Mr. Colin
Murphy Dated August 28, 2015
Auditor General for Western Australia
Office of the Auditor General
7th Floor Albert Facey House
469 Wellington Street
PERTH WA 6000
Dear Mr. Murphy
RE: PAYMENTS AUTHORIZED BY COMMISSIONER JAMES BEST SHIRE OF YORK
In your previous correspondence addressed to me, dated June 4, 2015, you advised me that you do not currently have the authority to audit the Shire of York per se, unless State Government monies are involved.
But, that you did have the authority to audit the State Government’s Royalties for Regions program and you had added my concerns regarding the York Recreation and Convention Centre (YRCC) for potential, future performance audits. (As an adjunct to this, the tennis courts installed at the YRCC, by the YRCC, are now in a state of dilapidation and disrepair with the installers refusing to honour the warranty because a proper maintenance regime was not put in place.)
I did raise the issue with you that there appeared to be no authoritative, legal definition of what constitutes ‘State Government monies’ and that it could include unspecified grants, loans and any and all forms of funding raised from all forms of taxation, whether direct or indirect. That, all-in-all, it was a potential conundrum with regard to what constitutes ‘State Government monies’ and what does not.
In January, 2015, the Minister for Local Government and Communities, Mr. Tony Simpson, personally hired Mr. James Best as Commissioner of the Shire of York, after suspending the Shire of York Council for six months. Effectively, Mr. Best became the Shire of York, in toto, acting on-behalf-of the Minister.
The fee for his services, negotiated with Mr. Simpson, was, allegedly, $63,000. This money could easily have been from, so called, State Government monies as the suspended Shire of York Council had no authority, jurisdiction and responsibility for Mr Best’s actions or, in particular, his remuneration package.
It is alleged that, Mr. Best, acting on-behalf-of, Minister Tony Simpson, then paid his own company, BBC Consulting, an additional gratuity of $39,000 for holding visioning and ideation seminars with a few York residents, that were conducted using butchers paper and ‘post-it’ notes as fundamental, albeit extremely rudimentary, communication devices.
Another company, Hames Sharley (WA) Pty Ltd, of whom Mr. Best is a former director and then consultant, was, allegedly, paid nearly $42,000 for its involvement in providing a review of York planning strategy as requested by, Mr. Best, acting on-behalf-of Minister Simpson.
Hames Sharley was employed in the designing of the Pathology Building at the Fiona Stanley Hospital, paid for by State Government monies, and through Ministerial Cabinet Meetings, would be known to Minister Simpson.
As architects, designers and urban planners it is highly likely that, Hames Sharley, advised Commissioner Best regarding the purchase of two properties in York, being Lots 800 and 801, South Street, for a purchase price of $625,000. The building contained therein is dilapidated and possibly structurally unsound and was purchased without the commercial safeguards such as a bona-fide commercial Real Estate property evaluation, then an objective, certified valuation.
It should be noted here that the whereabouts, content, relevance and quality of any document pertaining to a review of York planning strategy by Hames Sharley, or any third party is not known to York ratepayers. However it is understood that the purchase of Lots 800 and 801, South Street, was directly related to a conceptual urban planning design for a village square, or similar.
The payment to Mr. Best of $63,000 as a salary for the position of Commissioner is fair and reasonable other than the fact that it would have been sanctioned under Minister Simpson’s authority only.
The following payments and a purchase by Commissioner Best, resulting in the additional expenditure of $706,000 is highly questionable, including the distinct possibility that a large amount of State Government monies has, and/or will be used for purposes that have no economic rationale and commercial justification.
I believe this does come under the province of the office of the Auditor General and as such deserves its investigation.
I hope to have your response to the content of this letter at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
David Taylor.
Shire of York ratepayer
Auditor General for Western Australia
Office of the Auditor General
7th Floor Albert Facey House
469 Wellington Street
PERTH WA 6000
Dear Mr. Murphy
RE: PAYMENTS AUTHORIZED BY COMMISSIONER JAMES BEST SHIRE OF YORK
In your previous correspondence addressed to me, dated June 4, 2015, you advised me that you do not currently have the authority to audit the Shire of York per se, unless State Government monies are involved.
