SHOULD I APPLY? AN OLD FRIEND ASKS FOR ADVICE

In yesterday’s mail, I received a letter from an old friend, long retired, who following an unwelcome change in his personal circumstances is pondering a return to the workforce. 

He wants my advice as to whether or not he should apply for a job with our local government, the Shire of York. 

Frankly, I’m not sure how to advise him, so with his permission I’ve decided to publish his letter.  I do so in the hope that readers will help him with suggestions regarding what he should do if he decides to go ahead and apply for the job he has in mind.

Here is his letter, with his name and address redacted:

Dear James,

The other day I was browsing the Shire of York website and came across an advertisement for a records officer.  It piqued my interest straightaway.  I’ve been looking for work for a while now, but what got my attention is that this job is billed as an exciting opportunity. You know me, I’m always in the market for a bit of excitement.

Naturally, I wanted to know what sort of workplace the Shire is.  Over the years I’ve had the sack many times from some pretty grubby outfits.  So job security matters a lot to me.

People tell me local government is a great employer.  Hardly anyone is shown the door, unless they’ve done something really terrible like making off with a shitload of municipal funds (sometimes, not even then) or worse, dishing out uncensored information to inquisitive members of the public. 

No problem for me. I know how to keep my mouth shut. My lawyer told me ages ago never to talk to the police.

Mind you, Rockingham City Council let the side down by sacking a building surveyor for sending saucy messages and pictures of his you-know-what from his mobile phone to some of the young ladies working with him.  What’s more—get this—they didn’t even try to keep the story under wraps!  I read it in the paper!

Can you believe it?  I reckon all this ‘transparency’ guff must have gone to the CEO’s head.   Didn’t the idiot understand he wasn’t meant to take it seriously?

Still, fair go, the bloke that got the sack wasn’t an old mate of the CEO, so I guess there wasn’t a cast iron reason for keeping things quiet. 

When I clicked open the position description, the first page was about York’s ‘value’.  I think it should say ‘values’, because there was nothing there about house prices, which as you know have gone through the floor.  I’ve been trying to sell my home for years.  Not a nibble.  I’m glad I don’t own it.

The page went on to say the Shire is ‘nimble and dynamic’.  I remember you telling me during one of your boring long-winded monologues that ‘nimble’ comes from an Old English word meaning ‘to take or steal’. 

That would suit me fine.  Believe me, I could show the Shire a thing or two about taking and stealing, though ungrateful ratepayers might say that in that department it already has plenty of form.

For a man of my age (88 in September) I’m amazingly dynamic.  I’ve been keeping company, if you know what I mean, with a very demanding young woman I met on Tinder who is now pregnant with my nineteenth child.  Nineteen kids from nineteen different relationships!  No wonder they call me Roger the Todger.

My eldest boy is touching 60.  I haven’t seen the little sod for donkey’s years.   He’s always been a bit up himself.  He wouldn’t let his kids come near me.  Fact is, he’s never forgiven me for poisoning his mum.   I suppose he was bound to find out eventually that she hadn’t really run off with a chartered accountant back home to Humpty Doo.

My last lady turned out to be a bit of a handful, so I’ve given her the heave ho, but she says that when she drops the kid she’s going to hammer me for something called child support.   What a nerve.   That would make a big dent in my fortnightly Centrelink payments (three under different names), which is why I’m going to need paid employment to supplement the pension. 

I did consider going back to one of my former occupations, but dynamic as I am, at my age I don’t think I’m quite up to climbing through windows and groping my way around strange houses in the dark.

Speaking of age, I thought my advanced years might go against me, but it seems I was wrong.  The law says the Shire can’t refuse me a job on the grounds of age.  The same goes for disability and political convictions. 

That’s very good news.  To begin with, it means I don’t have to worry about my schizoaffective disorder, which as it happens is well under control.  It’s several months since I last chased a copper along Avon Terrace screaming abuse and waving a machete.  

As for political convictions, the Shire won’t be able to reject my application if they get wind that I’m a paid up member of the Australian National Socialist Party and the Aryan Brotherhood, and a firm believer in white supremacy. 

