Like many others in York, I was shocked and saddened by Matthew Reid’s
decision to resign not only from the office of Shire President but also from
the Shire Council.
His honest and eloquent resignation speech on Monday evening, and his
letter of resignation addressed to the Acting CEO, would have left nobody in
any doubt as to why he has taken that step.
He and his family have suffered much because, unlike his predecessors
in office, he moved to follow the path of reform instead of sitting back and
allowing the shire cart to rumble on in the same sordid rut as before.
Matthew Reid aimed to expose and correct the wrongs of the past and
make the Shire as a whole, Council and administration, accountable to the
community it exists to serve.He
wanted justice and fair play for the good people of York.
He was instrumental in—shall we say—convincing a certain former CEO
that after nearly ten years of virtually absolute rule over York it was time
for him to up stakes and slink back in disgrace to his lair in Alexander
Heights.
By persuading Council to authorise the investigation that led to the Fitz
Gerald Report, he alerted us to the culture of bullying, nepotism, patronage, favouritism
and persecution in which some shire councillors and employees appear to have
chosen or been forced to become enmeshed over many years.
Councillors come and go, but some of the employees concerned still
occupy lucrative positions with the Shire.
All of those individuals played their part, for their own venal and far
from obscure reasons, in undermining Shire President Reid.
In this they were expertly assisted by officers of the Department of
Local Government, notably David Morris and Brad Jolly.They too, and their departmental
colleagues, also had their reasons, to which I have adverted many times in this
blog and elsewhere.
Mr. Morris compiled the ludicrous and deceitful ‘Show Cause’ Notice
that led to Minister Tony Simpson’s recommending the Governor to suspend Council.
The full story of Mr. Jolly’s role in the suspending of Council and the
appointing of James Best both as commissioner for and consultant to the Shire
of York is yet to be told.
What came over loud and clear on Monday evening, and is reinforced by
Shire President Reid’s letter of resignation, is that he and his supporters Crs
Smythe and Wallace were confronted at every turn by a stubborn and I believe
illicit policy of obstruction operating in the Shire. This policy, exemplified in
the conduct of the Acting CEO, was orchestrated by a very small but powerful
group of senior employees.
The Shire President’s letter is testament to this.He writes:
‘I was elected on a platform
of open and accountable local government with transparency, community
consultation and collaboration…Unfortunately I do not believe that the current
council administration or the Department of Local Government have the same
commitment…As a consequence of this resistance to change the processes and
accountability I have decided to resign…’
You can read the full text
of the letter, along with some excellent analysis from David Taylor, on the
Shire of York Blog at http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/.
Something that
surprised me in Matthew’s speech and letter is his expression of gratitude to
Minister Simpson and extolling of the minister’s virtues.
I don’t for a
moment doubt Matthew’s sincerity, but I find it hard to repress the suspicion
that the Minister was stringing him along.
If Tony Simpson
had really had our Shire President’s, or the Shire’s, best interests at heart,
he would not have accepted his department’s recommendation to have Council
suspended.In particular, he would
have paid more attention to Council’s response to the Show Cause Notice.He might even have bothered to read it.
Above all, he
would have rejected the department’s recommendation of James Best as
commissioner and consultant.
In this
connection, it might have been wise for the Minister to explore the possibility
that Mr. Jolly and Mr. Best may have constituted what is sometimes called a
mutual admiration society.
Personally, I
cannot forgive Minister Simpson’s flippant, insulting and contemptuous response
to my suggestion that he should accept a significant measure of responsibility
for the calamitous appointment of James Best as commissioner and its
consequences.
His statement—no
doubt crafted by Mr. Jolly or somebody very like him—that there was nothing he
could do about the purchase of ‘Chalkies’ from the owners of Faversham House
and the York Palace Hotel amounts to a dishonourable evasion of his duty to our
community.
So too does his
failure to offer any kind of reparation to the Shire of York or to forward
information about the transaction to the Corruption and Crime Commission.
So I’m sorry
Matthew, with all due respect I cannot join you in your praise of Minister
Simpson.The best thing I can
bring myself to say about him is that he may be no better or worse than an
emasculated prisoner of his senior bureaucrats.
However, I come not
to bury but to praise you.You are
a good, highly intelligent and honest man, worthy of our gratitude and respect,
a giant beside the mental and moral primitives who bullied you and made your job
impossible.
I believe that
without the relentless undermining by disloyal colleagues, and the dishonest
and self-interested actions of the Department of Local Government, you would
have been able to achieve everything you set out to do for our shire.
As I told you
after you had made your resignation speech, I cannot say how sad I am that
you have decided to step down from office as shire president and councillor.
God alone knows
how the new council will get along without you.Good leaders in these discordant days are very hard to find.
Written, authorised and published
by James Plumridge, 14 Harriott Street, York WA 6302.
*******
AT LAST!THE MEDIA TAKES NOTICE AGAIN
From Tuesday’s West Australian
York turmoil as council president resigns
The upheaval at the Shire of York has
continued, with president Matthew Reid resigning just two months after
the council was reinstated.
It is understood Mr Reid resigned on Monday night but his resignation will not take effect until October 17.
Mr
Reid’s resignation follows a tumultuous time for York council, which
was suspended in January over concerns about its ability to manage the
operations of the shire and provide good governance.
In
June the Corruption and Crime Commission found the shire had dealt
appropriately with misconduct allegations and the council was reinstated
in July.
Mr Reid’s resignation letter cited
concerns about a lack of commitment in both the council administration
and the Department of Local Government to deliver “open and accountable
governance at the Shire of York”.
“I was elected on a
platform of open and accountable local government with transparency,
community consultation and collaboration,” he wrote.
“Every decision I have made and every action I have undertaken has been with the aim of honouring these commitments.
“Unfortunately
I do not believe the current council administration or the Department
of Local Government have the same commitment or desire to bring about
the changes that I believe are necessary to deliver open and accountable
governance at the Shire of York.
“From time to time
I have faced the dilemma that as Shire President I am compelled to
express views, provide answers to questions and make statements that
have not necessarily been in line with my own view, beliefs and
understanding of events.”
He said the role required a full-time commitment he was unable to continue.
Mr
Reid’s resignation follows the shire’s loss of two chief executives
last year, one of which was accompanied by allegations of abuse from
ratepayers.
At the time the council was suspended in
January Mr Reid expressed disappointment in the decision, arguing
instead the State Government should appoint a panel with the powers of a
royal commission to investigate corporate governance issues dating back
10 years.
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.
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
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.
“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.
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.
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
