NEWSFLASH

ACTING CEO REPLIES TO ONE OF HIS CRITICS

Stuffs it up, as usual, with a little help from his friends

The following confidential email arrived this morning in the inbox of one of my friends:

From: Graeme Simpson [mailto:ceo@york.wa.gov.au]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:52 AM
To: Simon Saint; Records
Cc: 'Matthew Reid'; 'David Wallace'; 'Denese smythe'; 'Karen Chapel'; 'Daniel Simms'; 'Jenni Law'; 'Andrew Borrett'
Subject: RE: Question PQT OCM September 2015

Dear Mr Saint,

The Council of the day in October 2013 determined the manner in which Public Question Time is to be conducted and stipulated the process to be followed. The LG Administration Regulations 5, 6 and 7 require public question time to precede discussion on any matter that requires a decision of the Council.

The President and Mentors have been involved in the consideration of the difficulties that uncontrolled questions pose for the meetings of Council and it was deemed essential that the procedures laid down be followed.

If you seek to have a system of answering questions without restriction you will have to seek a legislation change of Western Australian law.

  

Regards

Graeme

Graeme Simpson

Acting Chief Executive Officer

Shire of York

08.9641.2233

records@york.wa.gov.au

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.  This message (including attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you received it in error, no client privilege is waived and you may not disclose or use it - please notify us then delete it. We do not guarantee the reliability, completeness or confidentiality of any email communication, or its freedom from harmful software. Please do not delete or alter this message.

My friend had asked a question about the restriction of Public Question Time as discussed in my previous post on the topic.

In his email, the Acting CEO has missed—or more correctly, evaded—the point of my friend’s objection to that restriction.  (My friend’s reasons for objecting are pretty much the same as mine.) 

The fact is that the CEO has no power to place restrictions on PQT.  The law reserves that power to the person presiding over a meeting, normally in York the Shire President.

In my opinion, not even the Shire President has the power to demand that questions touching on administrative matters be ‘forwarded directly’ to the Acting CEO (or a real CEO, come to that).  If shire presidents did have that power, they would be fools to exercise it.

To make answering questions on ‘administrative matters’ the prerogative of the CEO of the day would be risky. It might result in uncomfortable or embarrassing questions not being answered, or if they are answered, not being included in council minutes or otherwise exposed to the public gaze. 

More than likely, if they are answered, it will be in letters or emails marked or simply described as confidential (like the one replicated above). 

Surprisingly, many people believe they are obliged to do as they’re told and treat those communications as confidential.   Well, no.  There is no such obligation attaching to communications from the Shire, other public agencies, firms of solicitors and so forth.  What they present as an order or strict requirement is actually merely a request.

Never be afraid to publicise official communications if you believe it is in the community’s best interests that you should.  The worst thing the Shire or public agencies can do in retaliation is to refuse to write to you again. 

Of course, if you’re told that a government communication is covered by official secrets legislation, it’s wise to take that on board.  But I don’t think that would apply to a letter or email from the Shire of York.

Most of us would agree that PQT gets out of hand at times and lasts too long.  It’s up to the Shire President to bring us peasants into line.  Controlling any aspect of a council meeting, including PQT, is his prerogative. 

It has nothing whatever to do with the CEO or any other member of Shire staff.  We don’t vote for them.  They are merely servants of the Council and of the community that elected it.

We don’t vote for the so-called ‘mentors’, either, and while they’re entitled as we all are to offer our councillors advice in private they have neither the power nor the right to involve themselves in deliberations that result in unlawful decisions imposed on the people of York.  

If the Acting CEO and his mates want a system of answering questions that restricts PQT to questions about ‘governance’ they will have to seek changes to Western Australian law.

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

COUP D’ÉTAT!

Back to the future for Shire of York

Senior administration running scared, acts to restore old order

‘I decide what you can ask during Public Question Time’, says Acting CEO

If you are on the Shire’s e-mailing list, you will have received on Friday afternoon a copy of the following declaration, signed by Acting CEO Simpson:

(click to enlarge)

In a nutshell, the Acting CEO is laying down what he fondly believes is the law relating to Public Question Time.  He is wrong.