I’m not racist, though.  Some of my best friends are Asians.  That’s why I never run short of crystal meth.

I must admit that when I saw the word ‘records’ my first thought was of vinyl.  I’ve got quite a collection.  My all time favourite is a 78 of Vera Lynn singing ‘The White Cliffs of Dover’.  It’ll come in handy if I ever stand for parliament.  I’ll be able to tell the punters that I have a war record.

My thoughts then turned to criminal records, on which for family reasons I’m a bit of an expert.  My younger brother (he’s 82) has just added to his.  He was done for exposing himself indecently to a lady chaplain at the correctional facility where he’s currently held.  Not his fault.   I’m not religious, but I’m dead against women priests.

I’ve also got a couple of cousins who did time for petty offences like drunk and disorderly, threats to kill, assault with a deadly weapon and lifting ladies’ handbags with a steel hook while riding a Harley at speed.  I believe that used to be called ‘snatch and grab’.

The ad says I’ll need a police clearance. I’m certain to get one.  Mostly, when I was caught and charged, I managed to charm the judges (some were women and the rest were gay) and get off with a spent conviction.  So no worries there, I’d say.

On reading more closely, I realised that what the Shire wants is somebody to keep letters and other documents safe from prying eyes and to deal with something called freedom from information. 

I could do all that standing on my head.  Nearly fifty years ago, after my dad kept his appointment at the crematorium, I discovered that the sentimental old fool had made a will leaving all his worldly goods to children’s charities and nothing to my brother and me. 

He’d left the will tucked behind the S-bend of his toilet. You won’t be surprised to learn that when I got hold of it was the last time it saw the light of day.  The paper was a bit rough, but I had no trouble flushing the pieces down to the septic tank.

Well, old toff, there you go.   That’s my story.  If I apply for the job, how would you rate my chances?

Cheers and nil carborundum,

Your cobber till the crack of doom,

(Signed) RPM

PS A local JP says he’s going to put in a good word for me.  He’s got a wife and kids, so didn’t need much persuading.

IS THIS A SIGN OF THE TIMES?

York identity finds mysterious symbol inscribed in mud on way home from early morning ramble

A prominent local fitness fanatic photographed an extraordinary piece of artwork this morning while walking his dog.  Here it is:

(Click to enlarge)

It is on display at the site of the new caravan park, i.e. on the less salubrious side of the river.  I’m told the area is frequently visited by persons of interest to the police.

Opinion is divided regarding the artwork’s origin and purpose.  Suggestions so far are that it represents:

(a) York’s answer to the Cerne Abbas Giant;

(b) A message of thanks to the people of York, left by a group of extra-terrestrial aliens from Alpha Centauri flown in as tourists to enjoy subsidized grog and grub at the Forrest Bar and Café;

(c)   A design for a statue of a former shire president, to be erected on the slopes of Mount Brown;

(d) A sketch for a portrait of a Facebook jockey and former councillor who is currently exhibiting unmistakable symptoms of relevance deprivation;

(e) The credit card signature of a former CEO;

(f)  An outline of road works meant to have been commenced several months ago but forgotten about in the kerfuffle following the unexpected ‘resignation’ of an executive manager—not so much a fly-by-night as a flash in the pan.

What do you think?  Your reply please in a plain brown envelope addressed to Shire President David Wallace at Shire of York, Joaquina Street, York WA 6302.

The best reply will be rewarded with a scrumptious cooked breakfast for the respondent’s dog prepared by the shire president (the breakfast, not the dog).   Second prize is an evening for two, all expenses paid, of carousing at the famed Gwamby Tavern.

Warning: your entry will be ignored if you fail to show proof that you have lived in York for at least 120 years.

                    

The Cerne Abbas Giant

A couple of ETs snapped on their way to the Forrest Bar and Cafe

 

ANOTHER WHACK AT WALGA

Readers may have seen in a recent issue of the West Australian an article by WALGA president Lynne Craigie headed ‘Rusted-on bias in unjust criticism of Council rates rises’.

