9.6 CONFIDENITAL REPORTS
9.6.2 Performance Review & Contract of Employment – Deputy Chief Executive Officer
NO: COUNCIL DATE: 25 May, 2015
REPORT DATE: 8 May, 2015
LOCATION/ADDRESS: N/A APPLICANT: N/A REPORT APPROVED BY THE A/CEO: Graeme Simpson
Summary: Commissioner to open the meeting after reviewing the Deputy Chief Executive Officer Performance Review and Contract of Employment.
Statutory Environment: Local Government Act 1995 – Part 5 – Division 2 – Section 5.23:
(2) If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1)(b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following — (a) a matter affecting an employee or employees
Voting Requirements: Commissioner’s Voting Support
AGENDA – ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 25 MAY 2015
 |
Suitably qualified or in over her head?
Below is the position description for the DCEO position
Vacancy for: Deputy Chief Executive Officer Closing Date: 04-01-2011
DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Applications are invited for the above position with the Shire of York under 3-5 year employment contract.
The position offered is in the $90,604 to $100,604 cash component, salary package range is $130,661 to $143,349.
Further details may be obtained by contacting Gail Maziuk on 08 9641 2233 08 9641 2233 or email records@york.wa.gov.au.
Applications clearly endorsed 'Deputy CEO' will be received at the Shire of York, PO Box 22, York, WA, 6302 up to 4.00pm on Tuesday, 4th January, 2011.
Mr Ray Hooper CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Ph: 9641 2233 Fax: 9641 2202 PO BOX 22 YORK WA 6302
POSITION DESCRIPTION
Contract
1. TITLE: Deputy Chief Executive Officer
2. LEVEL: Contract Position
3. DEPARTMENT/SECTION: Governance, Finance, Administration & Community Services
4. POSITION OBJECTIVES:
4:1 Objectives of Position:
4.1.1 Manage the Governance, Finance, Administration and Community Development Sections of Council in an effective, efficient and accountable manner for the benefit of the community;
4.1.2 Oversee and monitor the finances of Council including the timely and accurate preparation and adoption of Plans for the Future, Budgets, Annual Statements, Business Plans and any other statutory requirements;
4.1.3 Provide quality advice and direction to Council on investments, financial trends, resource requirements and other matters affecting the finances of Council;
4.1.4 Provide advice and direction on the community development needs of the community;
4.1.5 Manage the administration section of Council to achieve the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness;
4.1.6 Provide advice and direction to Council on all matters impacting on the good governance of the district;
4.1.7 Assist and guide Council in providing community leadership through forward planning;
4.1.8 Liaise and communicate with Council to facilitate the good governance of the district;
4.1.9 Liaise and consult with the community on all matters related to Community Development;
4.1.10 Provide advice and input into the strategic planning process to assist with planning for the future of York
4.1.11 Develop a corporate approach within the Senior Officer Group towards budget development and ensure that effective financial controls operate within and across each functional area.
5. REQUIREMENTS OF THE POSITION:
5:1 Skills:
5.1.1. Highly developed public, relations and interpersonal skills
5.1.2. Highly developed verbal and written communication skills
5.1.3. Developed team management and leadership skills
5.1.4. Highly developed time management skills
5.1.5. Highly developed decision making skills
5.1.6. Highly developed problem solving and conflict resolution skills
5.1.7. Developed negotiation skills
5:2 Knowledge:
5.2.1. Detailed knowledge of the Local Government Accounting requirements
5.2.2. Sound working knowledge of Local Government Law and meeting procedures
5.2.3. Detailed knowledge of Councils¡¦ organisational structure and function
5.2.4. Sound knowledge of the Equal Opportunities Act and Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare (OHSW) legislation
5.2.5. Sound knowledge of human resource issues
5.2.6. Working knowledge of Corporate Strategic Planning
5.2.7. Working knowledge of computer systems and software awareness
5.2.8. Working knowledge of community development.
5:3 Experience:
5.3.1. At least three (3) years experience in senior management position within Local Government or the commercial or public sectors with an understanding of the workings of Local Government 5.3.2. At least three (3) years experience in financial management and budget processes in an organisation.
5:4 Qualifications and / or Training
5.4.1 Hold at least an associate diploma in local government, business administration or management of a minimum of five (5) years experience at a senior management level
5.4.1 Hold a current class Motor Drivers Licence.
6. KEY DUTIES/RESPONSIBILITIES
6.1.1. Overall responsibility for financial management, including the ability to provide appropriate reports, statements at designated times to Council
6.1.2. Responsibility for the supervision and management of Finance, Administration and Community Service Staff in accordance with Councils¡¦ / organisational structure
6.1.3. Attend all Council and Committee meetings as required
6.1.4. Provide guidance and direction in line with Council policies for the implementation of Councils¡¦ Community Development Programs being: Economic Development Recreation Management Library Services Welfare Facilities Ranger Services Youth Services
6.1.5. Oversee the preparation of Councils' Annual Budget, Annual Statements and Plan for the Future in liaison with the City of Canning.
6 1.6. Organise Council and Committee Agendas and Minutes to be prepared and distributed promptly
6.1.7. Organise and administer Local Government Elections in the capacity of Deputy Returning Officer
6.1.8. Organise staff training and undertake professional development to maintain a team of skilled and motivated personnel
6.1.9. Coordinate Workplace Injury Management
6.1.10 Act as the Council¡¦s Public lnterest Disclosure Officer Process road closures, boundary realignments, road name changes in accordance with legislation.
6.1.11 Responsible for the supervision, training and management of the Administration Department.
6.1.12 Assist with the elections.
6.1.13 Review and keep updated all position descriptions and job specifications.
6.1.14 Co-ordinate leave and other entitlements to ensure staffing requirements are met.
6.1.15 Conduct staff appraisals as designated by the Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer.
6.1.16 Oversee Council¡¦s Record Management system and improve the Records Management Plan.
6.1.17 Assist with recruitment of administration staff.
6.1.18 Co-ordinate the I.T functions of Council with the assistance of external contractors.
6.1.19 Preparation and submission of statutory annual returns, eg. FOI, Equal Opportunity, Corruption and Crime Commission etc.
6.1.20 Provide secretarial services to Council Committees as directed.
6.1.21 Act as Council¡¦s Freedom of Information Co-ordinator, Equal Opportunity Coordinator and Public Interest Disclosure Officer.
6.1.22 Act as the Shire of York¡¦s Grievance Officer.
7. GOALS
Key Result Areas and associated strategies and actions will be varied by the employee and employer annually during the term of the contract. Specific annual targets will be established during the annual review process. Upon the commencement of employment these Key Result Areas will reflect.
Leadership and Governance Provide leadership which is proactive, open and accountable and encourages community and staff consultation and participation Regular reports are presented to Council on its strategic plan, associated budget and significant projects Sound financial controls are in place to gauge the efficiency and effectiveness of services.
Unique Heritage and Environment Conserve and enhance the natural features, built environment and cultural heritage of the Shire and region.
Economic Prosperity Support an environment which encourages, promotes and facilitates sustainable business development, fosters investment opportunities and compliments the unique lifestyle of the Shire and region.
Social Support and Development Encourage opportunity for quality social and community development in health, leisure, education and human services which supports individual and community well being Promote sustainability principles.
Assets and Infrastructure Provide assistance, advice and support in the development of sustainable assets and infrastructure which are functional and aesthetically appropriate Identify and promote economic development opportunities for Council.
8. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Foster and Maintain Positive Public Relations Performance Indicators Demonstrate a customer service focus Effective relationships with business and community organisations, other local, state and federal authorities and departments are maintained Promote active participation and interaction with other local governments and authorities to develop and use joint services and functions and to generate mutual operational and economic advantages.
Provide support to the CEO on Policy and Legislation Performance Indicators Professional and objective advice provided Councillors briefed on their statutory and community roles when required Advice by employees is monitored and tested to adherence to legislation and Council strategies and policies.
Assist in Monitoring the Operations of the Council Performance Indicators Sound administrative and financial controls are in place to gauge the efficiency and effectiveness of services Council decisions and communication arising from decisions of Council are promptly dealt with Statutory and policy obligations are met and decisions made by officers, comply with the approved delegations of Council Objectives and strategies linked to the strategic plan are developed for consideration by Council Meeting agendas and minutes are prepared promptly and reports are factual, accurate and impartial with due regard to sustainability implications and policy Council statutes and local laws are reviewed and enforced.
Assist in the Formulation, Co-ordination and Review of Effective Corporate Planning and Strategies Performance Indicators Strategic and community plans are regularly reviewed Objectives, strategies and actions from the strategic plan are implemented Regular reports are presented to Council on its strategic plan, associated budget and significant projects.
9. ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
9:1 Responsible to: The Chief Executive Officer
9:2 Supervision of: Finance Staff Administration Staff Ranger Recreation Staff Youth Officer Events Co-ordinator (if appointed) Grants Officer (if appointed)
9:3 Internal and External Liaison: Internal President and Councillors Chief Executive Officer Senior Management Team Other Staff and employees External Ratepayers General Public Government Departments Community Groups Creditors/Debtors Local Government Authorities
10. EXTENT OF AUTHORITY: Operates under limited direction of the Chief Executive Officer within established guidelines, procedures and policies of Council as well as statutory provisions of the Local Government Act and other legislation.
11. SELECTION CRITERIA: (All requirements are essential unless otherwise stated)
Leadership Proven leadership at the Senior Officer or Executive level, with the demonstrated intellectual capacity to develop an understanding of all legislation impacting on Local Government.
High level Strategic Planning skills and knowledge of corporate management requirements Demonstrated understanding of the application of contemporary human resource management principles to ensure the continued training and development of employees abilities. Awareness of new innovations and legislative reforms relative to Local Government. Demonstrated capacity to identify entrepreneurial opportunities that maximise the return on Council assets.
Policy Implementation High Level knowledge of public policy issues as they impact on Local Government.
Governance and Compliance Demonstrated capacity to administer the Local Government Act and other associated Legislation Proven provision of professional and timely advice to support Council in making the most informed decisions on behalf of constituents Extensive knowledge of statutory, legal and contractual obligations. Financial Results Demonstrated experience in the area of financial management, including budget control. Community Development Considerable experience in dealing with the public and community Considerable experience in encouraging, promoting and facilitating sustainable business development and fostering investment opportunities Demonstrated knowledge in the management of natural features, built environment and cultural heritage. Applied knowledge of sustainability and its application of the economic, social and environmental principles at an organisation level. General Management Excellent interpersonal and communication skills Degree/Diploma in Management, Business and/or Public Sector Administration discipline or experience that is accepted as comparable. Present Occupant: Date Appointed:
Prepared by: ______________ Date Issued:________
Supervisor: ______________
Approved by: ______________ No. of sheets: 9
Reviewed: ________________ Date: ________
Conditions of Employment The position of Shire Deputy Chief Executive Officer is offered as a full time position under a contract of employment for a three (3) or five (5) year term under the following conditions:
Salary Salary Cash component $ 90,000 - $101,000 Occupational Superannuation (9%) $ 8,100 - $9,090 Local Government Superannuation (5%) $ 4,500 - $5,050 (Subject to staff matching contribution)
Staff Housing Rental Subsidy $ 5,200 (In Council Provided House) 17.5% Leave Loading (To be part of cash) $ 1211 - $1359 Uniform Allowance $ 250 Water & Shire Rates Staff House $ 1,400 Professional Development $ 3,000 Telecommunication Allowance $ 1,000 Vehicle (Unrestricted Private Use) $ 16,000 TOTAL $130,661 - $143,349
Annual Leave Four (4) weeks per year with leave loading to be built into the cash component. To be negotiated.
Sick Leave Under the conditions of the Local Government Officers Award and the Shire of York Collective Workplace Agreement 50% of unused sick leave will be paid out on termination of employment.
Long Service Leave As per the Local Government Long Service Leave Regulations.
Hours of Duty Minimum of 38 hours per week Monday to Friday. This position requires the person to work the hours necessary to meet the requirements of the position. No overtime is payable in this position. 19 Day Month A 19 day month applies to this position with unused rostered days off being paid out each six month period (30th June and 31st December) unless accruals are approved by the Chief Executive Officer.
Service Pay Service pay is due and payable in accordance with the Shire of York Collective Workplace Agreement.
Safety Bonus A six monthly bonus is payable to all staff in accordance with the Shire of York Collective Workplace Agreement.
Salary Increases A 4.5% increase shall be applied to all staff payments on the 9th May each year for the term of the Shire of York Collective Workplace Agreement. National wage increases also apply to the position.
Vehicle A fully maintained vehicle shall be provided for the position with unrestricted private use by the staff member.
Contract of Employment A contract based on the WALGA model will be used for this contract of employment for a three (3) or five (5) year term.
Staff Housing A new four bedroom house is available for the position at a subsidised rental of between $100 - $150 per week. The Shire of York will pay local government and water rates and water usage for this residence.
Telecommunications A mobile phone will be provided for the position for office use and $1000 per annum will be payable for broadband and telephone use at the residence.
Professional Development Up to $3000 per annum will be available to the staff member for attendance at engineering related conferences and seminars and other professional development associated with the position.
Relocation Expenses A payment of up to a maximum of $3,000 shall be payable to the employee of appropriate invoices/receipts on the following basis: (a) 50% of incurred and supported costs on commencement of employment. (b) 50% of incurred and supported costs on completion of six months service.
Clothing Allowance A uniform allowance of $250 per annum shall be payable.
Other Conditions of Employment As per the Local Government Officers Award, Shire of York Collective Workplace Agreement and any Council employment policies in place from time to time.
|
One giant step backwards.
ReplyDeletePresumably this mean that Commissioner Best intends to renew the DCEO's contract.
ReplyDeleteIf so, that will be an extremely unpopular move, as I'm sure he knows, and widely considered a sneaky act of bastardry on his part and A/CEO Simpson's. We would have to assume that he would be doing it, encouraged by Mr Simpson, to punish the people of York who have refused to dance to his tune since the day he arrived here.
I mean no disrespect to the DCEO by pointing out that she appears to possess no tertiary qualifications of any kind and to have undertaken no course of study that might broaden and deepen her understanding of local government. Her sole qualification for the position appears to be length of service with the Shire including a long stint as a loyal deputy to former CEO Hooper.
Knowing it will fall on deaf ears, I nevertheless remind Mr Best that the DCEO has been shown to have assisted at some level in the falsification of a public record, namely a Council minute, contrary to section 85 of the WA Criminal Code. That is hardly the behaviour of an exemplary employee.
The proper thing would be for her job to be re-advertised. She would of course have opportunity to apply.
