GREAT EXPECTATIONS

 (Note: postscript added 13 June 2016
            further postscript added 14 June
          and a tribute in verse added 16 June
          and another great photo for day 4 of the challenge, the best yet in my opinion)

Silence isn’t always golden—sometimes it’s just a way of keeping us in the dark

Ever the optimist, I submitted in writing a question for Council to consider at the ordinary meeting on 23 May 2016.

The question was set out, more or less as it went to Council, at the end of my article ‘The White Elephant in York’s Pajamas’, posted on Friday 13 May.  

According to popular superstition, that may not have been the most auspicious day to post it, but the article provoked close to a record number of comments, indicating a high degree of public interest in the history and possible future of the York Recreation and Convention Centre. 

At the meeting, I read out my question, omitting the obsequious bits I had craftily added by way of preface.  Shire President Wallace’s response was so friendly, cheerful and enthusiastic that for a moment I thought he was about to give me a medal, make me a freeman of the shire, present me with a prize-winning stud ram and offer me his daughter’s hand in marriage (the last being subject of course to the pending introduction of sharia law and the consequent legalisation of polygamy).

My question, in essence, was about the cost and benefits (if any) of the construction and operations of the YRCC. 

I wanted to know how much the centre had cost to build; how much of that cost had been skimmed from other projects; what it had cost to repair and maintain since being opened for public use; what financial benefits, i.e. revenue and profit, had accrued to the Shire from the centre’s operations; and whether or not the centre was ever likely to pay its own way.

Introducing the question, I reminded everyone that former A/CEO Graeme Simpson had well over a year ago promised to provide us 'within a week' with a ‘fact sheet’ containing information of that kind.  He made the promise in one of his rare lucid moments, so it’s no wonder I remember it so well.   

We are still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled.  I was expecting the present Council and Shire administration to fulfil it, on the premise that a promise made is a debt unpaid.  After all, it was made in the Shire’s name.

Be careful what you wish for, because if it’s hard facts you’re after you might not get them from the Shire of York

As I wrote in ‘Notes from Underground’ (25 May), ‘I formed the impression that the question wasn’t unwelcome, as I had felt it might be, and would evoke in due course a detailed response’.  In my innocence, I expected Council to instruct the CEO to make public what I (and many others) would like to know.  

Using the kind of language beloved of politicians and bureaucrats, I pointed out in asking my question that such information might help us ‘to facilitate an informed consultation process’ regarding the relevant aspects of the draft strategic community plan.   

Alas, the vanity of human hopes and wishes!  By ‘detailed response’, I meant that the question should be answered in detail—and further, that the detail would relate for the most part to the question as I had asked it, not to another distantly related question that I didn’t actually ask, but might have asked if my purpose had been to assist Council and the Shire administration to obscure the awful truth about the YRCC.

This was the Shire President’s response, slightly edited, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting:

…the draft Corporate Business Plan refers to an action “YRCC Management Review” to be undertaken in the 2016/17 financial year…It is expected that this review will result in a Business Plan for the YRCC being presented to Council for consideration.  The Business Plan will address many of the … issues [forming] part of your question.  Once this Business Plan is considered by Council and directions for the Centre decided involving consultation with sporting clubs this would be a better time to issue a Facts Sheet if possible.

No, Dave, that wouldn’t be ‘a better time’.  The best time to give us the facts is NOW.

‘I want to believe…’

OK, let’s paraphrase what the Shire President said.  The tart comments displayed in italics are mine.

1.              This financial year, there’s going to be a ‘Management Review’ of the YRCC.  (Excellent! But who will carry out the review, under what headings, and if the review reveals that the centre isn’t cost-effective, and can’t be made so, will the Shire tell us?)

2.              The review should result in a ‘business plan’ for the centre.  (What form will the review take, based on what underlying assumptions?)

3.              The proposed business plan will address ‘many issues’ raised in my question.  (Precisely which issues will it address?)

4.              We don’t think this is the right time to put out a Fact Sheet.  It may not be possible to produce one (why the hell not?) It would be better to put one out when Council has considered the plan and decided, after a round of chin-wagging with the sporting clubs that use it, just where the centre’s future is heading.  (Most residents aren’t members of sporting clubs and don’t use the centre.  Suppose that a majority of residents would prefer not to go on paying in their rates for a centre they don’t use and which can’t pay for itself—what then?  Will their objections be cast aside in favour of the interests of a handful of sports fanatics—and of a bevy of superannuated boozers getting subsidised grog in the tavern?)

I think Shire President Wallace and his cohorts completely missed the overall point of my question, which as I made clear from the outset was to enable residents to make an informed contribution to the development of a business plan for the centre.

We shouldn’t have to wait for a facts sheet until after the business plan has been presented to Council.   We need the information I asked for now, not when the plan is to all intents and purposes a fait accompli.

To give just one example of what I mean:  if it turns out, after examining the figures, that the tavern and restaurant are paying their way and reaping excellent profits for the Shire—stranger things have happened, though not often—will that raise the spectre of competitive neutrality in relation to the town’s struggling hospitality sector?  

If it does, should we close those operations for the sake of local entrepreneurs?  We can’t reflect on that question, or indeed on the future of those operations, without a full knowledge of the facts.