The article appeared as an advertisement on 12 June.

Ms Craigie has served as WALGA’s president since 2015.  She is also president of the Shire of East Pilbara, having held that office for 10 years.

Her article is a spirited defence of local government annual rate increases, which she says compare favourably with increases in government charges.

‘Inappropriate yardsticks’ 

Ms Craigie is scornful of those benighted critics who ‘ignorantly’ judge the propriety of rate increases on the basis of what she calls ‘inappropriate yardsticks’ like the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

She points out that while the WA government has walloped households with whopping increases in various charges—averaging 7% for electricity, 5.5% for water, 5.8% for vehicle registration, and 3.7% for motor licences—by contrast, municipal rates this year have averaged a mere 2.5% across the board.

She also mentions the 10% increase in the Emergency Services Levy, every cent of which, though it is collected with council rates, vanishes into the coffers of State Treasury.

And she reminds us that increases in some state government charges, like that for electricity, have a similar impact on local governments as they have on households.

All those facts are true, but the argument they are mustered to support is at best seriously flawed, and at worst disingenuous.  I wouldn’t want to be rude to Ms Craigie, so I’ll stick with seriously flawed, while offering a pre-emptive apology if I have misrepresented her argument in any way.

False comparisons

A relatively trivial objection is that even if the state government is ripping off the public as Ms Craigie seems to suggest, that’s no excuse for local government to go down the same fiscal path. 

More to the point, she is, so to speak, comparing apples with mangos. 

The fiscal circumstances determining state government decisions are rather different, in substance and scale, from those that local governments have to face.

For example, there is the question of government debt.  In 2008, when the Barnett government took office, the state’s debt amounted to around $5 billion, or about 19% of revenue.   It has risen steadily over the past 10 years, and is now pushing $60 billion, or more than 80% of revenue.

As state treasurer Ben Wyatt said last year, the reality of such massive debt will haunt WA taxpayers for years to come, which leads me to wonder if the McGowan government’s declared intention to return the budget to surplus by 2021/22 has the slightest hope of success—spiralling utility charges notwithstanding.

A large proportion of that debt—over 60%—comprises what the pundits call non-financial public sector debt, or NFPS.  This relates to essential services like hospitals, the police, child protection and education.   Skimping on those has serious consequences for a government’s chance of re-election.

I’m no apologist for the present state government, but in fairness I have to say that it can’t be blamed for the state’s mountain of debt and is making a genuine attempt to reduce it—and risking its popularity, i.e. electoral chances, in the process.

Who is to blame?  Your answer to that question will probably depend on your political orientation. 

Supporters of the current government point the finger at what they regard as the profligacy and fiscal incompetence of the Barnett government, particularly in its second term. 

Opposition supporters would dispute that assessment, citing instead the collapse of the mining boom and the unfairness of GST distribution.   As usual, there is truth on both sides.

Getting away with extravagance

Local governments are no less likely, but have less reason, than state governments to bail themselves out of debt by thrusting greedy hands ever more deeply into the pockets and purses of the folk they exist to serve. 

What’s more, they usually get away with it, because paradoxically their communities, while theoretically closer to their elected representatives, on the whole appear to display scant interest in what those representatives are doing—or not doing, as the case may be.

Much of local government borrowing relates to the extravagant provision of services that are far from essential and bear little or no relation to the more modest purposes that local government was originally designed to accomplish.  

Some notable examples of such extravagance are York’s so-called recreation and convention centre, with its subsidised bar and restaurant, and more generally madcap schemes for ‘community development’ which tend to sap initiative and enterprise in the community at large. 

If governments do things for you, there’s not much incentive to do them for yourself.

Differences

Politically, local governments differ from the state government in numerous ways.  To begin with, everybody qualified to vote is required by law to turn up to vote in state government elections, but not in council elections.  

To some degree, this might be seen to undermine the legitimacy of local governments as expressions of the popular will.  According to the WA Electoral Commission, the average voter participation rate in the 2017 council elections was 33% in the metropolitan area and 39.6% in country shires.  

(York scored a dismal turnout rate of 26.85%.)