The fate of the CCEO's contract should be a decision for the elected Council, not Minister Simpson's emissary acting alone.
If the Commissioner does renew the DCEO's contract, I assure him and her that will not be the end of the story.
Here is a chance for the Commissioner to show the people of York what he is made of.
ReplyDeleteMr. Best - defer this item until our duly elected council is re-instated and allow them to make the decision.
There is no urgency for this to be dealt with, it can wait until July Shire meeting.
If Mr. Best does renew the contact behind closed doors then it will prove to everyone in York he is a plant from the DLG.
Consider this James, does the Department need her to remain in place?
ReplyDeleteAfter October when the new Council employ a fresh CEO, if Cochrane is no more, then theoretically the Department have no puppets in the SOY administration.
Cochrane is panicking, she knows full well the Council will not renew her contract and she is doing exactly what Ray Hooper did with Boyle and Hooper. She is also desperate to keep control of certain documents.
ReplyDeleteAs the truth is exposed on the blog, she may also decide to resign just like Ray did.
I doubt the Blogmaster et al will bother to follow the life and career of "wee Jamie Beast". But the Blog will surely travel with him. Remember the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, (Coleridge) the Blog will forever be the albatross around his neck.
ReplyDeleteIn true Shire of York form, sneaky agenda items are listed when the Council meets at Talbot Hall.
ReplyDeleteExactly who's interests is Best looking after?
ReplyDeleteIf he thinks she's up to the job and deserves the job then allow OUR democratically elected Councillors to decide.
What have we done to deserve this?
Hang on, her contract expires in January 2016, why on earth are they considering renewing it 7 months ahead of time?
ReplyDeleteTo cap this off, Cochrane admits in writing she is definitely in over her head, why renew her contract?
That explains why the leach never stepped up as ACEO when Hooper resigned because she was in over her head.
ReplyDeleteWay to close to Ray she was and undoubtedly still is, I agree with the earlier comment that it suits the DLG she stays in place.
Its going to make it impossible for the new CEO to be effective considering the DCEO is incapable of telling the truth.
That note from Tyhscha to Matthew Reid says it all, and confirms what many in the Town already know.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we paying her to be the DCEO if she is by her own admission "in over her head"?
I agree, leave the decision up to those who will have to work with her Mr. Best!
Come on, we deserve better than this.
Tyhscha Cochrane had her contract renewed at a Special Council meeting on 14 February 2011 for a five (5) year period which would expire on 13 February 2016. Resolution 030211 Carried 4/0 (Hooper, Boyle, Lawrance and Scott).
ReplyDeleteWhen Council officially renewed Ray Hooper's contract in February 2009 (which as we know had actually been unofficially renewed in August 2008) this was included:
Clause 2.2 of the Employment Contract reads as follows:
“there is no compulsion on either the Council or the Employee to agree to a new contract, however:
2.21 the Council shall invite the Employee in writing no later than six months prior to the expiry of the Term to discuss the possibility of the parties entering into a new Contract for a further term with the intent of finalising those discussions not later than three months prior to the expiry of the Term; and
2.22 in the event that the Council and the Employee agree to a new Contract, this Contract shall continue to apply unless varied in writing by the parties.”
This was part of a model WALGA contract tailored to individual staff members and that being the case, if Ms Cochrane's contract expires on 13 February 2016, it should not be reviewed until August 2015. The terms of the contract clearly state not later than six months but this does not justify a good reason for the Commissioner to review the contract prematurely.
The decision to renew this contract (or otherwise) should be at the discretion of the returning Council who are due back in July 2015. Not only were these Councillors democratically elected, they also know 'their town and their people' and should honour the wishes of a majority of their electorate.
It is well known that in December 2014, various allegations relating to former/current Council staff were submitted to the CCC for investigation. Commissioner Best has confirmed on several occasions that the CCC have referred 6 files back to him for internal investigation and response. This investigation is still current and in that respect alone, Commissioner Best cannot possibly consider renewing the contract of a member of staff who may be implicated in that investigation without the obvious indication of a conflict of interest.
Sorry Mr Best you cannot be judge and jury without someone questioning your motives, why the urgent agenda item......sounds like yet another DLGC directive to me.
And I remember reading somewhere that one of the reasons for giving her a contract was that she was 'the cheapest option at the time". There were three other candidates for the position of DCEO, all three had qualifications, to date. no one knows if Cochrane has any.
DeleteI agree that the contract would have been modeled on a WALGA template contract, that being the case, the Commission has no VALID reason to renew it 8 months prior to its expiry. However, there are many INVALID reasons for him to do it.
Very recently there was an interesting pieace on the blog which exposed the falsification of public records. Cochrane was up to her neck in it, unquestionably, she did it. Her excuse would have been that she was instructed by her mentor and master at the time, of course there would have been the cursory tears to reinforce her story.
As someone has already reasoned, the decision to keep Cochrane on is more for the Department benefit than ours. the Department would not be comfortable with two new faces in the top jobs. Cochrane is a means for the Department to scrutinize Councillors, especially Matthew Reid.
How on earth Best believes the new Council could ever trust Cochrane's word after the lies and omissions over the years she has been DCEO, the new Council and CEO will be hugely disadvantaged with her in place.
Ms Cochrane wouldn't know the truth if it hit her in the face. I had some matters before council and she lied so as to help a friend and to make my life a living hell and I strongly believe with the blessing of Ray Hooper. If she is allowed to have her contract renewed early without input outside of council, heaven help York; we deserve better and employees with integrity. We need our Councillors who were democratically elected October 2014 back in running our town at July 1 as stated by Minister Simpson. It is a scandal what happened to Matthew Reid who is a very well respected person in this town and just what was needed at the time to get rid of Ray Hooper. The others have fallen on their sword so should Tyhscha Cochrane.
ReplyDeleteJames Best if you do this you will be leaving a legacy we will never forgive you for. We need change and that starts with a change of DCEO. This would be by far the worst decision you would have made in York should you agree. Do you business a favour and reject this agenda item.
ReplyDeleteTalk on the Terrace is James Best is being set up on this by Ms. Cochrane.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think he is a little smarter than Ms. Cochrane and has the courage to defer this item until the Councillors are back.
It certainly will not do his business reputation any good if he is seen to be controlled by Shire Staff.
Readers across the whole state will be following this particular item to see how he handles it, lets hope common sense prevails.
This is not what our community wants Commissioner, plain and simple. Please let it be advertised and see what we get.
ReplyDeleteWOW!- A Graeme Simpson CONFIDENITAL REPORT
ReplyDeleteCONFIDENITAL (sounds like a new brand of toothpaste promotion) The word is CONFIDENTIAL- so can you be CONFIDENT in someone who cannot spell it on a council document?
The Commissioner represents the DLGC. His acting on this matter in reviewing the performance of Tyhscha Cochrane is untenable as he is not her employer and should have no mandate to do so.
The Commissioner represents the DLGC not the York Shire Council. His vote (as stipulated in Voting Requirements) should be declared null and void at a later date.
The meeting is not being held or approved by Council-. Council is suspended until July 2015. Mrs. Cochrane is a Council employee, not an employee of the DLGC.
Currently any committee adjudicating on any such matter does not represent Council or the ratepayer, thereby they will only be acting on behalf of the DLGC not the Shire of York Council. Any inappropriate outcome should be overturned later.
In the status of meeting requirements APPLICANT is N/A (NOT APPLICABLE). This, normally, either means that an applicant does not apply in this case or the answer is not available.
