NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

Pop goes the commissioner…or, that’s the way the money goes!

Yes, readers, it’s true.  James Best has vacated the position of commissioner.  The elected council is restored.  (But don’t start cheering yet—he turned up with the Tardis on Saturday morning and will remain an occasional ghostly presence in York at least until elections are held in October.)

Mr. Best’s departure from office put me in mind of some lines from Robert Browning’s poem ‘The Lost Leader’, not that Mr. Best proved to be a leader of any kind, lost or found:

                                 Let him go then, let him never come back to us!

                                    There would be doubt, hesitation and pain,

                                    False praise on our part, the glimmer of twilight,

                                    Never glad confident morning again…

Except there hasn’t been much in the way of praise, not even false praise, for Mr. Best from the majority of York ratepayers and residents.  And we haven’t had too many glad confident mornings since he rode into town.

It isn’t hard to see why.  Mr. Best seems to have taken his integrity out of the fridge a long time ago—perhaps when he stood for Guild President at Curtin—and forgotten to put it back when the fuss was over.  Towards the end of his period as York’s commissioner, virtually anything he said provoked gasps of shocked incredulity.  If warping the truth were an Olympic event, Mr. Best would win gold for Australia.

‘Naughty ratepayers, forcing us to waste your money’

One of his—and Acting CEO Simpson’s—most daring furphys is the assertion that we, the people of York, are responsible for setting the Shire on the road to insolvency.  Allegedly, that’s because we have this shameful tendency to complain and ask questions when we’re not happy with something the Shire is doing, has done or is threatening to do.

In fact the real culprit is not Joe Public but our old friend Mal Administration.   This is nothing new in York, but under the short but troubled reign of James Best and Acting CEO Graeme Simpson it has risen to a level of creativity that even former CEO Hooper could not readily have  ‘ideated’ or ‘envisioned’ (as Mr. Best himself might say).

One of the problems facing us is that full details of Shire expenditure are not included in the Shire’s financial reports or otherwise made publicly available.  This means that if ratepayers want to find out precisely how money is being or has been spent in particular directions, they have to ask questions in public question time at council meetings.

 If they don’t get satisfactory answers—the usual story where detailed questions about money are concerned—ratepayers are forced to exercise their rights under the Freedom of Information Act 1992.  Naturally enough, this imposes a financial burden on the Shire.

However, it is a burden that could easily be shrugged off.  The solution is breathtakingly simple.  Instead of stuffing around with FOI, why not just tell people what they want to know? 

Alternatively, why not make every detail of Shire expenditure available online?  Doing that would involve some staff time, but overall it would save the Shire a fortune.

As I’ve said many times, and intend to keep on saying, there is absolutely no good reason for the Shire to withhold information from the community it is meant to serve.  Unfortunately, there are quite a few bad reasons, among them the need or desire to conceal laziness, incompetence, stupidity and corruption. 

The problem for the Shire is that every time it refuses to give out information on any topic, it provokes the suspicion that councillors or staff, or both acting in concert, have been up to no good.

The problem for the community this time round is that, in the absence of detailed financial information, Messrs Best and Simpson have been able to equivocate through their teeth about the causes of our present financial discontents.

Lies, damned lies and Shire expenditure

What are those causes, as those worthies see them?

Mr. Best raised them (of course, ‘without discussion’, but not without protest) at the so-called ‘council’ meeting on 2 July.

According to the minutes (page 11), Mr. Best ‘outlined expenditure that was putting the Shire of York on a path heading for insolvency’.  The expenditure in question amounted to $807,824, including GST.  It was allegedly incurred from March 2014 through financial year 2014/15.

Now let’s take a closer look at this expenditure.

1.              The Fitz Gerald Report.  I may be wrong, but it was my understanding that the report cost $20,000.  So what caused additional expenditure of $18,380—where did the money go?

2.              Legal.  Presumably this heading refers to payments made to solicitors.  The amount in question totals $140,354.  Judging from remarks made by Mr. Best on previous occasions, it seems that much of this expenditure—about $80,000—was devoted to getting legal advice on FOI applications.  Is that true?

If it is true, I remind Mr. Best, Mr. Simpson and anyone else involved that the emphasis of the FOI Act is on providing information, not hiding it.  The Shire, like every other public agency, is obliged by law to employ a properly trained FOI coordinator.  By ‘properly trained’ I mean someone who knows and understands relevant legislation and is able to deal efficiently with FOI applications.