Some people argue that low voter turnout is an indication of public apathy, others that it signifies general satisfaction with what councils do, and still others that it is symptomatic of quiet desperation bordering on despair.  On balance, I’m inclined to favour the last of those explanations.

In local as distinct from state governments, party politics allegedly play no part, although many state politicians cut their teeth as members of local councils.  The absence of avowed political affiliations at local government level arguably leaves greater scope for nepotism, patronage and other forms of corruption. 

The most effective way to keep the bastards honest is to have another bunch of bastards of a different political stripe watching like hawks for evidence of municipal malfeasance and when they find it, falling over themselves to call it out.

That, broadly speaking, is how democratic governance takes place at the commonwealth and state levels.  It’s not perfect, but it works reasonably well.  When we drag ourselves to the polling stations, we have a reasonably clear idea of what the rival parties are offering and of the values on which their policies depend.

At local elections, we tend to cast our votes for individuals rather than policies and values and simply hope for the best.

I doubt that any reform of local government in WA, however comprehensive and well intentioned, will do much good if it doesn’t make voting at local elections compulsory and foster the introduction of overt party politics into the local government arena. 

The CPI

Now for that ‘inappropriate yardstick’, the CPI.

As every householder knows, the CPI measures the movement over time of retail prices.  It plays an important part in the formation of government economic policy, for example in the determination of Centrelink benefits and the financial conditions attaching to government contracts. 

It is often used, in conjunction with another indicator based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as a measure of inflation.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is responsible for calculating the CPI. It does that  by comparing the cost of a broad range, or ‘basket’, of goods and services that households consume within a defined period—quarterly and yearly—with the cost of the same basket over previous such periods.  The result is expressed as a percentage.

In Australia, separate calculations are made for capital cities in addition to an overall rate for the country as a whole.

For example, at the end of the March quarter 2018, compared with the March quarter 2017, the CPI had increased by 1.9% for Australia as a whole.  The corresponding figure for Perth was 0.9%.  The June figures will become available sometime this month.

You can find out more about the CPI on the ABS and State Treasury websites.

The CPI as a guide for setting rates

Should the CPI have a role in the setting of council rates?

Ms Craigie doesn’t seem to think so, and haughtily dismisses as ignorant those of us who take a contrary view.

In my opinion, what is good enough for commonwealth and state governments, with their far more extensive range of responsibilities, should be good enough for local governments too.

I’m not saying that the CPI should be the sole determinant of rate increases, but it has a part to play, along with other factors, as a guide.

And I’m glad to say that the Shire of York agrees with me.

On page 3 of its draft annual budget for 2018/19, the Shire notes that the cost of providing services has increased by 1.5%.  It continues:

This is reflected by the underlying assumptions used to formulate the budget, such as the CPI, wage increases and utility increases.

Those considerations have resulted in a modest rate increase of 2% for 2018/19, better than what Ms Craigie tells us is the state average.  This compares very favourably with the Shire’s rate increases for 2014 (10.8%) and 2015/16 (9.6%).   It is a tiny bit less than its increase for 2016/17 (2.1%) and a fraction more than for 2017/18 (billed at 1.4%).

In practical terms, this means a current increase in residential rates of less than one cent in the GRV dollar ($0.118490 to $0.120862, i.e. $0.002372). 

I haven’t finished analysing  the budget—I’m waiting for the final version as adopted at yesterday’s Special Council Meeting—so I’ve no idea by what miraculous means the Shire achieved this very reasonable result.  Anyway, well done the Shire of York, and all the other councils that have shown similar restraint.

Which brings me back to Ms Craigie’s article.  She is right to commend councils statewide for keeping this year’s rate increases low.

But there’s a sense in which she (and they) are missing the mark.

In straitened times, sensible householders have to reduce expenditure on inessential goods and services.  They have to dispense with such luxuries as late model cars and overseas holidays and in other aspects of life are forced to apply the time-honoured principle of ‘make do and mend’.

I see no reason why at such times local governments—and governments generally—shouldn’t follow the same principle by exercising restraint and commonsense in spending their money—which is actually our money, not theirs.