So what do you expect from this little conundrum?
Ah yes but Cochrane is a public servant and in the same corrupt club as the DLGC. Besty's doing what the Department tells him. Cochrane's as useful as tits on a bull, she knows it, the Dept knows it and Besty knows it. Its all part of Jenni Mathews's master-plan, control at any cost.
DeleteI'm starting to think there may be more to all this than meets the eye, maybe a cellar/dungeon (DLGCBDSM) at Gordon Stephenson House, where the Director domme whip's all the boys into submission.
David, what I don't expect is that the DCEO will be able to demonstrate the required intellectual capacity to understand relevant legislation, or (judging from the specimen displayed above) highly developed writing skills.
DeleteAs FOI Coordinator, she seems to have a limited grasp of the FOI Act, not a particularly mind-bending piece of legislation. That may be why the Shire is spending so much money on lawyers and FOI consultants who are able to advise her on how to obstruct applications and deny access to information; I doubt she would ever have consulted them to assist her in making life easier for FOI applicants.
So far as I know, she has none of the required qualifications in business or any related field and has made little or no effort to acquire any during the 5 years she has occupied the position.
My understanding is that she was assured in 2011 of having the job before it was even advertised. I believe there were no fewer than two other applicants, at least one of whom possessed relevant qualifications and experience. I'd like to know if those applicants were interviewed, and if so, why their applications were rejected.
I've nothing personal against the DCEO. What bothers me is that a senior position on the Shire might be awarded to a person who is not properly qualified for it and may not, objectively speaking, have performed well the duties attached to it. I wonder if she was ever required to submit an application for the position that dealt in suitable detail with the advertised criteria.
What's on offer is not a humble clerical job but a well paid position with very generous perks. It should be advertised online as well as in the local and national press.
Senior employees should never be led to believe that they have a right to automatic renewal of their contracts. When a contract ends, especially a long term contract, the position should be re-advertised and the incumbent invited to re-apply. The incumbent should be re-appointed only if he or she proves to be the best candidate.
Favouritism should have no part to play in any publicly funded organisation or institution.
PS David, don't be so hard on Graeme Simpson. At least he didn't spell the word CONFIGENITAL.
Let me get this right, ratepayers of York are paying a salary package range between $130,661 to $143,349 to Ms. Cochrane....... and she admitted in April 2014 in writing that she is, and I quote, 'definitely in over her head'.
ReplyDeleteGee, this gives the York Ratepayers no end of confidence in her ability - wonder how many things she has got wrong.
Has anyone shown the above Memo/Email or what ever it is to Commissioner Best? He needs to know this information so he can take it into account for her Performance Review. If she feels inadequate in the job, then she probably is! Perhaps it explains why she was in tears when Ray Hooper resigned.
Her original application addressing the above Selection Criteria should be checked for validity prior to her contract being considered for renewal. Clearly experience cannot be taken into account now, given she was A/DCEO for a considerable time prior to the position being advertised. This was, I believe, to give her the 'acting substantive' edge against other applicants ... and she still feels she is in over her head.
There is a legal (and morale) responsibility for anyone involved in selecting applicants for the Public Sector. In particular, there is a responsibility for all Selection Panel members to verify the validity of qualifications and answers provided by the applicant against the Selection Criteria, before they all counter sign the document appointing the person. There should have been three people on the selection panel.
How many applicants were received for the the DCEO position?
How many applicants were interviewed?
Who were the three people on the selection panel who conducted the interview?
Did Ms. Cochrane produce a valid qualification document?
On 22/05/2015, at 8:11 AM
ReplyDeleteGood Morning James,
Further to my previous email, more information has been revealed to the Community regarding the Agenda item 9,6,2 and it has now been revealed the DCEO's contract is not due for renewal until 14th February, 2016 - refer Resolution 030211.
I believe you will find the majority of York Ratepayers and residents believe it inappropriate for this contract to be renewed prior to the Council being re-instated. Believe me it is not the so called minority voice concluding you are being manipulated on this.
Given there is 8 months before the contract expires, there is absolutely no reason for the renewal of this contract to even be considered. The new CEO has a right to input into his Deputy.
I am sure if you put yourself in the shoes of the new CEO you would prefer to at least have some input into who your deputy is.
Kind regards
__________________________-
Thanks for your e-mail
In an objective sense it is important to separate an assessment of the Agenda Item -- from any personal views one might have on the Deputy CEO -- and their capacity to achieve the required outcomes.
I can assure you that I understand that I am responsible for the performance of the local government's functions and will therefore ensure that for this Agenda Item (and all others) I am fully informed, consider all the facts, evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks, and make a decision in the best interests of the community in the District.
I am unable to defer this Agenda Item as the item is simply for 'Noting' -- effectively the Council does not have the authority to determine the contractual arrangements of staff subordinate to the CEO.
Thanks for your interest in this matter
cheers
JAMES
James Best
Commissioner
Take a careful, analytical look at James B's email.
DeleteIt is couched in his usual bureaucratic twaddle, but he leaves himself open to some important questions.
1. What are 'the required outcomes', and what guarantee can he or the A/CEO give us that the current DCEO is able if reappointed to achieve them?
2. What of significant benefit to the town has she achieved so far in the performance of her duties?
3. Does she possess any tertiary qualifications relevant to her job? If so, what are they? If not, does she intend to acquire any, and if she does, how?
4. His second and third paragraphs are contradictory. In the second, he says he will 'make a decision in the best interests of the community'. In the third, he says it isn't his decision to make. What exactly are we supposed to believe?
5. Why is the temporary A/CEO carrying out this so-called performance review now instead of waiting for the return of the elected Shire Council six weeks from now? What is so urgent about the matter that it has to be dealt with at this time instead of then?
It is true, as he implies, that Council - in this case, himself - is not responsible for appointing staff below the level of CEO. However, it is also true that the Council, NOT the CEO, is responsible for the good governance of the Shire. On that basis, it must have scope for input into a senior appointment.
How can it be in the interests of good governance to appoint to a senior position somebody who is not qualified to hold it and has never been required to address the selection criteria - or if she did actually apply for the position, was unable to address them fully?
What are the arguments against advertising the position anew, inviting he DCEO to apply for it again and letting the best applicant win?
In Mondays OCM agenda, item 9.2.2, ACEO Simpson has identified the need to allow the newly elected Council to decide who replaces him. This makes perfect sense and I totally agree with his logic, the same logic should be applied to the DCEO position, the newly appointed CEO should be allowed to select the person he or she thinks is most suitable for the role.
DeleteIf he believes the current DCEO is that person, he has sealed York's fete and Ray Hooper's legacy will continue. The ratepayers and businesses of York deserve better than this, people have invested money, time and goodwill into York, the current DCEO has not, on the contrary, she has had much to do with the annihilation of free spirit and entrepreneurialism.
Like Ray Hooper, Cochrane believes in an authoritarian approach to managing Shire business, she has been indoctrinated into the misguided belief they rule, Govern and control our lives, when the opposite is true.
I would implore Mr best to think seriously before he allows any decision to be made and to please consider how the majority feel about this, please allow the decision to be made by our new CEO.
The urgency is 'someone' is stitching up Mr. Best before he leaves. Mr. Best has not been here long enough to know what depths these people will stoop to to shift the blame onto some one else.