Lawyers should be a last resort, not the first port of call for puzzled Shire employees who have no idea how to do the job but are quite happy to waste public money covering up their ignorance of what they are supposed to be doing.

It goes without saying that if the Shire took my advice about avoiding FOI applications simply by giving enquirers the information asked for, the position of FOI coordinator would be close on a sinecure for some lucky soul.

3.              Consultants to replace staff.  The amount cited under this heading was a staggering $393,000.  What consultants?  On what conditions were they engaged?  Were they really necessary, and if so, why? How much did each of them cost?  Were they engaged on an hourly rate or according to some other method of remuneration?  Which staff were replaced, for how long, and why (sacked, or on leave)?

  

I have noticed lately that the Shire has taken to employing an outfit called ‘FOI Services WA’ to deal with FOI applications. I have never applied to the Shire under FOI (I bet that surprised you), but those of you who have will have noticed the initials ‘AS’ on relevant Shire communications.  I haven’t found a web presence for FOI Services, but ‘AS’ seems to be the sprite in charge.

I wonder whose friend or former colleague ‘AS’ might be.  At the April or May ‘council’ meeting, when Mr. Best announced his intention of hiring a consultant to deal with FOI applications, I remember asking him whether the person concerned was a lawyer.  He said no, it was somebody ‘with a legal background’ but declined to explain further.

4.              Staff payouts.  ($77,090).  Details, please.  I believe some of this money found its way into the pockets of Ms Jacky Jurmann, now apparently back working in some capacity for the Shire.

5.              PPR—‘brand reputation management and corporate communication’. ($33,000).   What this means is that Messrs Best and Simpson engaged a tawdry mob of public relations consultants, better described as ‘spin doctors’, based in Perth to tell the world what a wonderful job Mr. Best was doing in reviving York’s drooping fortunes.

‘Brand management’, indeed.  York is not a brand, but Mr. Best is (the BBC Consulting Brand), so the ‘reputation’ of whose ‘brand’ did we shell out money to manage?

I’m pretty sure PPR wrote the ‘Voice of York’ column in YDCM as well as Mr. Best’s ‘Open Letter to Residents’, a truly awful composition best described in Churchillian vein as a tissue of terminological inexactitudes.  I wonder what that cost us.  I hope we got a discount for the misspelling of ‘puerile’ and the replacement of ‘wanker’ with ‘worker’.

6.              Governance. ($126,000).  According to the draft Annual Budget for 2015/16 (page 9), ‘This service provides assistance to elected members and ratepayers on matters which do not concern specific council services.’

In other words (I suppose) it means money spent on elected members’ allowances, setting up meetings and so on—keeping the meretricious show on the road while maintaining the appearance of democracy as required by the Local Government Act 1995.

No doubt a considerable proportion of that $126K dropped into the coffers of BBC Consulting.  For that we can thank Minister Tony Simpson.  

We didn’t ask for Mr. Best to come here.  He was foisted on us.  His character and outlook are those of a latte-sipping city slicker.  He came here believing us to be yokels and ruffians. He should never have been sent as commissioner to a country town like York.

I think Minister Simpson should refund at least a portion of what we’ve had to pay for the dubious privilege of having Mr. Best mismanage our affairs.

He has been a gigantic flop, and for much of his six months governing York, he seems to have worked part-time. 

For many of us, there is something brutally ironic in Mr. Best warning us about impending insolvency on 2 July while arranging on the sly to borrow money to purchase the Old Convent School from his friends for $625,000, probably a good deal more than it’s worth—and without taking the obvious precaution of first getting a sworn valuation from a licensed land valuer. 

Perhaps Minister Simpson should give us the money to buy and renovate the property, if the purchase goes ahead.  It’ll be his fault if we end up getting lumbered with the place.

Old Convent School still up for sale…

 (Click to enlarge)

Well, that’s what the sign on the fence tells us.

Rumour has it that a local politician approached both the Minister and James Best to protest the proposed purchase.  The Minister admitted that he was worried about it but said he couldn’t find a reason to stop it going ahead. 

Give him a reason!  Keep those letters of protest rolling into his office!  Tell him that as the one who made the appointment, he should take responsibility for Best’s behaviour while in York, especially his decision to buy the Old Convent School.