Worse, what he’s proposing is an affront to the democratic rights and interests of York residents and ratepayers.  

Let me explain.

‘Governance’

The Acting CEO tells us we can only use Public Question Time to ask questions about what he says is ‘the governance function of Council’.   

He sees that function as ‘policy, direction setting and decision making for the good of the community as a whole’.

That is a self-serving definition, designed to cripple any attempt by Council to oversee the actions of the CEO and through him the activities of other Shire employees.  

Followed to its logical conclusion, it means that whatever the CEO and his staff may get up to has nothing to do with the community’s representatives—our elected councillors—unless the CEO in his wisdom decides otherwise.  It puts the CEO firmly in control of the Shire’s affairs.

‘Operational and administrative matters’

What we peasants mustn’t do, according to the Acting CEO, is use PQT to ask questions about ‘operational and administrative matters’.  He says those sorts of questions must be ‘forwarded directly’ to the Acting CEO.

So who decides which questions are about ‘operational and administrative matters’ rather than ‘governance’?  I bet he thinks it’s the Acting CEO.  Again, he’s wrong.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that under the Acting CEO’s rule, questions relating to ‘operational and administrative matters’ would be most unlikely to find their way into the minutes of Council meetings. 

The implications are sinister, but clearly visible even to the untrained naked eye.  Ensuring that PQT is restricted to so-called ‘governance’ questions puts the Acting CEO in a position to hush up virtually anything he and his staff are involved in—from simple mistakes to serious issues of incompetence, corruption and maladministration—to which members of the public wish to draw attention and to have recorded in the minutes of Council meetings. 

Is what he says backed up by law?

So far as I know, there is nothing in the Local Government 1995 to justify the Acting CEO’s direction to residents. 

Nor is anything of that nature to be found in regulations made under the Act, or in Local Government Operational Guidelines 03—Managing Public Question Time, or in the Shire’s Standing Orders. 

And for good measure, according to Local Government (Administration) Regulation 1996 7(4) (a), the only questions that Council need not answer are those that don’t relate ‘to a matter affecting local government’.

I challenge the Acting CEO to prove me wrong.

Protocol for PQT

If he decides to respond to my challenge, he will almost certainly do so by falling back on the protocol for PQT adopted by Council on 21 September 2013.  A copy of that document, entitled ‘Public Question Time at Council Meetings’ was circulated with his letter of the other day.

It was adopted at the suggestion—or perhaps one should say, at the behest—of former CEO Ray Hooper.  Under the heading ‘Process’, it includes the attempted restriction of PQT to ‘governance’ questions.

The Acting CEO will no doubt argue that this ‘protocol’ is legislation enacted by the Shire Council of the day and therefore binding on residents and ratepayers.

Sorry, Graeme, that won’t wash.  The legislative powers of Council derive from statute—in this instance, the Local Government Act. In its own legislation, Council cannot go further than is authorised by statute.

The Acting CEO’s proposed restriction on question time is not authorised by statute.   In fact, it is demonstrably unlawful. 

What the Department’s experts say

This is not just my opinion.  It is also the opinion of the Department of Local Government and Communities, as expressed by two of its senior officers, Ms Jenni Law (currently acting as a mentor to our present Council) and Mr. Stuart Fraser, Principal Advisory Officer.

When Ray Hooper first tried to introduce the restriction some years ago, during the reign of Shire President Pat Hooper, Ms Law made it clear to Council that members of the public can use PQT to ask questions relating to any local government matter. 

And Mr. Fraser, in an email to a friend of mine, explained that decisions to exclude questions are the prerogative of the person presiding over a council meeting—that is, in York’s case, the shire president or another councillor acting in his place. 

It is not for the CEO to decide what questions can be asked.

Democracy under threat—again

So—good try, Graeme, but all you’ve succeeded in doing (not for the first time) is making a bloody fool of yourself and drawing down upon shire staff the suspicion that some of them, past and present, are or have been up to no good.

No shire president worth his salt will allow a CEO, acting or otherwise, to trample down the democratic foundations of local government in Western Australia. 