Shock horror, Councils might even search for ways to reduce rates rather than increase them further with every passing year.

One thing they might do to save money is collectively give WALGA conferences a miss until they amount to something more beneficial to ratepayers than a gabfest, a bunfight and a comedy show.

Ah well, dream on…

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man.

  

W H Beveridge, Social Insurance and Allied Services, 1942

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

G B Shaw, Man and Superman, 1903

KNOW YOUR ENEMY: WALGA

As most readers will know, WALGA is an acronym denoting the Western Australian Local Government Association. 

If you are a ratepayer concerned about incessant annual rate hikes resulting from increasing local government expenditure in your neck of the woods, you may opine, with good reason, that WALGA is emphatically not your friend.

According to its website, WALGA is an organisation ‘working for Local Government’ and which ‘advocates on behalf of 138 WA Local Governments and negotiates service agreements’ for them.

I think the term ‘service agreements’ may relate in part to WALGA’s  ‘preferred suppliers program’, which among other touted advantages relieves local governments of the need to call for tenders when procuring goods and services. 

WALGA offers assistance to local governments in making CEO, Acting CEO and other senior executive appointments.  

The organisation’s involvement in that exercise appears designed to ensure that senior ranks are often recruited from an assortment of avaricious hacks—some having no formal qualifications of any kind and/or of dubious reputation—who without regard to probity or efficiency are recycled interminably at great expense most notably through WA’s rural shires.

Transparency

The draft of a WALGA submission dated December 2015 to a parliamentary select committee describes the organisation as ‘the united voice of local government in WA’.

A cynic might see that as indicating there is little or no room in WALGA’s deliberations for a significant diversity of opinion, especially where the extra-contractual compensations of office are concerned.  

At WALGA’s annual conference in 2015, then mayor of Vincent John Carey moved proposals to improve transparency and accountability in local government affairs and procedures. 

One of his proposals would have compelled local governments to maintain an online register of gifts, travel expenditure and hospitality.

Predictably, secrecy won the day.  Mr Carey’s proposals were voted down.

Mr Carey expressed his consternation "that the sector would not even consider an open discussion and debate about future reforms for transparency”. 

He added:  “Local government leaders may think they can hide and run from transparency reform, but ratepayers deserve this information, they have a right to it and we should make it as accessible as possible."

Amen to that, but the majority of WALGA’s members—including, I believe, the deputation from our very own Shire of York—seems to have considered being open and honest with the people they are elected or appointed to serve an unwelcome, probably dangerous, intrusion on their privacy.

À propos of Mr Carey’s remarks, WALGA’s president Lynne Craigie said:  “I think you'll find local governments are extremely good financial managers”.

Obviously, she had had very little if anything to do with financial and asset management as practised in the chaotic Shire of York.

Best practice?

 In 2016, Mr Carey hotly disputed WALGA's claim that it had ‘best practice’ policies on transparency and governance, saying that WALGA’s values and aspirations were out of touch with those of ratepayers.

He described the local government sector as having “a long way to go in terms of transparency and accountability”.

Mr Carey—once characterised by senior WA journalist Paul Murray as a ‘metrosexual lefty’—is now MLA for Perth and a minister and parliamentary secretary in the McGowan Labor government.   As such, he will no doubt take part in framing the government’s forthcoming revision of the Local Government Act—paying special attention, we should hope, to transparency and accountability issues.

Let’s hope Minister Carey and his colleagues give WALGA’s membership something to think hard about in the years to come—or ‘going forward’, as our political and bureaucratic overlords these days prefer to say in order, so it seems, to foster an illusion of progress. 

Attitude

The draft submission mentioned above was the work of Paul Schollum, WALGA’s economic policy manager.  It deals with issues of infrastructure financing.

The submission accurately reflects WALGA’s attitude to the funding of local government projects and services.   

That attitude may be summed up as ‘Don’t worry if you run short of money—just rip more cash from the pockets of ratepayers.  Squeeze them until the pips squeak, they’re too stupid to care and much too lazy to vote’.

