HABEMUS PAPAM!
Well, not quite, but almost as inspiring,
you might think, after the vicissitudes of the last couple of years.
Late in the afternoon a week ago, on 5
November 2015, our Shire councillors gathered in secret conclave to appoint a new
Acting CEO to replace the present incumbent, Graeme Simpson.
Mr. Mark Dacombe will take up the position
next Monday, 16 November, following the long-prayed-for departure of Mr.
Simpson tomorrow.
On the evidence of correspondence signed by
Mr. Simpson—but because it makes sense, obviously not written by him—it appears
that Mr. Dacombe has been doing Mr. Simpson’s job for quite a while.
That would accord with current practice at
the Shire, where consultants are regularly brought on board to do the work of unqualified
or less than competent senior staff.
Yes, Mr. Dacombe is a consultant. He is director of a firm called
Localise Pty Ltd, with an office ‘in a charming character building in Maylands’
(I’m quoting from the firm’s website at http://wearelocalise.com/about-us/, which also gives an address in Almondbury Street, Mount Lawley. Could those premises be one and the same?)
Localise operates under the slogan ‘Local
Government at its Best’, which for reasons obvious to the people of York it might like to consider changing.
Those of us who attend the occasional council
meeting have seen Mr. Dacombe sitting discreetly at the top table near the
mentors and Mr. Simpson. If you
haven’t yet clapped eyes on him, this is he:
So, what else do we know about Mr. Dacombe? Here are a handful of biographical
facts, gleaned mainly from the FIGJAM website Linked In.
Mr. Dacombe hails from New Zealand. He holds a master’s degree in
public management from Victoria University at Wellington. He graduated in 2006 while
employed as CEO of Kapiti Coast District Council.
(Setting a fine example for senior members
of the Shire of York administration, who appear to have done little or nothing to acquire qualifications
relevant to their jobs during many years of employment with the Shire.)
Before leaving New Zealand, Mr. Dacombe
occupied various local government positions, several as CEO. He was also employed as adviser on
local government matters in the NZ Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
As a volunteer, he advised the
Commonwealth Local Government Forum in the Solomon Islands and Papua New
Guinea.
Mr. Dacombe seems to have got his first
insights into the suppurating swamp that is local government in WA as CEO of
Canning City Council. He took up
that job in February 2009.
In May 2012, the mayor of the day, Joe
Delle Donne, unilaterally and unceremoniously dumped Mr. Dacombe, setting in
train a series of events that led to the Council’s suspension on grounds of
‘widespread governance issues’ and thereafter to several years of rule by
commissioner that have only recently come to an end.
There is no suggestion that Mr. Dacombe was
in any way at fault.
Since then, as well as his role as director
of Localise, Mr. Dacombe has undertaken periods of service as Acting CEO with
the Shires of Pingelly and Mingenew.
It’s clear that Mr. Dacombe has the runs on
the board for the job of Acting CEO.
He is obviously a highly intelligent and competent administrator,
something sorely needed in York.
My only quibble is that like that of former
commissioner Best—and I will not extend the comparison—his language is laced
with vacuous abstractions and bureaucratic platitudes.
‘We bring a strong emphasis on engagement and
representative community feedback; embedding leadership and ownership with the
local government and its community; quality partnerships; real world insight and
planning that makes a difference.’
That’s from the
website mentioned earlier.
Does it have a precise meaning? How do you 'embed leadership'? What exactly is a ‘quality partnership’? What on earth does ‘real world
insight’ mean?
And what about
the website’s assertion that ‘Local government at its best gives rise to
thriving communities’? Isn’t it
equally plausible—perhaps more so—to say that ‘Thriving communities give rise
to local government at its best’? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Never
mind. I have a good feeling about
Mr. Dacombe. If he is not only a
capable administrator, but also has sufficient strength of character to resist the batted eyelash,
the winsome smile, the turned-on tear and the targeted tantrum, I’m confident
he will serve York very well.