The council’s job is to advance under law the rights and interests of the people it is elected to serve.  The CEO’s job is to advise and inform council; to implement under law the decisions of council; to appoint other employees; to make sure those employees do properly what they are paid to do and sack them if they don’t.

In essence, that’s all there is to it.  Not rocket science, is it, Graeme? 

If the Acting CEO requires further instruction, I recommend my blog post of 9 September: ‘Who’s Really in Charge of Local Government—the Elected Council or the Staff?’  Happy reading, Graeme!

Time for a thorough springclean

Meanwhile, the rest of us need to impress on the Acting CEO that we will not put up with his stale old nonsense for a moment longer.

We must insist again on a full, detailed, expert and independent investigation into every allegation of corruption and bureaucratic misfeasance in the Shire going back over the last ten years. 

This should include issues of nepotism and patronage as defined in the Local Government Act.  Every staff appointment during that period should be reviewed to ensure it meets with the requirements of merit and equity.  So far as possible, every contract awarded, every item of credit card expenditure, every sale and purchase of property, the exercise of every staff privilege, should be scrutinised by expert investigators for evidence of financial wrongdoing.  Every council decision and executive action should be scrutinised for evidence of favouritism or malice.

It’s time to springclean and start afresh.  It will be painful, but if we don’t have the courage to take that step nothing will really go right for the Shire of York.

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

*******

About tomorrow’s Council meeting…

Issues surrounding PQT are very likely to get an energetic airing at tomorrow’s Council meeting to be held at 5 pm in the Lesser Hall (this month, the meeting is being held a week early). 

Please make every effort to attend.  The cause of reform needs your vigorous support.

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.

WHO’S REALLY IN CHARGE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT—THE ELECTED COUNCIL OR THE STAFF?

Or to put it another way, how much control, if any, does a council have over its CEO and, through him, other employees?

A former Shire of York CEO had definite views on this question. He seemed to see himself, like King Louie in Disney’s film The Jungle Book, as ‘king of the swingers, the jungle VIP’. He used to tell his staff that in York, councillors had little or no power or authority compared with him and ‘his’ employees. 

For him, it seemed, shire councillors were mere vassals, to be permitted the illusion of power but kept on a tight leash.  And they acted like they believed it. 

Witness a former shire president’s notorious declaration that he and other councillors were ‘a cohesive team behind’ the CEO in question.  Who was in charge of whom?

The Hooper Doctrine

For the sake of brevity, let’s call that former CEO’s opinion ‘the Hooper Doctrine’.  It’s possible that some members of shire staff still adhere to it, along with some bureaucrats in the Department of Local Government. 

The latter may have a vested interest in ensuring that councillors exercise as little real power as possible.  Local government officials are easier to control than the elected representatives of the people and probably a lot less likely to cause embarrassment by complaining in public about departmental decisions.

Don’t meddle in administrative matters—that’s the message to councillors from the Department, the Acting CEO and even perhaps to Shire President Reid from his ‘mentors’. 

And don’t allow ordinary folk, those pesky ratepayers, to ask penetrating questions about staff and related ‘administrative’ matters.   They should make do with what the CEO chooses to tell them.

As Premier Barnett has acknowledged, in WA local communities are paying unconscionable amounts of money by way of rates to fund the excessive numbers, salaries, expenses and occasional junkets of senior local government employees and favoured councillors. 

 Add to that, in York and elsewhere, the ‘outsourcing’ to consultants of work senior employees are paid but are apparently not competent to do. 

How long will we in York have to wait before all the work goes offshore to Bangalore and Calcutta?

The Hooper Doctrine exposed as codswallop

As everybody knows, local government in Western Australia is covered by the Local Government Act 1995 (‘the Act’).  There is also a broad range of legislation that impinges on the work of local government, but that’s outside the scope of this article as are regulations made under the Act.

You can get easy online access to the Act on the DLGC website at http://www.dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/Legislation/ActsRegulations.aspx.

So what does the Act say about the respective roles, powers and functions of councils and CEOs and the relationship between an elected council and its staff?