And remind him of the conditions that have to be met:  finance from Treasury Corporation, and the preparation of a proper business plan.  So far there’s no business plan on the horizon: if I’m wrong about that, tell me where I can get a copy.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the Minister is powerless to prevent this ridiculous purchase.  Let him know exactly how you feel.

 And finally, a big thank you…

To Mr. Mark Lloyd, for having the decency and courage to publish in YDCM an edited (i.e. less wordy!) version of my response to James Best’s ‘Open Letter to Residents’.   It’s appearing in two parts in the paper’s letters column.  Part 1 is already on the news stands, Part 2 will be in the next edition of the paper.

Good on you, Mark, you’re a star.

*******

MORE DETAIL ON SHIRE SPENDING

Not a lot more, alas, and certainly not as much as we should be given, but here’s an appendix to the minutes for the ‘council’ meeting held on 6 July 2015 (click document to enlarge): 

Some questions:

1.              Fitz Gerald. 

How much was Mr. Fitz Gerald actually paid for his report?  If not the full amount cited in the above appendix, what happened to the rest?

2.              Legal.

(1) For advice or legal action on what processes and topics was Dirk Feinauer’s firm engaged?

(2) What legal firms or agencies are included under the rubric ‘civic legal’? For advice or legal action on what processes and topics were they engaged?

(3)  What is meant by the description ‘FOI counsel’?  Does it refer to yet another lawyer, as the word ‘counsel’ implies? If not, who or what does it refer to, and why is that person or entity described as ‘counsel’?

(4) How many instances of mediation did the Shire undertake? How many days of mediation were obtained for the amount expended?  In how many of those instances was mediation successful?

(5) Is it true that Macri found no evidence of wrongdoing in relation to a corporate credit card?  If so, how does that square with evidence produced on the ‘Official Unofficial’ blog relating to use of the card in Tasmania and elsewhere? 

(6) In relation to what process or event was the Shire required to pay an excess of $5000 to Local Government Insurance Services (LGIS)?

3.              Consultants.

(1) Pardon my inexcusable ignorance, but what does ‘LOGO’ stand for?

(2) Exactly how much did each of the two former CEOs, Hooper and Keeble, receive by way of payout—and why?  Were those payments based on statutory entitlements, or were they negotiated settlements?

(3) Why was it necessary to spend so much on Hendry and GHD?  What precisely did they do to earn those amounts?

(4) Who are the town planning consultants who received $32,000 and what did they do to earn it?

(5) Who are the civil engineering consultants who received $71,000 and what did they do to earn it?

4.              Sacked Staff Payouts.

(1) Were the payouts to the Manager Works and Services, Manager Planning and Building Surveyor based on statutory entitlements, or were they negotiated settlements?

(2) Why were the Manager Planning and Building Surveyor each permitted to retain the use of a house and car for three months after being dismissed from their employment?

5.              PPR—Brand reputation management and corporate communication.

(1) What exactly is ‘brand reputation management’, and why and how is it relevant to the Shire of York? Does it involve distortion and/or denial of the truth?

(2) Precisely what activities fall under the rubric ‘corporate communication’?  Do they involve distortion and/or denial of the truth?

6.              Governance.

May we have a breakdown of the $75,000 ascribed to Elected Members—particularly bearing in mind that they have been more or less hors de combat for six months of financial 2014/15?

7.              Exclusions.

Is this section meant to include a veiled indication that residents are somehow responsible for reducing the level of customer service, costs of replacing staff, ‘loss of corporate knowledge’ (how is that costed?) and cost of advertising positions ? 

Surely what this document really points to is a stunning degree of profligacy on the part of the Shire, which has been spending our money like the proverbial drunken sailor instead of getting on with the job.

As for ‘lost staff time chasing complaints’…for any public agency, chasing complaints goes with the territory.  If an agency is spending too much time chasing complaints, might that simply reflect the fact that some of the people in charge are doing a crap job? 

******* 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

In the document below (click to enlarge), the Shire of York reveals to the world how much it is prepared to waste every year on trying to deny residents information they are or should be entitled to receive on request.  

Of course, compared with the unsustainable proposed purchase of the Old Convent School, the cost of preventing the people the Shire exists to serve from knowing what the Shire is doing in their name is a mere bagatelle.