DeleteCould be his downfall if he gives his voting support…. unless of course he has been promised a 'safe Liberal seat' at the next election as a reward.
Why renew a contract when the person has just started Maternity Leave? Would BHP or Rio Tinto do something so stupid - of course they wouldn't because it is not good Management practise.
How can the Shire possibly do a performance review when the person is not even in attendance or is this going to be another fudged document?
Has Cochrane agreed to a deal with the DLG - Shire of York informer.
She does have experience for that position - she showed false evidence to Mr. Morris.
If as Mr. Best states, he will 'consider all the facts, evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks, and make a decision in the best interests of the community in the District.' then he should conclude the performance review and consideration of the contract renewal be left until Ms. Cochrane returns from Maternity leave and the newCEO is appointed.
DeleteThe new CEO has a right to choose his own Staff and to take that right away is simply not fair.
The exact wording in Mr. Best's response above has been received by other Residents who took the time to write to him pleading the Shire not renew the DCEO's contract.
DeleteMr. Best, standard letters were one of Ray Hoopers tactics!
Shame on you Mr. Best, you could at least show the courtesy of addressing the issues people have raised with you instead of insulting us by saying you know what you are doing. Opinion is York is that you do not know what you are doing.
Why is it an Agenda Item if the Council has no authority to determine this?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me the information about the DCEO performance review and renewal of contract has been put on the Agenda to upset the Community.
Renewing the DCEO's contract, if that is what has happened or is about to happen, would amount to a nasty trick perpetrated on the people of York by Acting CEO Simpson and DCEO Cochrane with the support of Commissioner Best.
DeleteIn that case, Simpson and Best will have betrayed our community. But why should they care? They're just a pair of self-important carpetbaggers who've done very well out of the town. For Mr Best, complying with the reappointment of a DCEO who has no academic qualifications for the job, has a very poor understanding of community relations, has practised patronage, probably had a hand in the 'minority report' and appears to have been complicit in the commission of a serious crime (7 years in clink!), would seem to be a studied act of revenge for the town's failure to take his 'envisioning' nonsense seriously.
Ms Cochrane is taking maternity leave. Perhaps she is making sure she still has a plush job to come back to when her leave is over. Never mind the consequences for her colleagues, the Shire Council and the new CEO who will have to wear her lack of intellectual and linguistic finesse for the duration of the new contract.
Graeme Simpson's motives in all this are unfathomable. I don't know what's in his mind, but whatever it is must be very lonely.
I still can't quite bring myself to believe that Best, Cochrane and Simpson have formed an 'axis of evil' to frustrate the wishes of the people of York.
But if they have, I ask everyone who cares about the town's future to boycott Mr Best's 'Jigsaw Puzzle of Hope' and blow raspberries at him when they see him in the street. As for Mr Simpson, he's threatening to stay in his job until October - I suggest the restored Council try to lever him out, I'm sure they'd manage better in his absence pending the appointment of a new CEO.
Meanwhile, I wish Ms Cochrane a safe and happy delivery. My critique isn't personal: I just can't see that she's qualified for her job, and I'm not convinced we couldn't find someone more capable, better qualified and more acceptable to the community at large if the position was advertised. Maybe she'll find motherhood so exciting this time around that she'll take it up as a full-time career.
I doubt Ms Cochrane will find motherhood so exciting this time around that she'll take it up as a full-time career as unfortunately, it's all about the money. After Ms Cochrane had her last baby, she took it to work with her, a mini crèche was set up at the Shire office. None of the staff complained about the noise and commotion - how dare they when they might risk their jobs for speaking up.
DeleteSeveral ratepayers made complaints about the situation at the time stating that it was not conducive workplace safety to OHS requirements but they were fobbed off. Ms Cochrane should have known that what she was doing was wrong, it's part of the terms of her past contract and the one she is hoping to have renewed......?
5:2 Knowledge:
5.2.4. Sound knowledge of the Equal Opportunities Act and Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare (OHSW) legislation.
I can remember going into the administration office on one occasion, the whole office was drowned out with the screams of a baby. I asked what was going on out the back and was told it was the DCEO's baby, I asked if the office had now become a creche and the the lady behind the counter rolled her eyes and discreetly shook her head.
DeleteShe ought to make her mind up-either its a full time career or full time mother, not both.
The Shire of York did not - and still doesn't- have a Creche Policy and it was then, and still is, against OHSW legislation to have a baby in the workplace.
DeleteThis goes directly back to Mss. Cochrane's response to 5.2.4 in the above selection criteria. If she stated she had a sound knowledge of the OHSW then she was knowingly in breach of the OHSW Act.
There was also the issue of vicarious liability risk the CEO placed the Shire in, in respect to the Shires Insurance Policy.
These Laws are in place for a reason and Ms. Cochrane was irresponsible breaching the Act and placing her baby at risk.
James Best's response above does not make sense.
DeleteHe states and I quote - 'effectively the Council does not have the authority to determine the contractual arrangements of staff subordinate to the CEO.'
If this is the case, why is he being asked to give his voting support to item 9.6.2 Performance Review & Contract of Employment – Deputy Chief Executive Officer need the: Commissioner’s Voting Support.
I suspect someone is attempting to place Mr. Best up to his neck in the Shire's cesspit!
If he is smart he will decline to support the item.
If Cochranes original appointment was a 'set up' - which the majority in York and Administration Staff believe it was - and the applicant did not meet the selection criteria it will eventually be exposed and those involved (including Ms. Cochrane) will be in serious trouble and heading off to the CCC.
ReplyDeleteCochrane was the A/DCEO for considerable time prior to the position even being advertised. This is a ploy frequently used in the Public Sector to give the 'acting substantive' the edge against other applicants when the job is eventually advertised.
There is a legal (and moral) responsibility for anyone involved in selecting applicants for the Public Sector. In particular, there is a responsibility for all Selection Panel members to verify the validity of qualifications and be satisfied with the answers provided by the applicant against the Selection Criteria.
If the selection process followed Public Sector rules, there should have been three people on the selection panel and all three panel members must sign the recommendation form which should be on file in the Shire.
Can any one tell us:
How many applicants were received for the the DCEO position?
How many applicants were interviewed?
Who were the three people on the selection panel who conducted the interview?
Did Ms. Cochrane produce a valid qualification document?
She had stress leave last year, she's a liability and risk, she's a workplace bully, why would the Shire open itself up to a raft of potential problems.
ReplyDeleteWe are sick of her management style it's time for a fresh approach, someone with no baggage or axe to grind, someone with new ideas, dare I say someone with 'vision'.
Time the Shire moved into the real world.
ReplyDeleteIf Ms. Cochrane is under contract to the Shire, the simple thing would be to insist she has her own Insurance, just like all other contractors in the real world have to have.
I have read the Agenda for Mondays meeting and see the A/CEO considers it important the Council appoint their own CEO.
ReplyDeleteHow come the A/CEO and the Commissioner are not extending the same courtesy to the new CEO when he/she is appointed in October. Why can't the incoming CEO choose his Deputy.
Ms. Cochrane will be away on leave so why not leave the decision until she comes back, the contract is not due for renewal until Feb. 2016 - heaps of time. Never rush a decision that can wait!
The Agenda item 9.6.2 smells of a set up. I trust Mr. Best can see what the Administration is attempting to do.........corruption, corruption, corruption..