*******
BENDIGO BANK: NOTICE OF AGM
*******
NEWSFLASH
The SAT member presiding over SITA’s Allawuna
landfill appeal has announced that he is reserving his decision for 90 days.
Perth Friday 20 November 2015
Posted at 9.40 am
Adopted strategy:
*******
From: "J & K Schekkerman" <jschekkerman2@bigpond.com>
Date: 24 November 2015 7:26:08 AM AWST
To: "'Jan Schekkerman'" <jschekkerman2@bigpond.com>
Subject: Newsletter AVRA 24/11/2015
Avon Valley Residents Association Inc.
Newsletter 24/11/2015
Greetings All,
Summary of final week of SAT hearings:
The second and final week of the Tribunal hearings is over.
On the 19th November
and after summing up by each of the legal representatives for the
applicant SITA, and the respondent the JDAP, Senior Member McNab advised
that the decision would be reserved, and that due to the complexity of
the case, a decision by the panel could not be expected before Christmas
and that it may take the full statutory period of 90 days to
determine.
Leading
up to this point, the planning experts took the stand and after
cross-examination both remained firm on their respective for and against
stance on the proposal. The JDAP’s position being that the ad hoc
nature of the application is not in line with orderly and proper
planning in the absence of an overall strategic plan. The
JDAP planner was also resolute that the application was driven by
commercial expedience rather than necessity, with existing capacity for
waste able to cope until 2024 – 2030 while a more suitable site is
located.
The
General Manager of SITA, Niall Stock, took the stand and faced
cross-examination over his witness statement. His statement content was
pretty much the same as contained in his company’s various assertions
made over the last few years. The only point of note was Mr. Stock’s
answer regarding an estimate of external expenses to date that have been
endured by them is approximately $3.1 million. Recently Mr. Stock, in
reply to the same question by the printed media in relation to the
Tammin – Cunderdin waste management study, stated that $1.1 million had
been expended. A minor point, but indicative of the general rubbery
nature of the facts provided by the applicant over time.
YLAC & AVRA from the beginning:
In
late October 2012 a group of concerned locals got together at the
Sandalwood Yards to eventually form the York Landfill Action Coalition
(YLAC) which later morphed into the incorporated entity of AVRA. Over
the last three years we have distributed leaflets, conducted stalls at
the markets and the IGA, arranged signs and banners, attended town hall
meetings, council meetings, electors meetings, committee meetings and
started our newsletters. All with a view to have the Council and
Administration support the community and reject the SITA proposal.
With
the help of the community this indeed came about with Council twice
refusing the application. Below is the list of submissions/actions taken
by YLAC and AVRA leading up to the final SAT hearing just completed:
· Application referred to the EPA
· Appeal to the Appeal Convenor’s Office
· Two submissions to the SOY on the original and amended application
· Two submissions to the DER on the original and amended application
· Two submissions to the JDAP on the original and amended application
Of course it is history that Council and the JDAP each refused both applications.
The
referral to the EPA, submissions to the Council and the first
submission to the JDAP were based on issues around the environment,
planning, traffic, amenity, tourism, agriculture, lifestyle etc.
The
submissions to the DER were based on the environment and particularly
ground water, mapping, liners and construction as it pertained to the
hydrology and geology of site.
The second submission to the JDAP was based on hydrology and geology as it pertained to the ground water.
AVRA
has been assisted throughout by Essential Environmental and Landform
Research who provided environmental, hydrological and geological
services on a pro bono basis. Rockwater Pty Ltd provided hydrogeological
services on a full fee paid basis. The Environmental Defenders Office
provided (and still does) legal representation on a contribution and
expenses basis.
Adopted strategy:
As
described above, YLAC and AVRA contested the SITA application on
matters similar to other submitters i.e. on issues based around the
environment, planning, traffic, amenity, tourism, agriculture, lifestyle
etc that could have a detrimental effect on life in the Shire of York.