Like Agent Mulder in The X-Files, I want to believe.  I really, really do.  I want to believe that the new Council and administration not only have our best interests at heart, but also want to share with us the facts and figures upon which their perception of our best interests relies. 

I want to believe that the bad old days are gone forever, that the truth will no longer be withheld from us, that it will shine forth resplendently for all to see as a new and more confident era dawns.

I want to believe that unlike most if not all of its predecessors, Council will eschew secrecy in government in the knowledge that such secrecy isn’t only the first step on the path to corruption, it’s also the first step on the path to public opprobrium and loss of trust. 

I want to believe that our Council really is committed to open, honest and accountable government.  

Yes, I want to believe all of that.

But I’m buggered if I'm ready to believe it yet.

POSTSCRIPT:  Why won’t the Shire of York tell us what the Major Fraud Squad found in the Shire’s financial records?

In my History Channel post of 17 April 2016, I discussed Acting CEO Dacombe’s recommendation that Council should suppress details of the Major Fraud Squad’s decision not to investigate irregularities arising from transactions on the Shire’s corporate credit card and (I believe) other financial dealings of the Shire.

I did so under the heading ‘And now for something completely different—lawyers advise York Shire Council to suppress Major Fraud Squad report’.

I adverted to the matter again in my farewell tribute to Acting CEO Dacombe, posted on 26 April.

It wasn’t my intention to have a go at Mr. Dacombe, whom I like, respect and admire.  He made it clear that his recommendation relied on legal advice.

Nor was I being critical of the police.  They identified irregularities, but described them as ‘governance, accounting or record-keeping issues’.  It’s the governance issues that most concern me here.

Presumably, governance issues arose because councillors had approved irregular expenditures, thus providing those responsible for them with a viable defence to any criminal charges that might otherwise have been laid.

So far as the police were concerned, the Shire Council has the authority and power to approve all expenditures made in its name, and by giving that approval, to validate them.

Explained—or explained away?

I’m not entirely happy with that explanation of what seems to have occurred. 

Can it really be the case that what ratepayers might regard as dishonest —I won’t say fraudulent— activity ceases to be so because lazy and incompetent councillors aren’t bothered to check what is thrust under their noses for approval month after month?

And were our highly paid auditors asleep at the wheel when they examined the Shire’s financial records year after year?

I suppose it’s possible that certain members of past councils were directly implicated in some of those irregularities, which in total may have cost ratepayers a significant amount of money. 

It’s my understanding that some of the irregular expenditures were on alcohol purchased from a bottle shop in Perth, while others related to a trip interstate.  On a more trivial note, I know of at least one occasion when the Shire’s credit card was used to buy icecreams in Mundaring on the way home from consulting a lawyer in Perth.

Probity

Leaving aside the vexed question of possible criminality, were questions of probity involved in any of this, and if so, what did Brad Jolly and his fellow lotus-eaters at the DLGC have to say about them?  Do they have anything worth hearing to say now?

The DLGC knew what was going on, because York ratepayers told them.  They did nothing, probably because they didn’t care.  Or perhaps they thought it wasn’t ‘in the public interest’ for councillors and staff to be embarrassed by the truth being made available to the forelock-tugging residents of York.

Thankfully, new policies are in place to reduce the likelihood that such improprieties, large and small, don’t happen in the future.  We have Mark Dacombe and Dr Gael Ferguson to thank for that.

But is that a plausible excuse for turning a blind eye to past iniquities?  I don’t think so, and I doubt that most of my readers do, apart from the tiny tribe of self-interested zombies who are all for flushing uncomfortable ‘historical issues’ down the toilet.

Inappropriate?

What most puzzled me about Acting CEO Dacombe’s recommendation was the assertion that it would be ‘inappropriate’ to release details of issues raised in the police report because to do so might result in individuals responsible for them being easily identified.

Most of us have a shrewd idea who those individuals might be.  Frankly, I don’t care who they are, if they are no longer members of Council or employed by the Shire.

What troubles me is that some of them might be members of Council who were also members of past councils at times when the irregular expenditures occurred, and were among those who approved them.

What troubles me even more is that their complicity, witting or not, in giving such approval might be what lay behind both the recommendation and Council’s vote to adopt it.   At the April ordinary council meeting, that vote was split 5-2, with councillors Saint and Walters dissenting.

I believe that if any current councillors were in any way, at any time and for any reason so complicit, they should not have voted on the recommendation because they had a discernible interest in avoiding embarrassment by keeping the matter under wraps.

(Incidentally, it was a similar line of reasoning that led me to conclude that a former council’s decision to suppress the Fitz Gerald Report was illicit.  The three councillors forming the quorum that voted for suppression were all mentioned adversely in the report and had no business voting on it.)

It’s the issues that matter

That said, I suspect most of us would be happy just knowing precisely what the issues were—all of them, not just governance issues—without being given details that could identify the individuals responsible for them.

This isn’t just about history.  It’s about the present and the future.  It’s about ensuring as far as possible that nothing that shouldn’t have happened ever happens again.

Good policies are helpful, but human ingenuity in the service of self-interest will usually find a way around them. 

The best safeguard for good governance is an electorate that knows the truth and is vigorously and permanently on the lookout for bureaucratic misfeasance and for the failure of councillors to put community interests ahead of personal concerns.