The council’s role

Let’s start with section 2.6 of the Act, which is headed by the encouraging words ‘Local governments to be run by elected councils’.  The section states unambiguously that the elected council is the governing body of a local government, i.e. a city, town or shire.  This puts the community’s elected representatives firmly at the top of the local government tree.

Section 2.7 states that the council ‘governs the local government’s affairs’ and is responsible for performing the local government’s functions. 

The section goes on to say that councils ‘oversee’—in other words, supervise, direct or manage (Macquarie) —‘the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources’, as well as determine policy.

What this means is that ultimately it is the elected council, not the administration, which has authority over and control of every role, obligation and responsibility that falls within the local government’s purview.

The role of mayor or president

Section 2.8 deals with the role of the mayor or president.  As well as presiding over council meetings, undertaking ceremonial duties, and providing ‘leadership and guidance to the community’, the mayor or president speaks for the local government and ‘liaises with the CEO on the local government’s affairs and the performance of its functions’.

‘Liaise’ means ‘maintain contact and act in concert with’ (Macquarie).  It does not mean ‘stay out of business managed by the CEO’, for example staffing matters—of which more later. 

As I read the section, it provides for mayors or presidents to involve themselves in such matters ‘in concert’, that is, together and in accord with the CEO.  It does not exclude mayors and presidents from such involvement.

Moreover, for a council to ‘govern the local government’s affairs’ it must obviously have a measure of authority over its staff—including the CEO. 

‘Governance’ is a word bureaucrats occasionally use to suggest limitations on the exercise of power by councils.  But governance isn’t just a question of setting goals and policies and strategies to achieve them.  It has practical implications, too.  Its meanings include ‘the exercise of authority and control’ (Macquarie).

The role of councillors

Section 2.10 defines the work of individual councillors.  As well as ‘representing the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents’, providing the community with leadership and guidance, and taking part in council decision-making, councillors act as channels of communication between the community, the council and the administration.

A community member might feel more comfortable communicating complaints and concerns about, say, the behaviour towards them of a shire employee, through a councillor rather than directly to the CEO.

Unquestionably, local government employees have the right to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect.  That doesn’t mean they ought to be regarded as a protected species.  

In a free and open society, nobody is beyond the reach of satire, criticism or complaint.

Most local government employees are good, honest people who do their jobs efficiently, take pride in their work and relate courteously to each other and members of the community. 

However, as in every organisation, there exist those who, ‘dressed in a little brief authority’, have a tendency to bully not only their subordinates but also the people they are meant to serve—including those who are down on their luck and deserve compassion, not contempt.

Bringing such misguided employees into line is the job of the CEO.  It won’t help if the CEO is also a bully, but dealing with that problem—in other words, disciplining the CEO—is the prerogative of the elected council.

Councillors’ access to information

Section 5.92 of the Act provides that councillors and committee members—presumably, including members of council committees who are not councillors—‘can have access to any information held by the local government that is relevant to the performance by the person of any of his or her functions under this Act or any other written law’.

The section further provides that the information a councillor is entitled to access includes ‘all written contracts entered into by the local government’ and ‘all documents relating to written contracts proposed to be entered into by the local government.’

This is an important provision that I’m told has in the past in York been ‘more honoured in the breach than the observance’.  (Of course, I may have been misinformed.)

It’s true that disputes might arise as to what is and isn’t ‘relevant’.  But that issue should be judged in the light of the council’s overarching responsibility for governing the city, town or shire.

In other words, what matters most must be what the councillor deems to be relevant, not the opinion of the CEO or other members of staff.  If a dispute does arise regarding a councillor’s access to information, it should be the elected council, not the CEO or any other employee, that resolves it.

And don’t be bamboozled by ‘commercial-in-confidence’.  That’s usually a dishonest ploy to keep communities in the dark about how their money is being spent, for what purpose and for whose benefit or enrichment. 

By its very nature, confidentiality is a form of concealment.  Concealment is the precursor to secrecy, and secrecy in government, as I’m fond of saying, is the first step on the path to corruption.