STOP PRESS: This is off topic, but I'm itching to share it. I just googled the words 'james best shire of york' (don't ask why) and accidentally pressed Google 'Images'. Lo and behold, up came almost every one of the caricatures and cartoons the Blogmaster has insisted on attaching to my articles for the blog.
ReplyDeleteJB's mate Brad Jolly also pops up together with another pretty fellow, Troy Pickard, in the Bobbsey twins cartoon.
Unfortunately the image of JB as a mystic seer (entitled 'Envision') isn't there. Sorry James, I'll do my best to put that right.
Others caricatured are Ray Hooper, Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle and Tyhscha Cochrane. All these people owe the blog a debt of gratitude. We've made them famous in perpetuity. Years from now, they'll be searching for their names on the Internet and alternately sighing and chuckling nostalgically over amusing images of their younger selves.
Perhaps they'd like to include some of those images in their Facebook pages. We bloggers won't mind.
But wait, there's more. Some of you may remember Notes from Underground 6, dealing with the falsification of a public record. One of the documents displayed to support that article was purchase order 19327 signed by Ms Cochrane's guru, guide and mentor, former CEO Ray Hooper, blessings be upon him. (Nice to know they still keep in regular touch, by the way.)
According to A/CEO Simpson and Ms Gail Maziuk, that document is nowhere to be found. But hey! There it is in Google Images, plain as day. So friends, if you want a copy, don't bother going through FOI with its attendant humiliations, print one off from the Internet where the image will reside until the collapse of civilization as we know it.
I've been approached to write a book about what's been happening in York over the last few years, with special reference to the period since the publication of the Fitz Gerald Report. Good to know I won't run short of suitable illustrations!
Below is a council resolution 150614 ordinary Council meeting 16 June 2014, authored by Gail Maziuk, HR & Compliance.
ReplyDeleteUnder section 2.38 (2) of the Local Government Act 1995it states: "A commissioner is to be regarded as being the council".
In this matter, the Commissioner ought to use his power to veto the appointment until such time the Elected Members resume their role as Councillors.
RESOLUTION
150614
Moved: Cr Hooper Seconded: Cr Boyle
“That Council:
Agree to designate the following positions and staff employed in those positions as Senior Employees in accordance with the conditions of the Local Government Act 1995 – Section 5.37 Senior Employees:
- Deputy Chief Executive Officer
- Manager Planning Services
- Manager Health and Building
- Manager Works and Services
Note: Council would only have power to veto either employment or dismissal of persons belonging to this class of employee but no power to employ or dismiss Designated Senior Employees.”
CARRIED: 6
The plan to replace our Council with a Commissioner was one of Ray Hoopers long term goals and his 'girl friday' Mazuik was in on it. Foundations to parachute in a Commissioner were set well before the last Council election.
ReplyDeleteIt is documented in the 'Amalgamation' Minutes Ray Hooper suggested to Minister Simpson replacing Councillors with a Commissioner would be a solution to removing York residents right to have a say on the amalgamation.
Ray Hooper was also heard to say, the best time in his career was when he had no Council. He preferred working with a Commissioner. Says a lot about Ray Hoopers beliefs on democracy!
When Scott and Lawrance resigned Ray Hooper proudly announced the Council would be replaced by a Commissioner. Both Scott and Lawrance believed their resignation would bring down the Council. Ray told the remaining Councillors they no longer had a quorum and the Council was finished - Ray was wrong! Thankfully Cr. Smythe phoned the DLG and found Ray Hooper had misinformed Councillors.
Plan B was hatched - the Probity Police.
Indeed the Commissioner should veto the decision. Someone wrote in a previous post that they hoped the Shire's Insurers would be reading this blog. If they are then maybe they can talk some sense into what appears to be a deluded Acting CEO and a constrained Commissioner.
ReplyDeleteIf Ms Cochrane were to be re-appointed (as in renewal of her existing contract without amendment) from an insurance perspective, she would rank as a 'medium to high risk' to the Shire of York and ultimately the ratepayers who pay the premiums. Ms Cochrane's involvement in past actions relate to the Fitz Gerald Report, a pending CCC investigation, an internal review of the CCC investigation (by Commissioner James Best), falsification of Public Records, responsibility for employment of a known criminal, withholding public documents, overriding OHSW for self benefit etc., etc., - none of these issues have been resolved.
In a published response from Commissioner Best (posted by the Blogmaster above on 22 May) he states "I am fully informed, consider all the facts, evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks, and make a decision in the best interests of the community in the District."
It can be expected then that Commissioner Best and ACEO Simpson have 'analysed the risks' and absorbed the full Position Description for a DCEO (as incorporated in this post) and that they see that it clearly defines role requirements. Furthermore, recent past events would dictate that they will have liaised with the insurers for their perspective.
Specifically relating to all of Number 4. POSITION OBJECTIVES, it is evident that Ms Cochrane has failed miserably to fulfil this objective over the past 5 years, in fact on numerous occasions she has contravened legislation. Renewal of Ms Cochrane's contract at this point in time would indicate that ACEO Graeme Simpson has concluded all of the above to be acceptable behaviour by a senior employee, thereby condoning alleged past actions to give her a new starting point with the merit of a reprieve.
The community needs to get rid of the past problems within Council and bring in dynamic and fresh minds ready to work for the benefit of the town and not themselves. If the Shire maintains the same staff and the culture of spite and secrecy we can never expect to see open and accountable governance which is the only way forward.
The community should not be put 'at risk' by the re-employment of a lemon at such high financial cost and at the say so of a couple of part-timers soon to head off into the sunset with another pocket load of wasted ratepayer money - and for what?
Someone should be asking the question about Y00 and the time it hit a South Australian kangaroo, Why was a Shire vehicle being used interstate, and who paid for the repairs? Was the vehicle insured for interstate use....NO!
ReplyDeleteTell us more...when did that happen, and what, if anything, was the official explanation?
DeleteWas it the DCEO who was driving? What reasons, if any, did the driver give for taking the vehicle to South Australia?
If the DCEO was the driver, had no good reason to take the vehicle to SA, did so in defiance of rules regarding the use of shire vehicles and failed to defray repair and related costs from her own pocket, those would constitute sufficient grounds not to renew her contract of employment.
They would also be sufficient grounds for the Shire to repudiate the new contract, if the Acting CEO and the Commissioner are stupid and arrogant enough to go through with such renewal. (Surely they can't be - can they?)
2011, there was never any official explanation, the story only broke through the mutterings of an intoxicated depot worker.
DeleteMs Cochrane lent Y00 to Tim Jurmann, apparently he used the vehicle to tow a horse box from Port Macquarie.
The Insurance did not cover the vehicle for interstate use.
Thanks for that.
DeleteDid the DCEO know when she lent the car to Mr Jurmann that he intended to take it to SA?
Was it within her discretion to lend it to him under any circumstances and for any purpose?
Did these events occur during her tenure as DCEO?
Did she or anyone else make any attempt to recover the costs of repairing the vehicle?
If not, perhaps the Shire might consider asking McLeods to institute legal proceedings for recovery of the debt.
The DCEO knew Mr Jurmann was using the vehicle to travel to Port Macquarie, NSW.
DeleteThe DCEO should have been aware the vehicle was not insured for use outside Western Australia, if she did have discretion, she did not use it wisely.
Yes, she was the DCEO at the time.
The insurance company suffered the loss, although the Shire of York would have paid an excess for any claim.
Why did the insurers suffer the loss, if the vehicle wasn't insured for use outside WA?