 So, councillors, come clean—tell us what the issues were that the police identified.  As our ancestors used to say, before truth became a casualty of the postmodern era, telling the truth shames the devil and sets us free.

POSTPOSTSCRIPT: On a lighter note…

From Cr Randell’s Facebook page—his first entry in The 5 Day Photograph a Twat Challenge

I don’t know if Trevor’s going to win, but they say he’s in pole position.

 The challenge continues with a second entry…

Game of Thrones…Trev snaps a selfie in a public toilet—and not a hair out of place!

 He missed out on the Queen’s Birthday Honours.  Is he aiming for Twat of the Year?

…and rolls on with a third…

 

THE TWAT IN THE HAT

  

(apologies to Dr Seuss)

This is the tale of a Twat in a Hat,

Some said he was silly, some called him a prat,

Others laughed at his antics and called him a dork

But he shone like a star in the fair shire of York.

An adept of Facebook, and eager for fame,

He had earned by his efforts a luminous name:

The world read with wonder his trenchant remarks

That wound up in rows of exclamatory marks;

His favourite epigram, oft written down,

Declared that his foes should be run out of town—

Those complainers and whingers, who dwelt on the past,

Had no place in HIS town, and from thence should be cast

Back to where they'd all come from.  Lip angrily curled,

He cried, ‘First Ashworth Road, then tomorrow the world;

The future of York rests with rubbish in trucks.

It’s time to move forward.  History sucks’.

Most of all he detested—I’ll mention their names—

York’s dastardly bloggers, David and James:

Those horrible creatures, those arrogant knaves

Who slime in and out of their cowardly caves,

Pointing the finger at bloody good blokes

Who’d looked after their mates and struck down other folks.

The summit and crown of his glorious career

Was to stand for election as Twat of the Year.

Not everyone thought that was such a good thing,

The bloggers poked fun as his campaign took wing,

While respectable residents said he’d lose face

If he wasn’t elected, and bring us disgrace,

Which of course would be shameful, a shock and a scandal—

But he’s certain to win.  Just ask Councillor Randell!!!!!

…now it’s Day 4, and the champ weighs in with a defiant declaration of where he stands on a vital issue of principle affecting us all—if those figures refer to inches, he must have shrunk in the wash, probably during the spin cycle…

 

Don’t worry, Trevor, nobody around here thinks love is a crime, or wants to see you dragged off to jail.  Such an event would ‘eclipse the gaiety of nations, and diminish the public stock of harmless pleasure’.

Disappointing News:  Day 5 of the ‘Photograph a Twat Challenge’ seems to have been cancelled or indefinitely postponed.  The Facebook page that hosted it, Trevor and Sharon’s Love/Hate Page, is no longer available for viewing to the general public.

I wonder—is it possible that the day 4 photo isn’t of Trev but of the mysterious Sharon?

 

NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

 Note: postcript added 31 May 2016
           two further postscripts added 2 June 2016

Are York’s white elephants a threatened species?

That’s a question readers may have been asking themselves after perusing my previous article on the subject.

The answer is probably no. 

The best we can hope for is that the big white elephant, the YRCC, is placed on a restricted diet and made to work harder.  Unfortunately, the little white elephant, the Old Convent School aka Chalkies, is, I believe, being lined up for major reconstructive surgery, at a cost of around $250,000, to bring it ‘up to code’.

At Monday’s council meeting, I posed the question appended to my previous article.  I formed the impression that the question wasn’t unwelcome, as I had felt it might be, and would evoke in due course a detailed response. 

I wonder, though, if I haven’t set the Shire an impossible task.

I don’t think I’m the only York resident who suspects that documents and other records pertaining to the YRCC will be found to have mysteriously vanished from the files. 

That may be why A/CEO Simpson didn’t keep his promise, made early last year, to produce a fact sheet about the YRCC; he couldn’t, because much of the information he would have needed had gone walkabout, so to speak. 

My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I seem to recall him telling us at the January 2015 OCM that the YRCC fact sheet, along with others, would soon be hitting the streets.

Shortly afterwards, he repeated his promise in a letter to a friend of mine, reproduced below (the letter, not my friend). Click the pages if you need to enlarge them.

At a guess, I'd say the letter wasn't actually composed either by Graeme Simpson or by the nominated contact person, Tyhscha Cochrane, but by the outside consultant engaged to handle FOI applications.  The giveaway is the reference 'AS', which I'm told signifies 'Administrative Services'. 

Draft strategic community plan

Monday’s meeting was held at Talbot.  This was my first attendance at a Talbot meeting.  A friend drove me there.  I’m glad she did, because if I’d tried to find the Talbot venue by myself, I’d still be searching for it. 

At this time of year, and helped by recent heavy rains, the countryside is green and wondrously beautiful to behold, so I arrived at the hall in a very cheerful frame of mind.  This was reinforced by the tea, coffee, sandwiches and biscuits provided by the hospitable ladies of Talbot. (Is it still OK to call women ‘ladies’, or is it politically incorrect?  If it’s the latter, I promise to go on doing it.)

On arriving, I had a pleasant conversation with Cr Saint, an old friend, and Paul Martin, our new CEO. 