Functions of the CEO

Section 5.36 of the Act requires ‘a local government’—that is, the elected council—to employ a CEO and ‘such other persons as the council believes are necessary to enable the functions of the local government and the functions of the council to be performed’.

This means, and can only mean, that not only is the CEO an employee of the council, but so also is every other local government employee.

Section 5.41 defines the CEO’s functions.  Primarily, they include advising the council as to what local government may and may not do according to law; providing the council with advice and information for decision-making purposes;

seeing that council decisions are implemented; and managing the day-to-day business of the council.

They also include being responsible for employing, managing, supervising, directing and dismissing employees.   Nobody should interpret that as justifying an embargo on questions touching on staffing matters from councillors or members of the public.  Being responsible for something has never meant being the only person who is allowed to question or comment on it.  There’s this awkward thing called democracy that keeps getting in the way.

The ordinary meaning of ‘responsible’ is ‘answerable or accountable’.  Being responsible means being accountable for something within your ‘power, control or management’ (Macquarie). 

To what or whom is the CEO accountable for the exercise of his functions?  The answer must be: in the first instance to the council that employs him, and through the council, to the community he is paid to serve.

We should remember that everything a local government does is paid for from the public purse. 

Employee costs are no different.  There is no good reason why the costs associated with employing people to work as public servants for the Shire of York should not be scrutinised, questioned and subjected to comment like any other aspect of council expenditure.

Exactly how much autonomy and discretion local government CEOs will have in the exercise of their functions depends largely on how much authority to act in their own right councils delegate to them.   A council’s ability to delegate its decision-making capacities to its CEO is covered by Sections 5.42 to 5.46 of the Act. 

It’s important to remember that when such delegation occurs, power and authority flow from the council to the CEO, not the other way around.   Council may decide at any time to exercise in its own right a power previously delegated to the CEO.  It may also withdraw any such delegation. 

In short, in this as in every other relevant respect, it is the council, not the CEO, that has the whip hand.

Summing up

I hope you will agree that even in this very brief and imperfect review of relevant sections of the Act, I have succeeded in exploding the Hooper Doctrine, as I call it, that elected councils count for little or nothing and real power in local government is wielded by CEOs and administrative staff.

The truth is that as should always be the case in a democracy, the elected representatives of the people are legally in charge—whether or not they or others believe it.

Unfortunately, power is a commodity that can always be given away.  The Act provides a mechanism for an elected council to delegate power and authority to its CEO.  A timid or lazy council may end up ceding too much power and authority, thus creating a situation akin to what our mediaeval ancestors described as the problem of ‘the over-mighty subject’.

That is a situation with which the York community is only too familiar. 

Let’s all do what we can to ensure that nothing like it arises again.

Written and authorised by James Plumridge 14 Harriott Street York 6302

NO, MINISTER, THIS WON'T DO AT ALL

(click to enlarge) 

This letter arrived in the post last week.  When I first read it, I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry.  After due deliberation, I decided that laughter would be best, but I did shed a tear or two over the putrefying corpse of democracy in Western Australia.

Readers may recall that on 10 August 2015 I posted on this blog a copy of the letter to which Minister Simpson’s dismissive missive purports to be a reply.  You will find that letter on the blog under the title ‘Another Open Letter to Minister Tony Simpson’.

It is, I admit, a long and complex letter.  It raises various issues connected with the Shire’s purchase, at James Best’s direction, of the Old Convent School (or ‘Chalkies’ as it is now more generally known).  It argues for the recognition of a moral dimension in actions, like Mr. Best’s, that may be valid at law but are dubious in context and reprehensible in their implementation.  Radical stuff, indeed.

Criminal Code, Section 83

In particular, I took Minister Simpson to task for promulgating a false, indeed ridiculous interpretation of section 83 of the Criminal Code, which applies to corrupt conduct on the part of public officers. 

In his reply to an earlier open letter jointly composed by my friend Jane Ferro and me, Mr. Simpson had opined (I won’t dignify his comments with the word ‘argued’) that a public officer acting within the scope of his lawful authority could not be charged with an offence under section 83.

