Friday 5 May 2017

BUREAUCRATS IN LOVE



(or, Pop go the weasel words)


(I wrote these verses in 2006 as a skit on the hieratic version of English favoured by government departments of every type and level in Australia and no doubt everywhere else in the Anglophone world. Nothing much has changed since then.  They were read at a literary festival to an appreciative audience but have since languished in a desk drawer where some readers may believe they should have stayed. JP.)


We met on the escalator,
that’s where our liaison began:
I’d just finished drafting outcomes
for the Joint Strategic Plan.

He was clad in the corporate dress code,
he sported a power tie;
I knew he was aspirational
by the hungry look in his eye,

but he smiled like a people person,
and as the stairs were rising
he whispered ‘Do you have any needs
I could help with actualizing?’

It sounded like sexual harassment
but I thought it might mean advancement,
a holistic opportunity
for assertive career enhancement,

so I let him take the leadership role
to optimize our relations:
we made a date for the following night,
then returned to our workstations.

Yes, that was how it began:
our nexus inflamed by passion
we frequently interacted at work
in an inappropriate fashion.

At last came the paradigm shift
(promoted, of course, by my mother):
we could integrate our resources,
I could be his significant other,

so I said to him, "Look, you’ve impacted
in quality ways on my life;
let’s maximize our potential
recycled as husband and wife".

Then my game plan deconstructed.
He responded, "That’s a decision
I’m not empowered to facilitate,
not in terms of my vision –

it’s not what I’d call best practice.
See it from where I sit;
it’s hard to put marital structures in place
if you’re not ramped up to commit.

Our relationship started on steroids
but now it’s on respirators.
In short, my dear, you’ve ceased to meet
key performance indicators.

My true love is customer service.
They warned me at business school
that sex in a workplace context
could downsize my management tool.

You’ve never been my core business,
just a flexible bit on the side.
Regrettably, this is the juncture
where our destinies divide".

I said to him, "I’m in agreeance",
for just at that moment in time
I could see the bastard for what he was –
an iconic parcel of slime.

I took my revenge in the office,
I did it in one fowl swoop,
I refused to massage his figures
and left him out of the loop.

I thought he was focused on excellence
but now he’s gone to the bad:
I’d just call that a negative outcome
if it wasn’t so fucking sad.  

James Plumridge

14 comments:

  1. Still appropriate today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just read the Agenda for the Council meeting.


    In light of these discussions, the draft budget incorporates an increase in general rates of 1.5% for the 2017/18 year and keeping minimum rates at the current levels.

    It is proposed that the rate in the dollar for Gross Rental Value (GRV) will increase from $0.116739 to $0.118490 for the 2017/18 financial year.

    “That Council:
    1. Endorses for public advertising the following proposed rate increases for inclusion in the 2017/18 Municipal Budget;
    (a) General rates representing a 1.5% increase on 2016/17 resulting in the following rate in the dollar amounts: (i) Gross Rental Values of property - 11.8490 cents in the dollar (ii) Unimproved Values of property - 0.9006 cents in the dollar
    (b) Minimum rates representing a 0% increase on 2016/17 being: (i) $1,080.00 per Gross Rental Value (ii) $1,480.00 per Unimproved Value
    2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to publicly advertise the proposed rate increases for a period of 14 days.”

    I spoke to the person in charge of the Landcorp team that came to York just prior to last years rates being issued and he told me Landcorp set the GRV for Local Governments and they review the value every four years.

    How can the GRV be increased again this year?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When was the last Landcorp review?

      I'd really like to know on precisely what basis the Shire feels able to justify any increase in the rates, however small. Does the increase reflect an actual increase in expenditure, and if so, in which areas of operation? The Shire should be striving to reduce the rates, which are much too high for a tiny rural local government offering relatively little by way of public amenity.

      Note the impersonal construction 'it is proposed', a bureaucratic device to evade responsibility for what the writer is proposing. Read it as 'we propose' and the mist will clear a little.

      Delete
  3. The last Landcorp review for York was done in 2016, prior to the last GRV increase.
    Landcorp GRV reviews are carried out every four years.


    ReplyDelete
  4. I hope the predications on the other blog come true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I Spoke to Landgate this morning, they advised they revalue GRV for properties every five years. The last time they were in York was on 1 august 2015, which came in to effect for 2016 Rates.

    The Shire councillors have the power to increase the rate in the $ to suit the budget presented to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed they do have that power, Roma. They also have a corresponding power to reduce the rate in the dollar, but seem generally to prefer applying the good old rubber stamp to whatever the administration has proposed.

      I mean no disrespect to our current administration, which for intellectual capacity and skill is vastly superior in every way to what we've endured in the past, but bureaucracies at every level of government tend to operate on the principle that the pockets of tax- and ratepayers are lined with an inexhaustible supply of money to pay for grandiose schemes and visions dreamed up by politicians or themselves and for pricey consultants to advise on how the job should be done. Our very own YRCC is a perfect example of what I mean.

      Elected representatives of the people consistently show themselves to be keener on placating groups that might love and support them than in exercising restraint and commonsense over the spending of public money. Hence the endless handouts to sporting clubs, dance studios and other associations that eventually come to expect that the public purse can be relied on to fund activities they should pay for from their own pockets, not yours and mine.

      In my admittedly jaundiced opinion, local government should spend money only on essential services that are of clear and immediate benefit to everyone, not just a few. Roads, parks and open spaces, waterways, municipal swimming pools,beautifying the town and natural environment, community resource centres and libraries - that's where our money should go, not into tennis courts, bowling greens, changing rooms and so on which in practice are not available for everyone to use and which most people won't use anyway even if they can.

      Delete
  6. Mundaring Council instructed their Administration to make cuts to the budget draft to avoid Ratepayers being hit with an increase in their rates.

    Come on York Councillors, you can do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankly, I'm not sure our councillors 'can do the same'. The Mundaring councillors are a pretty bright bunch. David Lavell, the Shire President, is a consulting engineer. His deputy, Patrick Bertola, has a PhD in economic and mining history, is director and manager of a vineyard and worked for 17 years as a senior lecturer at Curtin University. Other councillors include a banking and finance lawyer, a clinical nurse specialist, a researcher at ECU, a writer and researcher, and so it goes on. Those are folk who know that they're in charge and have the wit, courage and integrity to declare and enforce their opinions. Of course, no invidious comparisons are intended...

      Delete
  7. Wouldn't it be great to see the shire really dig in and restore roads,install drainage and paths,tidy up verges and the town generally, while they continue to tweek up parks and streetscapes a bit more ? Is it really so important to completely redevelop the park or the cbd at this stage ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Anonymous. If the Shire can't clean up the streets what good are they.

      Delete
  8. We've allready paid enough in rates for decent roads and drains,(a fundamental of any shire) we should at least get that before any other new fancy project.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Submissions about the redevelopment of Avon Park are open till 31st May

      Delete
  9. The highly qualified Mundaring Councillors obviously appreciate the financial responsibility they have been given.











    ReplyDelete