The agenda for the meeting included, as an appendix, the draft strategic community plan.  It’s a big document.  I’m still sniffing my way through it (when you’ve lived with dogs for many years, as I have, you find yourself ineluctably drawn towards olfactory metaphors).  I’ll study the plan more closely before writing about it.

Heading each page of the draft plan is the slogan ‘EMPATHY  RESPECT  COURAGE’.  Missing is the word ‘TRANSPARENCY’.  I’m sure that omission was unintentional and will shortly be remedied.

Breaking news…

This morning, the York rumour mill went into overdrive, so maybe you’ve already heard what I’m about to tell you.

Never mind.  This is what was relayed to me from several directions:

Rumour 1.  The DCEO, Tyhscha Cochrane, has been relieved of her position (there is an alternative version, that she relieved herself of it).

Rumour 2.  The HRO, Gail Mazuik, has resigned, and has since been seen driving the school bus.  She and her husband will soon be leaving York, having bought a house in Cannington.

Rumour 3.  Gordon Tester, Manager of Development Services, has been made redundant and is now in quest of other employment consistent with his experience and qualifications.

Rumour 4.  All three, Tyhscha, Gail and Gordon, were summarily dismissed from their employment on Friday of last week.

If rumours 1 to 3 are true, or just the last one, I’m sure I speak for most residents of York in wishing Tyhscha, Gail and Gordon happiness and success in their future endeavours, wherever fate may lead them, so long as fate doesn’t lead them back to the offices of the Shire of York.

A further update on Christian Tarou Chadwick

Remember Christian Chadwick?  He’s the Shire depot worker from New Zealand who’s featured more than once in the pages of this blog.

Most recently, I wrote about him at some length in my article The Untouchables (23 November 2015).  He also featured in a Newsflash dated 7 December 2015, under the heading  ‘An update on Christian Chadwick’, which recounted details of a violent incident in which he had allegedly starred. 

This alleged incident involved bursting uninvited into somebody’s home where children were celebrating a birthday party, attacking the children’s father with an offensive weapon, breaking the father’s collarbone, and generally behaving in a threatening and obstreperous manner towards the victim and his family.

He was charged with aggravated burglary in a dwelling and assault occasioning actual bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation.  If he’s found guilty, he will spend several years enjoying the luxurious hospitality of a WA prison.

After that, he will most likely be deported to his home turf, the Land of the Long White Cloud.

A few weeks ago Mr. Chadwick appeared again in Northam Magistrates Court, where he was remanded on bail to a committal hearing in Perth on 17 August 2016.  He will then be further remanded for trial in the District Court.

The Northam magistrate allowed him bail on several conditions, one of which was not to approach within 50 metres of the victim.

Yesterday morning, Mr. Chadwick drove a Shire vehicle past the victim’s house as the victim and his partner were seeing their children off to school.  He had a passenger—presumably a colleague—in the vehicle with him.  It is alleged that he made an obscene gesture towards the family group, meanwhile uttering obscenities and threats.  

This might reasonably be construed as intimidating witnesses, a serious crime in itself.

The victim has reported Mr. Chadwick’s behaviour to the Northam police.  If Mr. Chadwick has breached his bail conditions, he might soon find his bail revoked and himself in prison awaiting trial.  His trial may take place at a date well into next year.

This is all pretty amazing.  Here we have a man with a serious criminal record appointed several years ago more or less straight from prison to a position on the Shire payroll.  As I’ve explained in previous articles, he got the job—earmarked for someone else—by a process of patronage resulting from his friendship with a senior Shire employee.

He has remained on the payroll even though his presence and conduct in the depot led to the reluctant departure of two fellow workers who obtained payouts from the Shire amounting to around $100,000.

I learned from the victim’s mother today that her son intends to report this latest incident involving Mr. Chadwick directly to CEO Martin.   Last time such a report was made, by my friend Mr. Templar, A/CEO Simpson refused to take action on the grounds that what Mr. Chadwick did in his own time was of no concern to the Shire.

But this time it’s different.  Mr. Chadwick drove by the victim’s house and threatened him in the Shire’s time and in a Shire vehicle. 

Surely it’s time for him to go.

 

POSTSCRIPT:  Reproduced below is a post from a certain Ms McNamara that appeared last week on a York website.  I received it in the mail from an anonymous source.  Click it if you need to enlarge it.

I believe Ms McNamara is the partner of Christian Tarou Chadwick and the mother of his several children.

I have given her post space here for two reasons.  The first is that, according to my source, it was swiftly taken down from the website in question, presumably by the site’s moderator.  This meant that her message, which was obviously important to her, could not have received the degree of public attention she would have desired.

The second reason is personal.  In her post, she alleges that ‘bloggers’ have told lies about her family.  I suspect that this accusation is directed primarily at my colleague David Taylor, who writes for the other York blog, and me. 

It’s not nice to be called a liar, especially when you have taken pains to discover and write the truth.

For the record, neither David nor I have ever mentioned Ms McNamara by name or written anything derogatory about her or her children.  So far as I can remember, we have said nothing at all about them.  So it is nonsense for her to say that we have written ‘bullshit stories’ about her family. 

Our concern has always been exclusively with the well-attested behaviour of her partner, Mr. Chadwick; his criminal record and propensity to violence; and his conduct as an apparently specially favoured Shire of York employee. 