How he came by that opinion is a mystery to me.  If it was based on legal advice, he should sack his lawyer.  If it was based on the advice of his departmental bureaucrats, he should get his director-general, Ms J Mathews, to send them on leave without pay for at least ten years.

If it was based on the advice of Ms Mathews, he badly needs a new director-general. And if he dreamed it up all by himself, he is too stupid to hold ministerial office and should straightaway resign or be fired.

With the help, if I may so put it, of two eminent judges of the WA Supreme Court, I was able to show that Minister Simpson’s opinion was mistaken—codswallop, in fact.  Notice that he doesn’t acknowledge his mistake.  That doesn’t surprise me.  He is a politician, after all, in a government that it grieves me to say is rolling inexorably downhill.

Corruption and Crime Commission

I’m astonished that the minister advises me to refer my allegations of possible corruption to the Corruption and Crime Commission.

As Minister Simpson well knows, the Commission is very unlikely to act on a complaint from a lowly citizen like me.  I’m fairly sure that if the Commission did miraculously decide to act, he would use his influence to stop any investigation into the conduct of his protégé, former commissioner Best, dead in its tracks. 

I believe he has done something of the kind before, towards the end of last year, when palpable, detailed evidence of corruption in the Shire of York, including evidence of credit card fraud, was presented to the Commission. 

As I’m sure Minister Simpson knows, and may conceivably have had a hand in, the Commission referred that evidence to Commissioner Best and Acting CEO Graeme Simpson, asking them to investigate all allegations against a former CEO and councillors. 

As everybody knows, because Mr. Best, with the help of his spin–doctors or ‘brand reputation managers’, released the news to the media and in an open letter to the residents of York, Messrs Best and Simpson mysteriously and improbably discovered that all such allegations were groundless. 

I believe Messrs Best and Simpson were lying.  I suppose it is possible that they were doing so off their own bat, but it seems likely they were acting on instructions from Minister Simpson and/or senior bureaucrats in his department.

In any case, as the Minister must know, the Commission decided some months ago to restrict its investigations to big fish, rather than dispensable minnows like former commissioner Best and the Shire of York. 

My ‘allegations of corruption’ would be better placed in the hands of the police—perhaps of the Fraud Squad—than those of the Commission.  I doubt, though, that the police would on such a matter as this pay attention to me or any other everyday citizen of York—especially if a minister of the crown moved to dissuade them from doing so.

It is Minister Simpson who should call on the police to investigate the sale and purchase of Chalkies.  I say that because as I pointed out in my letter of 7 August, he is the person who inflicted Mr. Best on the good people of York.  He must therefore accept much of the responsibility for the impact and consequences of Mr. Best’s calamitous six-month reign over our shire.

My views are not mine alone.  Many York residents share them.  There appears to be considerable dispute here as to whether Minister Simpson is a Machiavellian scoundrel or merely a fool.

This is his chance to prove that he is neither.  All he has to do is set himself the task of obtaining justice for the beleaguered people of York.

How about it, Minister?  Do you have the ticker for that?

*******

Seen the other day in the window of a house on Avon Terrace...

 

(click to enlarge)

Someone forgot to mention Chalkies...

*******

Allawuna landfill Application:  LATEST NEWS FROM AVRA

  Wheatbelt Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP)

  
As you may know, Council refused the amended application on the 10^th August.

 On the 31^st of August the JDAP similarly refused the application and it now heads back to the State Administrative Tribunal where it is listed for a final hearing  scheduled for four days commencing the 17^th November.

 In the meantime, the Interveners, of whom AVRA is one, must file application for continued participation in the proceeding by the 2^nd October and the application is listed for a hearing on the 8^th October.  

 Of most concern during the JDAP hearing was a statement from the Department of Environment Regulation to the effect that they could see no impediment to the issuing of a licence to the applicant should they obtain planning approval. 

 AVRA will be contesting the grounds for this by calling on our consultants to testify on the groundwater issues. The expert environmental witnesses are required to meet on the 6^th November and must file a joint statement on the 10^th November. 

 Stay tuned for further updates.

 Avon Valley Residents Association