Such an attitude leaves little space for unfashionable ideas like restraint in spending, ‘user pays’ and cutting your coat according to your cloth. 

Instead, it encourages the belief that ratepayers are like Norman Lindsay’s Magic Pudding, an endlessly self-renewing resource for local governments to tap copiously and at will.

‘User pays’

This, as an example, is what Mr Schollum wrote on the topic of ‘user pays’:

While charges are used for community infrastructure such as swimming pools and recreation centres, the charges are typically set well below cost recovery levels.  This is because Local Governments choose to subsidise these facilities due to their spillover benefits such as improved social cohesion and better health outcomes for the community.

To avoid misunderstanding, let me declare plainly that I’m not one of those self-centred individuals who believe that taxation of any kind is theft.   There are services and facilities provided by governments at all levels from which everybody benefits and for which everybody ought to pay. 

There’s no need in making that argument to fall back on fashionable idiocies like ‘social cohesion’ that—unlike ‘better health outcomes’—have no readily demonstrable existence and are therefore virtually impossible to measure except perhaps at the extremes (for example, by the absence of sectarian outrages, which is what most people would think of when the phrase comes up in casual conversation). 

Mr Schollum goes on to say that even with regard to such facilities as car parks, regional airports and waste management, where local governments rely increasingly on customer charges,

…there should not necessarily be the expectation that these services should be fully funded by users.  Local Governments should retain the capability to use rates revenue to subsidise certain services to achieve certain economic development, affordability and equity of access issues according to the preferences of the community.

Here, Mr Schollum, speaking for WALGA, has unwittingly put his finger on the main reason why local government in WA is essentially a gigantic empire-building, social-engineering rort with its tentacles reaching out to embrace a bewildering spectrum of human activity.

Time was when a local government’s legislated function was to deliver specific services to people living in the district for which it was responsible.  In popular parlance, those services were usually summarized by the admirably concrete phrase ‘roads, rates and rubbish’.

Of course, there’s always been more to local government than that.   From early days, the sector’s other responsibilities have included town planning, public health, libraries, and caring for parks and open spaces. 

In our climate, it made sense to add swimming pools to the list and to subsidise entry charges.  This is one area where ‘equity of access’ actually matters.   Another is the provision of libraries and support for community resource centres.

The focus was as it should be on services available to everybody from which everybody—young or old, able-bodied or disabled, straight, gay or optionally gendered— can benefit in a tangible way.

‘Economic development’ is the job of industry and commerce working with state and federal authorities.  It is not something local government is likely to do responsibly and well or with proper regard to the interests of ratepayers. 

Nor is ‘community development’, which whatever it means is best left to members of the community acting on their own initiative rather than to local governments, which tend on the whole to spend too much on it or stuff it up altogether.

Recreation centres

Mr Schollum mentions recreation centres.  In York, we have a recreation centre that has cost many irrecoverable millions of dollars and gobbles up a hefty slice of the ratepayer dollar every year. 

The centre houses a bar and restaurant that offer subsidised grog and grub—subsidised, that is, by ratepayers most of whom don’t eat or drink there—and runs at a considerable loss, with ratepayers picking up the tab.

It forms part of a sports complex with artificially turfed tennis courts and bowling greens that cost ratepayers a fortune to replace and maintain.

The Shire has invited the sporting clubs to take over the management and operation of the centre.  That was supposed to have happened several years ago.  However, the clubs have declined to accept that invitation with the feeble excuse that they can’t drum up the requisite volunteer labour—an objection that does them very little credit.   

In consequence, the Shire has decided to add to the ratepayers’ financial burden by employing a batch of new staff to do the jobs that sporting club volunteers ought to be doing but can’t or don’t care to do. 

In effect, the Shire is running the centre as if it were a business in competition with local private enterprise, except that it will never make a profit and will have to be bailed out year after year by the hapless York ratepayer.  This is most obviously true of the bar and café, which if privately owned would have long ago slid into liquidation.