If Ms McNamara thinks that David and I have lied about Mr. Chadwick, I would like to know where and in what respects we have done so.  If Ms McNamara will provide me with that information, I shall be happy to publish it on this blog.

[On Sunday, David published on the other blog, Shire of York official unofficial site, (http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/) an article reporting on developments regarding Mr. Chadwick’s immigration status and the likelihood that if convicted of a further offence he will be deported to his country of origin, New Zealand.  

David’s article, entitled ‘HAKEA, then HAKAS and HUNGIS’, includes the suggestion that Mr. Chadwick should get legal advice on his family situation in the event that the Department of Immigration cancels his visa and permanent residency.   That is excellent advice, and not to be construed as an attack on Ms McNamara and her children just because it contains the word ‘family’.]

 

POSTPOSTSCRIPT:  While we’re on the topic of false accusations… On 27 September last year, less than a month before the shire council elections, Trevor Randell (now back on the York Shire Council) posted the following statement, or question, on the Gay News Network.

“Thought you would be interested to know I have been targeted as I’m going up for councillor on the York Shire Council.  Rednecks here have started a blog which it prints two photos of my partner and myself and is obviously targeting the fact I am gay so I have lower morals.  What do you think?”

He concludes by citing the web address of the other blog for which I used to write before starting this one. 

His post has since disappeared from the Gay News Network website, so there’s no point in my providing the link.  Some readers may remember that a while ago David Taylor discussed Trevor’s post on the other blog, but that article too has been taken down.  In my opinion, it was an inch or two over the top.

My quarrel with Trevor’s post has nothing to do with its dubious grammar and wonky syntax.  It certainly has nothing to do with his being gay.

What rankles is the implication that he was being ‘targeted’ because he was a gay man ‘going up for council’ and further that the blog in question was started for the express purpose of persecuting him for being gay. 

As he would certainly have known, that blog had in fact been started well over a year before he contacted the Gay News Network.   He would also have known that the raison d’être of the blog from the beginning was to tell the world about shady goings on in the Shire and the Department of Local Government—not specifically to target Trevor Randell.  

If he was targeted by either blog, it was because he had been a councillor during the Ray Hooper years, is an admirer of Ray and a close friend—I am tempted to say ‘disciple’—of former shire president Pat (‘Minority Report’) Hooper, and was party to council decisions of that period that do neither him nor most of his then colleagues much credit. 

I can’t speak for everyone who wrote for the other blog, or posted comments on it, but I reject Cr Randell’s suggestion that the people who started or, like me, contributed articles to it are ‘rednecks’. 

The word ‘redneck’ signifies somebody who is uneducated, ignorant and acts from prejudice.   Cr Randell is entitled to consider me prejudiced, though I would disagree, but surely even he would admit that I am not uneducated and ignorant, though I wouldn’t rank him as a credible judge of such matters.

He told the Gay News Network he was being targeted because of ‘the fact that I am gay so I have lower morals’.  Being gay doesn’t mean having ‘lower morals’, which is what his words imply.  Being dishonest does. What he reported to the Gay News Network was untrue, and I’ve no doubt he knew that when he wrote it.  He appeared to be trying to represent himself as a martyr in the cause of being gay.  As the poet says, ‘For some, not to be martyred is a martyrdom’. 

Sadly, over the centuries there have been many genuine gay martyrs, victims of the prejudice, cruelty and malice of societies that punished them for being, as was falsely supposed, subversive and depraved.  There are gay martyrs still, in Islamic countries like Iran where gay men are routinely hanged from cranes.  Trevor Randell is not a gay martyr, and I sincerely hope he never will be. 

As it happens, I was sent copies of the photos he mentions. I believe they were lifted from his Facebook page.  I declined to publish them on my blog. I thought them creepy and in very poor taste—and not, let me stress, because his partner is male.

POSTPOSTPOSTSCRIPT:  Here’s another entertaining post by Mandz, culled this time from her Facebook page…and by the way, I’ve never received a comment from her on any topic—and if I had received one, and didn’t post it, how can she possibly have a screen shot to prove that she did submit it?

If she wants to tell her side of the story on my blog, I’ll be only too happy to publish it.  She can send it by email to wildwood@westnet.com.au .

As you can see, she has a very distinguished friend.

Mandz Mcnamara

6 hrs

Good i got u lot attention in less then 6mins hahaha . Quicker then i thought it would be. As u can see its only the writters of the blog an very few sheep who give a hoot about our ordinary life lol (laugh out loud) u lot must really have such boring lives to care let along write about us. I find it funny how many of times i have commented to ur blog articles yet never seen my comment posted hence why i have calld you lot liers cause wont post my comments the other side the truth. I have screen shots to prove it too so keep bloggin if u must keep entertaining us with ur filth no skin of our nose but to have an opinion on anything dont u agree its only fair to have both sides of a story??? But dont seem to post my comments hmmm . As a parent u do what ever u need to protect ur family agree? Think about that ur kids are old enough to defend them self mine are only little an bein stood ova by grown man down the st, chased down by grown woman in car tryin to run them ova who does???grown adults that attack little girls who know wat else these ppl are capable of or what they wil do nxt ..... when we have followed al the instruction given by authority's but i have more then enough evidence to show not al parties are doin as been advised. An if u want to crear up any other questions let do it ova a cup of tea shal we i not a key board basher i like to speak to ones face when talking so let me know when were ill be there i might even pay for ur cuppa seen as times r tough in OUR little town . Have a fantastic day now

Angry

Comment

Seen by 122

22

Comments

 

Trevor Randell They won't slime out of their caves to address you. Mind you when I do see them I pity them yes actually feel sad for them . Their lives have got to this. As for their blog, what its still going? Maybe it's easier for them to send out emails to the 5 or 6 that read it. Mind you I suppose they have nothing better to do with their lives. As I said it's rather sad but admittedly does bring a smile to my face smile emoticon

(I wasn’t able to access the photo that accompanied Cr Randell’s comment, so I substituted one of him standing next to his mentor, guide and spiritual adviser, former shire president Pat Hooper.  I must say I rather like it.)

