NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

You saw it first on the blog…

Well, not really, because I didn’t name him, but I’m talking about the gentleman whose photo I displayed as possibly being that of the new ‘broome’ that will sweep York clean. 

(No, it wasn’t a spelling mistake. It was a not-so-cryptic clue.  Well done, everyone who got it.)

The gentleman’s name is Paul Martin.  He is currently deputy CEO of the Shire of Broome, with responsibility for business enterprise, property and strategy development and community services.

Before taking up that position, he was briefly CEO at the Town of Port Hedland from 2010 until early in 2012.  His decision to leave the top job in Hedland for the deputy’s job in Broome will seem less surprising to someone like me who has lived in Hedland and and knows Broome than to anyone who hasn’t and doesn’t.

Mr. Martin’s departure from Hedland followed a misunderstanding with the Corruption and Crime Commission arising from a BHP proposal to build a donga city able to accommodate up to 6000 FIFO workers.  Ah, those were the days, when iron ore was king, the skies were full of working men and women in orange or yellow vests and we dreamed that the Chinese dragon would prop up our standard of living forever! 

There is no suggestion that Mr. Martin did anything wrong or that the misunderstanding was the reason for his departure.    I mention it only because I know you will all be googling his name and finding a report by Beatrice Thomas in the online West Australian for 10 January 2012, and an ABC report dated 29 March 2012 that Mr. Martin was heading for Broome.   Some cynics are bound to draw the wrong conclusions. 

By now, everyone will have heard that York Shire Council has appointed Mr. Martin as the Shire’s new CEO.  It chose him from a field of 41.  So much for those who said nobody would want to come to York because the blogs would frighten away potential candidates!

From all accounts, the choice was a wise one.  Mr. Martin is reputed to be a cheerful and gregarious fellow as well as a clever manager who enjoys a challenge and can think outside the square.  True, he comes from the swamp, but he’s no dinosaur, and indications are that Broome people who know him will be sorry to see him go.

Congratulations, councillors.  You’ve done well.  I’ve gazed upon the future in the tea-leaves and bless my soul, I really think it’s going to work.

A scapegoat

By now, I imagine most readers will have studied Pam Law’s account of her reasons for resigning as rating officer at the Shire.

I applaud Pam’s decision to come forward with her story.  It confirms what many of us have long suspected, that aspects of the Shire administration have been for too long over-dependent on the whims and fancies of certain senior staff.

Pam copped a lot of flak from disgruntled ratepayers.  It’s no picnic trying to collect debts from desperate people who can’t afford to pay.  Up to a point, being snarled at comes with the territory—but only up to a point.   

People complained to me that Pam lacked compassion in the exercise of her responsibilities.   Perhaps—but after reading what she has to say in her own defence, I wonder if she had much choice.  It now seems to me that she acted under instruction, in the process setting herself up as a scapegoat for the callousness of her superiors. 

Nobody would have mistaken former CEO Hooper for Mother Teresa, and I remember somebody showing me a disgraceful letter from A/CEO Simpson in which he dismissed a plea for merciful treatment on the grounds (I’m paraphrasing) that it was his job to maximize revenue coming into the Shire, not to show compassion to ratepayers fallen on hard times. 

This from an inept carpetbagger soaking the people of York to the tune of around four grand a week, and encompassing one of the most outrageous rate hikes in Western Australian history!

Not surprisingly, attitudes like that trickle down to middle management and folk doing it tough may find themselves being clobbered hard by frontline staff and doing it even tougher.

What I found most disturbing in Pam’s narrative is her statement that at what was obviously a very difficult time for her she got no support from Human Resources.  This calls for an investigation.  Pam’s critics on the blog may have acted unfairly towards her, but they didn’t owe her a professional duty of care. 

The Shire certainly did, and it seems pretty clear from what she says that it failed her, especially when, as she claims, another staff member started spreading malicious lies about her.   

I find myself agreeing with Anonymous 24/2 @ 00:50:  write it down, Pam, the whole story, naming names, and send the result to A/CEO Mark Dacombe. 

And yes, I may be, as Anonymous says, ‘a bit of a prick at times’, but I’ll help in any way I can.  Drop me a line at wildwood@westnet.com.au .   And thanks for sharing your story on the blog.   It was a brave thing to do.

Rules of engagement

To the person who submitted a comment under the name ‘Sharney Colton’:  I did not, as you allege, permit the lady you named to criticize someone, then refuse to allow the person criticized to exercise their right of response.

The lady in question did not mention anyone’s name.  She remarked on something she reported having witnessed, framing her remark in the context of a generalization about people in York—not one I agree with, by the way. 

On receiving your comment, I could see you had assumed that her remark was no mere generalization but specifically critical of you.   Why you assumed that is something only you can explain. 

There are two reasons why I won’t publish your comment.  Neither has anything to do with hypocrisy, as you have charged.  The first is that your comment is unduly acerbic and aggressive, and based simply on the supposition, no more than that, that the lady’s comment was directed at you. 

I repeat, no names are mentioned in the lady’s comment, and the comment contained insufficient circumstantial detail to identify you, whoever you are, or anyone else.

The second and more important reason is that whatever lies behind your comment appears to be some kind of private dispute that has nothing whatsoever to do with this blog.

From the outset, I’ve published a wide range of comments—probably too wide a range—but I think I must draw the line at allowing the blog to become a vehicle for the expression of personal acrimony arising from private disputes.

People who want to engage in that kind of thing should get in the queue to take part in My Kitchen Rules.

******* 

Witch-hunt in Joaquina Street 

Councillors and senior shire employees were apparently incensed by the publication on this blog of a photo of our new CEO, Paul Martin from Broome, a day or two before Shire President Wallace officially announced the appointment.

They seem to have assumed that one of their own had leaked the information to the blog.

In the course of the ensuing witch-hunt, councillors and staff alike endured merciless grilling.  Torture was used in the attempt to extract confessions, but to no avail.  Not even being forced to read aloud from the Fitz Gerald Report, followed by threats of involuntary suicide, could wring confessions from the unfortunate souls writhing in agony at the feet of their pitiless tormentors. 

No surprise there, because no such leak occurred.  I got some hints from a source that has no connection with the Shire of York—and has never lived here.  Then, by a process of elimination and deduction, I concluded that Mr. Martin had applied for the position, and that the mandate of heaven had finally passed to him.

As Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of Four, ‘…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’.

I had no qualms in posting the offending photo.  I can think of no reason why Council’s decision should have been kept secret for even a day from the people of York, who will be paying Mr. Martin’s salary and emoluments.  I didn’t post his name against the photo because I didn’t want too much egg on my face if my conclusion proved to be wrong.   Instead, I opted for a cryptic clue.  We all have our little vanities, I suppose.

(Posted 290216.)