WHAT DO I STAND FOR? WHAT IS MY PROGRAM FOR CHANGE?

“Hi James, will you be making changes if you get on council? What areas of the community will you focus on to improve and promote York?”

This question came up as a comment on my last article, dealing with aspects of the Local Government Act 1995.

It’s really two related questions, so I’ll deal with each of them separately.

Will you be making changes?

I’ve never been a councillor, though I did work for several years a very long time ago in the legal department of a municipal authority in the UK.   

It struck me then as it does now that a councillor can’t accomplish much if anything except as part of a team.  The only way councillors can change anything is by convincing their colleagues that change is necessary and working with them to bring that change about.   

This means, first, identifying the problems that make change necessary. 

The next step is working with colleagues and getting help and advice from council employees to discover the best solutions to those problems. 

Finally, a majority of colleagues have to agree on those solutions and to resolve, as a matter of policy, that in future those solutions will be applied to problems of the kind under review.

I do have a program for change, which I’ll set out in a moment.  If I’m elected, I will do everything possible to persuade my colleagues and the wider community that the program is worthwhile and ought to be implemented.

It will help if other candidates are elected whose outlook on a range of issues is similar to mine and who are equally committed to the cause of reform.  You can judge for yourselves who those candidates might be by going to the Shire website at http://www.york.wa.gov.au/elections-2013.aspx and studying the candidate profiles. 

(Yes, that address does read 2013 but 2015 is what’s meant.)

What areas of the community will you focus on to improve and promote York?

At a time when ratepayers have been hit with what many see as an unconscionable—and probably unparalleled—rate increase of around 13%, hot on the heels of an earlier increase of 11%, my primary focus will be on reducing Shire spending and ensuring that future budgets accurately reflect community needs, not the special or private interests of a favoured few. 

No more ‘outsourcing’ of work staff members are already being paid to do

I have some ideas as to how Council might go about this task.   One of these is to cut back over time on the cost of senior employees.  

It is puzzling that we have highly paid senior employees much of whose work appears to be farmed out to consultants. 

A case in point is how the Shire deals with FOI applications.  Normally, a properly trained senior staff member, who has studied and understands the FOI Act 1992, would deal with these in-house.

So far, I believe two senior employees have in recent times had charge of FOI applications.  Neither seems to have mastered the responsibility, with the result that the work has been ‘outsourced’.  In effect, ratepayers are paying twice for the same job—a less than satisfactory situation.

Appointing professionally qualified staff to senior positions

The need to outsource is most likely to arise when senior positions are awarded to individuals who are not academically and/or professionally qualified for their jobs and may indeed lack the ability to acquire such qualifications or to understand relevant legislation. 

The answer is obvious—make sure only professionally qualified candidates are appointed to senior positions, starting with the CEO, so that outsourcing of the work of senior staff is no longer necessary.

We should also be asking ourselves if all senior positions are indispensable. If not, there may be a good case for restructuring the Shire workforce, starting at the top where employment costs are greatest.

It may prove to be advisable to get legal advice on the propriety of some past appointments.

Rates

The Minister’s disastrous appointment as commissioner, James Best, and the commissioner’s partner in extravagance Acting CEO Graeme Simpson, have gone out of their way to convince us that this year’s swingeing rate increase was all the fault of residents and ratepayers. 

In fact, it was Messrs Best and Simpson’s mismanagement of Shire finances that was largely to blame, with help from hangovers like the ill-conceived and poorly managed construction of a multi-million dollar recreation centre that will most likely never pay its way and costs a king’s ransom in yearly upkeep.

Add to that the suspect purchase at Best’s insistence of an over-priced, useless, decrepit and possibly unsafe building in South Street, and it becomes obvious where blame really lies. 

I believe the time has come for a three-year moratorium on rate increases, followed by a permanent cap to the CPI.

The Shire can achieve that by reducing expenditure and maintaining a high level of fiscal discipline in future years. 

No more ‘pyramid-building’, like the YRCC, regarding which Council should seriously consider its options—for example, should it be handed over to sporting organisations, or sold to private interests, saving ratepayers a fortune in maintenance over the years? 

Sometimes it’s wise to cut your losses.  We may have to consider doing something similar with James Best’s folly, too.

Economic development

York is fortunate in having two main sources of income: agriculture and tourism.  Agriculture seems to be performing well.  Tourism, by contrast, is having a tough time.

It’s hard to understand why.  York is an historic town, with lovely old buildings and surrounded by a magnificent hinterland.  It should be, as I recall it used to be, a magnet for tourists.  So what’s gone wrong?

I don’t pretend to be an expert on such matters, but I think part of the answer may be the absence of a tourism board dedicated to promoting York as a destination for overseas as well as local and national tourists.  Time we got another one—but be careful who controls the money.

And maybe we need to appoint an events coordinator to revive and improve on the shows and festivals of yesteryear.

I didn’t live here then, but I remember Avon Terrace before it was vandalised in 2004.  Let’s plant some more trees!

What I will never support is the kind of economic ‘development’ that involves waste disposal, industrial-scale slaughtering or mining  (particularly bauxite mining, which I’m told has been mooted now and then).  Such ventures might create a handful of jobs, but the environmental and social cost would I think be greater than most residents would wish or should be asked to bear.

Council and Shire administration—adjusting the balance

I’ve clarified my position on this in a previous post, so I won’t repeat myself here.

Guiding principles

As I’ve said many times in the past, I believe in open, honest and accountable local government reinforced by the unrestricted flow of information from the Shire to the community it serves.  There should be very little if any need for FOI applications.

I believe that every dollar spent from the public purse at this level of government should be fully accounted for, and that information made freely available to community members, preferably online.

Patronage (‘jobs for the boys and girls’) and nepotism (‘keeping it in the family’) are not entirely unknown in the Shire of York. Both are outlawed by Section 5.40 of the Local Government Act 1995. 

The section provides that selection and promotion of employees must be carried out on the basis of merit and equity, with fair and consistent treatment of employees.  Council and the new CEO should tolerate nothing less.

Another regrettable feature of local government in York in the past has been the singling out of ‘dissidents’ by the Shire administration for unfavourable attention from rangers and inspectors.  At the same time, favoured residents and business people have been allowed an unusual degree of latitude regarding planning and building matters, including in one case, I’m told, payment of commercial rates, and in another, a series of unauthorised building modifications.

Those kinds of favouritism should play no part in Shire affairs.  Employees who engage in them, regardless of status, should be sacked.

Finally, I want to assure voters that what I’ve written above is a true and honest declaration of what I intend to do and how I intend to comport myself if elected to Council.  What you read here is what you’ll get.

Written, authorised and published by James Plumridge, 14 Harriott Street York 6302.