Smiley Emoticon  hrs an instergrm ov cr randell, it ws snapd wen he sat dn on a whoopee cushn at an ofishal funkshn, I sw lokl guvmnt minster tony simpson put th cushn on the chr he ws grinng wen he dun it, OMG hou we al larfed!!!!!

THE WHITE ELEPHANT IN YORK’S PAJAMAS

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. 

How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.

Groucho Marx, in the movie Animal Crackers

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Words said to have been spoken by Adolf Hitler on learning that Operation Barbarossa, his invasion of Russia, had failed.

 NOTE:  Two postscripts added 20 May 2016

Ladies and gentlemen, there is an elephant in York’s pajamas.  It’s a white elephant.  It’s called the York Recreation and Convention Centre, or YRCC.

It isn’t the only white elephant our local government has inflicted on the people of York.  There’s also the Old Convent School, thanks to James Best, appointed by Minister Tony Simpson to act as commissioner and hose down community dissent while our democratically elected council languished under a contrived suspension.

But that white elephant is tiny compared with the YRCC.  Eventually the treasury loan Mr. Best organised so the Shire could purchase the Old Convent School from his friends for an exorbitant price will have been repaid and the building either renovated and put to use or sold off, no doubt at a considerable loss. 

And that will be the end of that.  To use a phrase popular with my critics, we shall be ready to ‘move forward’—though where to, I’m not sure.

The YRCC is a much, much bigger white elephant.  And on present showing, York is doomed to possess and go on feeding it until the Last Trump or the heat death of the universe, concerning which your choice may depend on whether you barrack for the Pope or Richard Dawkins.

And yes, we do know (more or less) how that elephant got into York’s pajamas.  What we don’t know is how to get it out.  

Unlike Groucho, we don’t have the option of shooting it, because the corpse would be far too big to dispose of easily—unless the Shire locates a naïve Chinese buyer, which seems on the whole unlikely.

That might not matter if this elephant weren’t such a hungry beast.  Every year, it consumes a good deal of money—perhaps enough to keep the Shire’s budget in the black forever, thus doing away entirely with the need for annual rate increases.

For reasons that will shortly become apparent, the Shire has made sly but strenuous efforts to conceal the spiralling construction and maintenance costs of the YRCC (sorry Groucho, the elephant joke has served its purpose, and from now on I’m going to drop it).

‘A promise made is a debt unpaid’

More than 12 months ago, former Acting CEO Graeme Simpson, on the Shire‘s behalf, promised us what he called ‘a fact sheet’ about the YRCC.

I believe he did so at the suggestion of the FOI Commissioner.

Whether or not he seriously intended to keep that promise when he made it, I can’t say.  The point is that he didn’t keep the promise, perhaps because senior Shire employees put bricks under his wheels to stop him.

His promise is a debt that to this day remains unpaid.

It is possible that new CEO Paul Martin will be more forthcoming.  He may not be as firmly wedded as previous incumbents of the office to the local government culture of evasiveness, secrecy and concealment.   He may be more sensitive to community opinions and desires.

Who knows, he may impress on Council the importance of releasing the Fitz Gerald Report from its prison in the bunker at Joaquina Street.  He may even advocate making public aspects of the recent police report, which isn’t really a report, of the investigation into alleged fraudulent use of municipal funds, which wasn’t really an investigation.

A couple of ratepayers, one of them a former councillor, petitioned the Shire under FOI for information about the centre.  If their questions were answered, they haven’t shared the results with the rest of us, I suppose to spare others the full horror of what that information revealed.

I’ve looked into the origins of the YRCC.  I’ve also obtained, from various sources, fragments of information about how the YRCC project has developed since its inception and how much it has cost and continues to cost the ratepayers of York.

I won’t pretend that this article is definitive and covers all the facts. The truth is that some of it is speculative, though based on the best information currently available to me.  

If the Shire had done its duty by York’s ratepayers and come clean about the project, I wouldn’t have to speculate and there might be no reason to write about it, since details of how much it has cost would be in the public domain.

So—prepare to be stunned, astonished, amazed, alarmed, astounded, mentally boggled and thoroughly discombobulated by what I’m about to tell you.  I was, so why shouldn’t you be?

History…

For an official description of the YRCC, probably composed by a Perth firm of public relations consultants, go to http://recreation.york.wa.gov.au/about.aspx , where you will learn that the Shire conceived the centre as a ‘state of the art facility’ in 2008, work on it began in 2010, and construction was completed in 2012. 