DeleteWere they not told that the accident occurred in South Australia? If they were told it happened in WA - well, that would sound like fraud to me.
Who are the shire's motor vehicle insurers? I'd like to follow this up.
I've never heard of insurers covering a loss they hadn't contracted to cover.
We should remember that no council is bound by the decisions of its predecessors. This is (as A/CEO Simpson might say) 'a well-established principle' of constitutional law under the Westminster system.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, no council is legally obliged in principle to implement the advice of its officers.
If the DCEO's contract is renewed, it would be possible for the elected Council. when it resumes power, to overturn it on the following grounds:
1. The renewal was effected unconscionably in a contrived effort to frustrate the elected council's power of veto.
2. The incumbent's original appointment was corrupt, in that it did not take proper account of the principles of merit and equity, contrary to section 5.40(a) of the Local Government Act.
3. The incumbent's original appointment was corrupt, in that it resulted from the exercise of patronage, contrary to section 5.40 (b) of the Local Government Act.
4. The incumbent does not possess the minimum professional qualifications required for the position and has made no serious attempt to acquire them.
5. The incumbent has not performed well in the position over many years and does not enjoy public confidence and support or the confidence and support of Council.
6. The incumbent appears to have engaged in questionable activities while in office, including but not limited to exercise of patronage by interference in appointments, complicity in the falsification of a public record, and failure to accord with occupational health and safety legislation. In addition, there is evidence that she may have engaged in workplace bullying, thereby placing fellow employees under stress and putting Council at risk of legal action.
It would be worth fighting this case in the WA Industrial Commission. I'm sure Council would have little difficulty in finding plenty of witnesses to support it.
Be patient, I think the Shire my come unstuck.
ReplyDeleteINSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 21
The insured's duty of disclosure
(1) Subject to this Act, an insured has a duty to disclose to the insurer, before the relevant contract of insurance is entered into, every matter that is known to the insured, being a matter that:
(a) the insured knows to be a matter relevant to the decision of the insurer whether to accept the risk and, if so, on what terms; or
(b) a reasonable person in the circumstances could be expected to know to be a matter so relevant.
Yes, but in this case the contract already existed, or to put it another way, a claim under an existing contract may have been made fraudulently because salient details - namely, that the damage claimed for occurred outside WA, the vehicle was being used for private purposes, perhaps even that the driver was not covered under the policy - were concealed from the insurers. I'd like to see a copy of the contract/policy, or failing that find out the name of the insurers.
DeleteWho would have prepared the claim for the Shire? Presumably the CEO would have signed off on it, but I doubt he would have prepared it.
I think you will find the insurers to be Zurich Australian Insurance Limited.
DeleteWhy if you have know idea do you keep surmising. You state 'the story only broke through the mutterings of an intoxicated depot worker.' What a reliable source, you all clearly have no idea!!!
DeleteStill, worth investigating though, if the parties concerned did "know" wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. Capiche?
DeleteYou could always enlighten us if you posses all the facts?
I doubt Mr. Best would consider it a wise business move if it was his own organisation.
ReplyDeleteHandball it to the returning Councillors Mr. Best and leave York with a clear conscious.
Why the hurry when then is still 8 months to run, it can be done when she returns from maternity leave ........unless there is corruption afoot....again!
Of course Mr. Best can defer the Agenda item. He set a precedence when he deferred the FOI Agenda item a couple of months ago on the grounds he needed to do more research. He can do the same with Agenda item 9.6.2..
Cochrane knows full well she cannot do the job and is scared witless the incoming CEO will be a wake up to her, which of course he/she will be within the first week. She probably burst into inconsolable tears flooding the office and the silly old A/CEO has fallen for it.
Yes, he could defer the item, and it is disingenuous of him to pretend otherwise.
DeleteUnfortunately, he has shown himself so far to be in complete thrall to the designated senior employees and the Acting CEO. It's time he displayed a bit of independence of mind, but don't hold your breath.
But if he doesn't defer the item, he will be acting corruptly and contrary to the wishes of the elected council and the people of York.
I'm genuinely sorry to have to say this, but so far Mr Best's performance as commissioner has been on the whole disastrous. He is not on the side of the York community. He believes everything the three witches and Gandalf (or is it Gollum?) tell him. The same can be said for Graeme Simpson's performance as CEO. Conniving in the premature renewal of the DCEO's contract would be a fitting conclusion to JB's period in office. Shame.
If this has been Mr. Best's first attempt as a Commissioner in Local Government it has been appalling.
DeleteI would have preferred him to be up front and honest with us, instead he gave false hope to people in York with promises to address issues but did nothing. He could have made such a difference if he had chosen to do the right thing by the people. Instead he sided with and believed the liars and that is something I will remember him for.
No doubt when he leaves, he will add the statue and paving of the wreck centre car park to his list of achievements on his CV...... and hope no one finds this Blog.
And.....its all very well encouraging the installation of a 130 space car park, if 130 cars or even people were even likely to visit the wreck centre to use it at any on time. There is no urgent or pressing need to spend more money on the wreck centre because of numbers, this decision is not about a current achievement for Mr Best, its about a cover up and fulfilling outstanding non- compliance requirements that should have been done before the crap centre ever opened, as Mr Best well knows.
DeletePlease come to the oval on a Saturday morning when children are playing hockey and football and you will find there is a need for this may carparks - and parents would appreciate a bitumen surface. On a week were there is Auskick, under 9's, 11's, 13's and 16's at home with a visiting team, the oval is packed. Often hockey matches coincide and there are people and cars everywhere. This does not happen every week because matches are played away but it did occur on 16 May when Saints and Merredin visited York and it poured with rain all day.
DeleteFor years those using the Forrest Oval complex had to walk through mud and slush when it rains.
DeleteA couple of years ago power extension cords were submerged in mud puddles in the side show alley section. The Shire of York new the condition of the oval and closed a blind eye to it despite the heavy rain. This was a clear breach of the OHSW Act and put hundreds of people's lives at risk.
No one is disputing the area needs a bitumen surface, what residents are concerned about is the standard of work used because this is just another bandaid job.
We all know about the sink holes in the 'state of the art' bowling greens, the children's wading pool on the Tennis courts and the useless airconditioning and acoustics inside the building, which by the way has disgustingly filthy carpet on the floor the last time I looked. What residents don't want is bitumen that breaks up with the first heavy vehicle driving on it.
Given the corners cut on the wreck centre, it is likely we will see the same poor standard for the car park.
The main problem with the YRCC from a ratepayer's point of view is the continuing cost of upkeep and the poor return on our investment.
DeleteA couple of months ago Graeme Simpson promised to provide us with 'Fact Sheets' detailing costs of construction and maintenance of the centre. These sheets would also (we were told) give us the good oil on how much money the centre, as a business venture, is returning to the shire.
Time goes by, and we're still waiting. There seems to be no anxiety on the part of shire staff to get the information out to us.
I'm not surprised. I wonder how many other rural shires with populations as tiny as York's have a recreation centre costing somewhere between $8 million and $12 million to build and well over $250K annually to maintain?
As a business enterprise, raising revenue, the centre is a ridiculous failure. As a community facility, it has yet to prove its worth. As a grandiose monument to the vanity of one man and the idiocy of several others, it is without equal, I venture to say, anywhere in the state.
Some of the Shire people who crap on about the cost of FOI - a cost created by their refusal to provide information that should anyway be in the public domain - are the same as those who played a significant part in getting the Great White Elephant up and hobbling, at massive and continuing expense to the rest of us.