Expectations

Most of us don’t expect the community at large to fund our hobbies and pastimes.   The sporting clubs used to manage their own premises and activities, with an occasional leg-up from the Shire.  My impression is that many club members look back nostalgically on those days.

These days the clubs have well-founded expectations that the Shire will foot the bill for their recreational activities and expect little or nothing in return.

‘User pays’ was once the default position, subject when necessary and justifiable to degrees of variation.  Not any more, thanks in no small measure to the backstairs lobbying of organisations like WALGA that see extorting money from taxpayers and ratepayers as the answer to all the world’s ills.  

And now, on a lighter note…

Every year, WALGA holds a conference or gabfest where councillors and senior executives from local governments meet to exchange inspiring thoughts and discuss challenges and opportunities confronting the local government sector.

This year’s conference will be held from Wednesday 1 August to Friday 3 August at the Perth Convention Centre. 

Conferences usually have a theme, and this one is no exception.  This year’s theme is ‘Ready and Relevant’, though at present ready for what and relevant to what is not entirely clear.

However, the list of keynote speakers may give us a clue. 

The list comprises a comedian (of course); a former ambassador to China; a ‘research based futurist’ (figure that out if you can); a woman from New Zealand who founded a hip-hop group consisting of persons of very much riper years (ages 73-90), some of whom may soon find themselves hip-hopping down Cemetery Road; and a speaker from Canada who will wrap up proceedings with an ‘insightful and hilarious outsider’s take’ on what participants experienced (in other words, another comedian).

None the wiser?  Well, the proceedings will include a panel session.    The panel will comprise a former Tasmanian senator who resigned her seat on discovering she had dual nationality; a former NSW premier and foreign minister in the closing days of the ill-fated Gillard/Rudd government; another former senator, recently named as ‘one of the Top 100 Global Influences on Gender Policy’ (from ‘Safe Schools’ to ‘Safe Town Halls’?); and a prominent WA journalist and media personality who allegedly declined when invited to assist the York community in its drawn-out battle against a multinational landfill corporation. 

A cricketer  who specialises in left arm wrist spinners, otherwise known as ‘chinamen’, will host the conference breakfast.  (I suppose it may have been confusion resulting from that which prompted the invitation to His Excellency the former ambassador.)

Still puzzled?  #MeToo.  We’ll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, I’m told that the conference will open with the WA Symphony Orchestra playing a selection of works by the contemporary Italian composer Giuseppe Masturbani.

*******

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Ch.X Part 2

DOING THE (LEGAL) EAGLE ROCK

There is a lust in man no charm can tame

Of loudly publishing his neighbour's shame:

On eagles’ wings immortal scandals fly,

While virtuous deeds are merely born and die.

Attributed to the English physician William Harvey, 1578-1657.

Why readers’ comments and some paragraphs of my own have upset Mr X and caused him to threaten to sue me

From his lawyer Richard Graham's Notice of Concerns:

“24.   The passages [complained of], in the context that the words appear, meant and were understood to mean…that [Mr X]:

(a) has indecently exposed himself to female staff at the Shire of York;

(b) has engaged in acts of sexual harassment in the workplace;

(c) is a criminal in that he has engaged in criminal acts of indecent exposure;

(d) is a sexual predator;

(e) is a pervert;

(f) is likely to indecently expose himself in his next place of employment;

(g) is a liar;

(h) has deliberately concealed a decision from the public that might have attracted adverse criticism if made known to the public; and

(i) is not fit to hold office in local government…

28.  My client instructs me that each of the imputations are totally false, without basis and constitute serious defamations of my client.  [Should read ‘each…is’—oh, never mind, my New Year’s resolution was to try to stop being a grammar nazi. JP]

29.  My client instructs me that he resigned from the Shire of York due to personal health reasons.”

The Notice (which unsurprisingly is marked ‘Private and Confidential’ and ‘Not to be republished’) goes on to state that the harm done to Mr X’s professional reputation by publication of the imputations complained of will hinder his chance of securing future employment in his field of work and has caused him to suffer  ‘stress, anxiety and depression’.

My reply to Mr X’s lawyer

Here, bar certain details that might easily identify his client, is the text of my letter to Mr Graham.