You will also learn that the centre is ‘proud to be affiliated with sporting clubs, large and small’.  It is ‘currently being utilised for community meetings, sporting events, corporate conferences and local seminars, as well as being a popular spot for a weekend meal or a cold beverage and the occasional private party’, and offers ‘a welcoming and inclusive environment’.

So let’s go back to 2008, during the heyday of CEO Ray Hooper. 

In November of that year, the Shire received a document entitled Shire of York: Forrest Oval Precinct Sport and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.  This was the final report submitted by A Balanced View, a Perth firm providing something called ‘leisure consultancy services’.  

The document is 120 pages long, comprising 50 pages of main text and 70 of appendices.  Its tone is one of restrained optimism based on statistical projections reflecting social and financial conditions prevailing at the time.

What’s proposed in the document relies on a concept plan formulated by quantity surveyors Ralph Beattie Bosworth.

The 12 ‘broad principles’ underpinning the plan are set out as bullet points on p. 36 of the report.  Those principles include ‘minimising duplication of facilities’; sharing of premises by ‘compatible users’, which seems to mean clubs doing the same sort of thing in the same space but keeping out of one another’s way; rationalising and replacing poor facilities; ‘flexible design’ that will ‘eliminate anti social behaviour’; ‘creation of a sporting and recreation community “Hub”’;  ‘environmentally sustainable features’, namely ‘water conservation, energy efficiency and waste minimisation’; and ‘design for ongoing cost efficient management and maintenance’.

Please keep that last one in mind.

According to the plan’s author, ‘The collocation of compatible usage types is integral to the effective optimisation of facilities’.  Jeez, I wish I could write a sentence like that, I’d make a fortune.

The concept plan relates to a ‘Master Plan Concept’ giving particulars of projected developments on the Forrest Oval site.  

Among them are ‘six synthetic grass tennis courts’, a ‘12 rink synthetic bowling green with lighting’, and ‘a large bitumen parking area’ supplemented with ‘additional unsealed parking in the centre of [the] precinct with access from Barker Street entrance’.

Please keep those in mind, too.

A construction cost estimate supplied by Ralph Beattie Bosworth weighed in at $5,750,000, but according to the report the Shire of York took the more optimistic view that construction could be carried out in four stages for a mere $4,386,000.

Somebody must have been dreaming.

…and mystery—what the Shire of York hasn’t told us

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the full cost of construction to date is somewhere between $8m and $12m.  One of my sources has nominated $14m, but that strikes me as a dollar or two over the top, even for the Shire of York.

I have no idea if those figures include interest payments on money borrowed for the project.  I doubt the project could have gone ahead without borrowing, but I have heard that money was diverted from other projects, for example road maintenance, as construction costs at Forrest Oval began to spiral and unforeseen costs emerged.

The actual cost has never been disclosed.  If it were to be disclosed now, it would not be final, because the promised ‘large bitumen parking area’ hasn’t yet materialised—though to be fair, there is no shortage of unsealed parking as envisaged in the Master Concept Plan.

Equally mysterious is the cost of maintaining the centre.  My best guess is that it is in the region of $300K to $500K a year, more than enough to balance the budget, bearing in mind that the 2015/6 deficit was a little over $288,000. 

Over several years, the benefit of not having to pay so much to maintain the centre would help keep rates at a reasonable level, i.e. much lower than where they are now. 

A figure I’ve heard bandied about is that the centre services a mere 18% of York’s population.  If true, that means four-fifths of the population, those who don’t use the centre, are forking out heavily for the one-fifth that does. 

So far as I know, there has been no specific disclosure of the annual revenue the Shire obtains from users of the centre, including those who frequent the bar and restaurant.  I’m fairly sure that would do little to offset the cost of maintenance, but it would be nice to know exactly how much it is.

Called to the bar

And speaking of the bar and restaurant, is it right that in a town where wining and dining venues like the York Palace Hotel, the Castle Hotel, and Settlers and the Flour Mill Café, are having a hard time making ends meet, the Shire is running a facility in competition with all of them?

Wouldn’t it be better—or in bureaucratic parlance, ‘more appropriate’—to leave running ‘a popular spot for a weekend meal or a cold beverage and the occasional private party’, to local entrepreneurs who are perfectly capable of offering ‘a welcoming and inclusive environment’? 

I vaguely recall that similar questions were put to Commissioner Best, who responded by mumbling something about ‘competitive neutrality’.  This principle is meant to ensure that local government enterprises don’t snatch bread from the mouths of hard-working business people.

Unfortunately, the principle doesn’t cut in until profits from the centre’s bar and restaurant reach $200K, a figure that probably exceeds revenue obtained from visitors and the small minority of York residents using the facility. 

On the credit side, the bar and restaurant provide employment for a favoured handful of local people.  But at what cost in loss of business to York hostelries and indeed to the rest of us?

Anyone for tennis?

 (Click to enlarge)

It’s fair to say that the YRCC has encountered a few difficulties along the way since 2012, when, as we are told on the centre’s website, the project was completed.

Things started to go bad early in the piece, when toilets backed up into shower cubicles.  Plumbers had to cut through a concrete slab and dig down in order to repair the problem.