Perhaps the Shire would consider handing out nosegays at the door so visitors to the centre won't have to put up any longer with the stench of corruption and deceit.
Oh dear me Cochrane stuffed up yet again. Did she use her Highly developed decision making skills (5.1.5.) for this one?
ReplyDeleteWhat a bloody cheek - staff using a rate payer funded vehicle to drive to NSW to pick up a horse box.
Did ratepayers by any chance pick up the tab for the fuel, tyres, accommodation and meals as well?
Misuse of Public property!
Misuse of power!
Misuse of position!
I have a horrible feeling the DCEO's contract has already been renewed.
DeleteEven worse may be to come. When he first arrived in York, Commissioner Best pledged to continue the fight against SITA's proposed landfill.
It's now rumoured that he is in favour of SITA's revised proposal (a smaller landfill for half the time) and will support it in the SAT, very much contrary to the express wishes of the York community..
He was seen recently in the company of Michael Voros, SITA's lawyer. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's hope they weren't having a private 'visioning' session with Michael telling James about all the jobs and money the landfill will bring to the town, and gullible James believing it.
Ray Hooper and his allies on council and in the shire administration blindfolded the people of York, tied them to a post, and brought them down with a volley of lies. All we can do now is pray the commissioner won't take it upon himself, as a final contemptuous act against the shire that rejected him, to administer the coup de grace.
If you are correct James, and I suspect you are, then it will be just another example of a fraudulent and corrupt administration. It would explain why Mr. Best provided the response above. Sad really because I believe he came here as an honest person - seems he may be leaving with a different mantle.
DeleteIF he IS supporting corrupt practice within the Shire of York, he too will finish up at the CCC answering some very sticky questions.
The corruption and lies will eventually catch up with those involved, it may take time but they WILL answer to the people of York for what they have done.
I feel very sad about what this has all come to; no more than 6 weeks left, and what has the Commissioner's 'work' or 'visions' achieved? Perhaps he is feeling it, too. He accepted a Commission with his hands pre-tied, it seems. That amounts to 'selling his soul', though he may not have realised it -- perhaps in part because of all the misinformation from 'the gods' and scheming by the 'nether world' adherents. I hope this causes him to re-think what jobs he will accept in future. Our York has been a tougher nut to crack than he could have envisioned. And I'm sorry for so many analogies, but its late at night where I'm writing this from.
DeleteDidn't she get done for driving whilst intoxicated in a shire vehicle several years back?
ReplyDeleteFavoritism is a bad management practice, it breeds resentment, destroys employee morale, and creates disincentives for good performance. Once employees see that benefits flow from being on the manager's good side -- rather than from doing a great job -- there's little point in working hard.
ReplyDeleteFavoritism leads to lost productivity, as employees who aren't getting the plum jobs and assignments spend more and more time gossiping and griping about how unfair the system is rather than doing their work.
No law prevents government agencies from having lousy managers or running a workplace like a schoolyard. If favoritism is rooted in bullying, discrimination, harassment, malice or retaliation, it crosses the line from poor management to illegal behavior.
Let's see what today brings.
What a perfect comment.
DeleteThe level of protection offered to this type of employee within Local Government is alarming. I can assure you that there will be measures in place (such an extensive insurance policy) that will be set up to almost condone the disruptive behaviour of these employees. Particularly, the member of staff you mention would in no doubt be privileged to see the insurance policy document and have an arrogant sense of immunity from any repercussion or punishment.
Who pays the price - well obviously that would be the ratepayer.
The cartoon is great.
ReplyDeleteGood message to the Shire Administration, DLG, Minister and the Premier.
It is noticeable that Commissioner James Best has achieved very little for the community during his tenure in York. Mr Best certainly has not 'engaged with the community' as he promised. It is a well known fact that very few people have been invited to meet with Mr Best unless they have been of personal benefit to him, his agenda or to fulfil the DLGC perception that he would succeed in sorting out York's past issues.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that Minister Simpson installed a Commissioner in York to give breathing space to a 'split Council' and to resolve issues surrounding the 'Fitz Gerald Report' and other matters of concern. Along comes James Best, a consultant from Perth armed with little more than his own fee structure as he must have picked up the wrong job description on the way out of Perth. He arrived in York intent on envisioning for the future with a slight mention of resolving past issues.
Having heard and read tales of some of the meeting experiences, it is obvious that Mr Best is another who has failed miserably to fulfil his contract. Dealing with a consultant is far too frustrating and his attitude toward problem solving is bizarre.
While the three Councillors responsible for past horror stories have gone, there still exists a rotten core within the administration but Commissioner Best appears oblivious to the desires of the community to exorcise those problems and enable the entire community to move forward and make headway into the future.
If the DLCG have learnt anything from this disastrous reign it should be to forget throwing in a complacent consultant to save face. No amount of bureaucratic nonsense and envisioning will ever work until past issues are faced head on. Commissioner James Best has failed to resolve the local issues and his inadequacies have a knock on effect and are hurting the town and businesses. I blame no-one other than Local and State Government for this behaviour, people have been badly damaged and their problems need to be addressed. I can see this being left for the remaining elected Councillors to sort out on their return - exactly what has been achieved?
All is very negative for Mr Best and not the accolade he was expecting from his short time in York. Envisioning went down the pan with a big splash and we are probably going to be left to clean up yet another mess from his failures.
Yes, he and Simpson renewed her contract for another 5 years.
ReplyDeleteA deliberate slap in the face for the people of York.
Best's next step will no doubt be to help smooth the way for the landfill, which is probably what he was sent here to do.
What a vile piece of work he is - and as for Simpson...
Mr. Best has delusions of grandeur - he is on a power trip. Got a bit carried away with being the Major of South Perth. Wonder what his children will think if he votes for the Landfill - his legacy to them will be polluted drinking water!
DeleteHe has a classic machiavellian personality and is on the path
to finish up being a replica of Ray Hooper.......not happy to hear that Mr. Best? Probably not, considering the things you said about him. Take a long hard look at what you are doing.
Jb this is a terrible decision which has demonstrated you couldn't give a toss about the people of York. The sooner you go the better. I am so bloody angry.
ReplyDeleteSimpson you are a complete tool. I can't believe that between you and jb the cost of your idiotic and unsympathetic services is in excess of $10k p/w.
Good on you Pat and Tony, you twats you bought this on.
Oh James Best Mr John Phillips did you know he did Ray Hooper's contract appraisal in 2012 talk about hoodwinked, Best for York, Best for the Local Government to hide its indiscretions. Tonight at Talbot hall I asked Graeme Simpson who did the DCEO's job appraisal his answer John Phillips Walga but apparently he has his own consulting business now and of course Graeme who would have guessed he appraised Rays as well......what a JOKE.
ReplyDeleteJames Best has the 'little man' syndrome. He feels very important and gets a rush of adrenalin when he makes decisions the majority won't like. It is the sickest sense of power known to man.
ReplyDeleteHe has stooped to the same level as Tony Boyle, Pat Hooper, Ray Hooper, and Mark Duperouzel.
Even with a fabulous new council we are still going to have the same inhibitors in our way. I feel for the new council who will have the same old administration. I can only hope we get a really great CEO in October who can see through it all. Thanks very much Commissioner. You could have made a real difference here alas you are as blind as bat.
ReplyDelete