor making such false accusations against the gallery when he was the only one I could hear making snide remarks.
ReplyDeleteYou're too stupid to understand why these questions are being asked Richard. Ignorance dosent excuse you.
As for Duper mentioning 20 sporting groups using the wreck centre. You're paying for it you idiot.
The timing of his letter was just a joke. Sucking up to his mate Best.
ReplyDeleteRather odd Bliss rocks up to a meeting after all these years - I have attended almost every Shire meeting and never seen him at one before. Could the shady deal have had something to do with it? Seems he has become a self appointed PR man for the Commissioner.
Bliss has absolutely no idea what has been going on at Council meetings, turns up to one and sits on judgment of those who have been fighting for justice for over a decade.
Bliss you are as shameless as James Best.
From Facebook...and this was before the Bliss's ripped off 625k from the ratepayers of York !
ReplyDeleteJonni Saville-Wright I can understand that! Perhaps as the place was so badly managed, the government should be looking to compensate those who were wounded due to the actions of the past.
I am non the less pleased that hopefully York has turned the corner
19 May at 10:44 · Like
..
Nola Bliss Too many anonymous haters still Jon, unfortunately
19 May at 11:24 · Like
The Blisses may have gained short term from this grubby deal and they underestimate the reaction of the people of York. They are now finding out how many people in York despise them for what they have done.
ReplyDeleteI won't ever recommend Faversham House or go to the York Palace Hotel again.