A sinkhole appeared in the ‘12 rink synthetic bowling green’.  I believe this happened when a mini excavator ran over a plastic stormwater drain, splitting the pipe so that water gushed out, washing soil away to create the sinkhole.  I understand that the problem was fixed but has since recurred. Orange cones were placed on the green as a warning to users not to fall into the hole.

To round out this tale of woe, the artificial grass on the tennis court has buckled.  This happened last year.  Not being a tennis player, I don’t know if it was fixed then—I believe the Shire was involved in a dispute with the supplier, Green Planet Grass, over who should bear the cost of repair—but if so it seems to have happened again.

Apparently the sporting clubs had asked the Shire to give the job of laying the greens to another Perth outfit, Tiger Turf, but CEO Hooper preferred Green Planet Grass.  He even gave the firm a puff on its website.  (See my article What a difference a tree makes, posted on 8 June 2015.)

In fairness to Green Planet Grass, I should say that the tennis court surface might have buckled as a result of inadequate maintenance, not because they did a crappy job.   I believe that was the position the firm took in the course of its dispute with the Shire.

 That sinking feeling... just bowls you over, doesn't it? 

Questions

It’s time for the Shire to come clean on the cost of the YRCC.

It’s time to produce the fact sheet promised by Acting CEO Simpson more than a year ago. 

The fact sheet should at the very least answer the following questions.

1.              How much has it cost to construct the centre?

2.              What moneys were diverted from other projects to help meet the cost of construction?

3.              What will be the cost of completing construction by bitumenising the car park?

4.              What since 2012 has been the annual cost of maintenance and repair?

5.              How much revenue has the Shire obtained annually since 2012 from the clubs that use it?

6.              What profits have flowed to the Shire since 2012 from the restaurant and bar?

7.              How many conventions (or conferences) and seminars has the centre hosted each year since 2012? What revenue flowed from that to the Shire?

8.              Does there exist a revised business plan for the centre, and if so, will the Shire post it online?

9.              Realistically, what likelihood is there that the centre will ever pay its own way and free ratepayers from the burden of maintaining it?

Issuing such a fact sheet will signal that the Shire has set its feet firmly on the road to open, honest and accountable government.

POSTSCRIPT added 200516:  The agenda for the OCM Monday 23 May 2016 includes a recommendation that Council approve the release for community consultation of a draft Strategic Plan and note that the CEO is undertaking an organisational review of the Shire’s operations.

The draft Strategic Plan incorporates ‘a comprehensive review’ of the Shire’s Corporate Business Plan and Long Term Financial Plan.

The draft Corporate Business Plan, under the heading Reviewing and improving use of Shire facilities and assets (Agenda p. 47), includes the following:

Reviewing the operations and management arrangements of the York Recreation and Convention Centre.  This review would examine the management structure, liquor licence, operating subsidy, involvement of clubs and other relevant matters to guide the centre operations into the future.

It also includes preparation of a concept plan for redevelopment of Avon Park and a discussion paper for future use of the Old Convent School.

As I see it, this is excellent news for all of us.  So is the proposal, under the heading Increased levels of service (Agenda, p.47) to install street trees in Avon Terrace.  (This one is especially close to my heart—see my blog article What a Difference a Tree Makes, 7 June 2015.)  It’s whispered that members of the public will be offered the opportunity to sponsor a tree.  I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, count me in.

The downside is a projected rate increase of 3.5% for the next financial year, followed by 3.75%, 4.00% and 4.25% respectively for the three years that follow.  The purpose of these increases is ‘to fund the current initiatives included in the draft Corporate Business Plan’ (Agenda, p.49).

But in my opinion, if the Shire implements its program for change as set out in the draft Strategic Plan, those relatively modest rate increases aren’t too high a price for the community to pay.

This appears to be the dawn of a new era for York. 

POSTPOSTSCRIPT  added 200516: I've submitted the following question to the Shire for Monday's OCM at Talbot.

 

Question for OCM 23 May 2016—York Recreation and Convention Centre

I note with pleasure the proposal in the Shire’s draft Corporate Business Plan to review the operations and management arrangements of the YRCC.

I note with equal pleasure the CEO’s recommendation to Council that the draft Strategic Community Plan, which incorporates the business plan, should be made available for community consultation.

To facilitate an informed consultation process, the community will require information about the construction and maintenance costs of the centre since its inception in May 2008.

I remind Council that well over a year ago Acting CEO Simpson promised to release a ‘fact sheet’ pertaining to those costs and other matters pertaining to the centre.  That document has never materialised.

Will Council now authorise the CEO to release a fact sheet that includes the following information:

1.              The total cost of construction to date, including the recent bitumenising of the car park;

2.              The amount of moneys diverted from other projects to help meet the cost of construction, and what those other projects were;

3.              The costs, annually since 2012, of maintenance and repair;

4.              The amount of revenue that the Shire has obtained annually since 2012 from the clubs that use the centre;

5.              The amount of profit flowing annually to the Shire since 2012 from operation of the restaurant and bar;

6.              The number of conventions (or conferences) and seminars hosted at the centre annually since 2012, and the amount of revenue flowing from such hosting annually to the Shire since 2012;

7.              The likelihood that the centre will ever pay its own way and free the majority of ratepayers, who don’t use it, from the burden of maintaining it.

I realise that these are mainly so-called ‘historical issues’, but they have direct relevance to community consideration of the future operations and management arrangements of the centre.