All
of the submissions by AVRA and the community resulted in the SOY
planning office Responsible Authority Report that encompassed all of
these issues. Council twice accepted the RAR, and twice it was
recommended to the JDAP and considered in their refusal of both
applications.
SITA
appealed the first JDAP refusal and the matter headed to the SAT in
April 2014. Three parties applied for interim third party intervenor
status for the initial directions and mediation hearings. AVRA, K & R
Davies and McLeod (solicitors for the SoY) were successful, but this
status was conditional on having to formally apply again when the
schedule for the full hearing was agreed and confirmed, which didn’t
occur until late 2015.
Third
party intervenor status enables the third party to participate in
proceedings, address the bench, call and cross examine witness’s.
AVRA
elected to concentrate on the ground water issue west of the Thirteen
Mile Brook based on the applicants survey data, our consultants view on
the matter and the attitude of SITA who had never adequately addressed
this issue.
Because
the JDAP are primarily concerned with planning matters, AVRA’s view was
that any intervention application based on planning matters or indeed
any matters that had already been canvassed by the JDAP via the SOY and
the Responsible Authority Report would be doomed to fail.
As it turned out we were correct and at the hearings of the 8th and 9th of October 2015 the three Intervention Applications were responded to by Senior Member McNab with the following results:
The Intervention Application by R & K Davies was not granted (Court Transcript 08/10/15). Leave was granted to; “make a joint written submissionin respect of the application in relation to (but confined to) the issues raised in their application dated 1 October 2015 only.” (Tribunal Orders 09/10/15)
The Intervention Application by McLeods was not granted (Court Transcript 08/10/15). Leave was granted as per; “the Shire of York has leave tomake written submissions in respect of the application only in relation to the conditions that should be imposed should the Tribunal approve theapplication subject to conditions.” (Tribunal Orders 09/10/15)
The Intervention Application by AVRA was granted; “the Avon Valley Residents Association Inc. (AVRA) has leave to intervene in thisproceeding in relation to groundwater issues only, including hydrogeology and the potential impacts upon water quality, on the condition thatAVRA is not permitted to cross-examine any witnesses at the hearing other than any expert environmental witnesses in respect of groundwaterissues only, including hydrogeology and the potential impacts to water quality.” (Court Transcript 09/10/15 and Tribunal Orders 09/10/15)
Things
were going according to plan to this point, but we were crushed at the
outcome of the conferral of environmental experts as related to you in
our last newsletter. However, hope springs eternal, it would be a brave
SAT to overturn the JDAP as they are an independent body similar to the
SAT.
If
the SAT decision goes against York we believe that the only avenue of
appeal is to the Supreme Court, if there is an error in law in the
decision.
Where to from here:
It
has been a long and tedious process, three years of ups and downs with
another wait on the pending decision. AVRA will be in recess until a
decision comes down. In the meantime AVRA will have the accounts
finalized, audited and placed on our website to fulfill our obligations
as an incorporated body. A digital copy of reports, submissions,
documents etc that may be of interest are available to members upon request.
General observations
On
several occasions the SAT referred to the fact that the locations of
new metro landfills away from the coastal plain, is an area that is
without any policy guidance from the WA Planning Commission, the Waste
Authority or the WA Parliament. It is AVRA’s assertion that our
politicians are abrogating their responsibilities and as a consequence
multinational waste disposal companies are picking on small councils
whose Town Plan have a loop hole by not specifically mentioning waste
disposal as a prohibited use. This could still accommodate these
proposals, but only via a scheme amendment. By present standards and
policy settings, a nuclear power plant could be established in York,
without any comments or intervention from our elected representatives.
AVRA
thanks one and all for their ongoing support and we are still
optimistic that the decision will go the York Community’s way.
Denis Hill and Keith Schekkerman for AVRA Committee.