5 January 2018

Richard Graham

Vogt Graham Lawyers

PO Box 102

NORTHBRIDGE WA 6865

By email to rgraham@vogtgraham.com.au

Dear Sir,

RE: CONCERNS NOTICE—[MR X]

I acknowledge receipt of your letter and enclosure of 13 December 2017.

It appears that your client has been much less than candid in his instructions. 

Comments published on The REAL Voice of York that contain imputations by which he claims to be ‘seriously aggrieved’ are in my view defensible under section 25 of the Defamation Act on the basis that they are, at the very least, substantially true.

However, because I believe your client is more to be pitied than blamed, I have removed comments identifying him by name or his former position at the Shire of York.   It is not my intention to publish further such comments.

I have not removed the comment complained of from ‘Roger’ (28 November 2017) because it does not identify your client.

Nor have I removed the reference to your client in the Shedding Principle section of ‘Notes from Underground’…What I wrote there was true.   Not only did your client say what I reported him to have said, he did so in the presence of a witness willing to swear to that in court.  Moreover, I believe my words on the topic of the oversized shed may be subject to qualified privilege.

Your client must understand that any agreement he may have made with the Shire of York to keep confidential the circumstances of his departure from the Shire’s employ will not protect him if he elects to take this matter to court. 

Yours faithfully,

James Plumridge

(Dr) James Plumridge

If I had chosen to be bloody-minded, I could have mentioned that Mr X assured me in August of last year, again in the presence of a witness, that the Shire’s environmental health officer possesses professional qualifications relevant to his job.  To put the matter tactfully, I don’t believe that assurance reflected reality.

However, Mr X should be comforted to know that any person trawling the Internet for information about him will find nothing especially alarming in the columns of this blog.

Some questions for the Shire

1.              According to Suzie Haslehurst’s response to my email to CEO Martin (see my previous article, ‘Legal Eagle Flies Undone’), Mr X resigned of his own accord and not under pressure from the CEO.   However, according to Gary Hamley, Local Government Minister Templeman’s Chief of Staff, CEO Martin ‘took appropriate action’.

What action, if any, did the CEO take, and if he did take action, why might it have been considered ‘appropriate’?

2.              Did Mr X behave as alleged (i.e. ‘inappropriately’, jeez, that feeble and obfuscatory type of language is more contagious than measles or the pox) towards female members of Shire staff?

3.              Mr X claims to have resigned for reasons of ill-health.  If he had not thus offered his resignation, would the CEO have felt obliged to sack him?  If not, what might the CEO have done instead?

4.              It is rumoured that the Shire paid out the balance of Mr X’s contract.  If he did behave ‘inappropriately’ as alleged, wouldn’t such a payout be tantamount to rewarding improper behaviour?

5.              If a male member of the public walked into the Shire office one sultry afternoon and behaved towards female staff as Mr X is alleged to have done, would the Shire react as kindly as it appears to have done with regard to Mr X?  Or is there one rule for local government employees and another for everybody else?

6.              Is it the case that the Shire permitted Mr X to continue for several weeks, after ceasing to work for the Shire, to drive a Shire vehicle and live in Shire accommodation?  If so, why?

7.              To what extent, if any, was Shire President Wallace informed of Mr X’s alleged ‘inappropriate’ behaviour towards female staff?  If he was so informed, did he share that information with his fellow councillors, and if he didn’t, why not?

8.              Is it the case that at least one oversized shed application was approved last year or earlier under delegated authority with a view to avoiding public scrutiny and possible adverse comment?

It appears that CEO Martin and Shire President Wallace are less than happy about what is being written on this and David Taylor’s blog.   I remind them and their fellow mugwumps that they are spending our money, not their own.  As I’ve argued in the past, no expenditure of public money unrelated to national security or public safety should be withheld from public scrutiny.  Considerations of privacy or confidentiality should have no role to play in the public service, which public money keeps afloat.

If the Shire were committed, as clearly it is not, to open, honest and accountable government, it would have nothing to fear from the blogs.