But, that you did have the authority to audit the State Government’s Royalties for Regions program and you had added my concerns regarding the York Recreation and Convention Centre (YRCC) for potential, future performance audits. (As an adjunct to this, the tennis courts installed at the YRCC, by the YRCC, are now in a state of dilapidation and disrepair with the installers refusing to honour the warranty because a proper maintenance regime was not put in place.)
I did raise the issue with you that there appeared to be no authoritative, legal definition of what constitutes ‘State Government monies’ and that it could include unspecified grants, loans and any and all forms of funding raised from all forms of taxation, whether direct or indirect. That, all-in-all, it was a potential conundrum with regard to what constitutes ‘State Government monies’ and what does not.
In January, 2015, the Minister for Local Government and Communities, Mr. Tony Simpson, personally hired Mr. James Best as Commissioner of the Shire of York, after suspending the Shire of York Council for six months. Effectively, Mr. Best became the Shire of York, in toto, acting on-behalf-of the Minister.
The fee for his services, negotiated with Mr. Simpson, was, allegedly, $63,000. This money could easily have been from, so called, State Government monies as the suspended Shire of York Council had no authority, jurisdiction and responsibility for Mr Best’s actions or, in particular, his remuneration package.
It is alleged that, Mr. Best, acting on-behalf-of, Minister Tony Simpson, then paid his own company, BBC Consulting, an additional gratuity of $39,000 for holding visioning and ideation seminars with a few York residents, that were conducted using butchers paper and ‘post-it’ notes as fundamental, albeit extremely rudimentary, communication devices.
Another company, Hames Sharley (WA) Pty Ltd, of whom Mr. Best is a former director and then consultant, was, allegedly, paid nearly $42,000 for its involvement in providing a review of York planning strategy as requested by, Mr. Best, acting on-behalf-of Minister Simpson.
Hames Sharley was employed in the designing of the Pathology Building at the Fiona Stanley Hospital, paid for by State Government monies, and through Ministerial Cabinet Meetings, would be known to Minister Simpson.
As architects, designers and urban planners it is highly likely that, Hames Sharley, advised Commissioner Best regarding the purchase of two properties in York, being Lots 800 and 801, South Street, for a purchase price of $625,000. The building contained therein is dilapidated and possibly structurally unsound and was purchased without the commercial safeguards such as a bona-fide commercial Real Estate property evaluation, then an objective, certified valuation.
It should be noted here that the whereabouts, content, relevance and quality of any document pertaining to a review of York planning strategy by Hames Sharley, or any third party is not known to York ratepayers. However it is understood that the purchase of Lots 800 and 801, South Street, was directly related to a conceptual urban planning design for a village square, or similar.
The payment to Mr. Best of $63,000 as a salary for the position of Commissioner is fair and reasonable other than the fact that it would have been sanctioned under Minister Simpson’s authority only.
The following payments and a purchase by Commissioner Best, resulting in the additional expenditure of $706,000 is highly questionable, including the distinct possibility that a large amount of State Government monies has, and/or will be used for purposes that have no economic rationale and commercial justification.
I believe this does come under the province of the office of the Auditor General and as such deserves its investigation.
I hope to have your response to the content of this letter at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
David Taylor.
Shire of York ratepayer
Reflecting on the name Hames Sharley (heard about in connection with several things in York going back at least to 2005 when we had the previous Commissioner and his (more purposeful) Reference/Advisory Groups: here, David, here you name "Hames Sharley [as] employed in the designing of the Pathology Building at the Fiona Stanley Hospital, paid for by State Government monies". Could, by any remote chance, Health Minister Hames be related to whoever the principals of Hames Sharley are? Hames isn't a very common surname round here, is it?
ReplyDeleteYou also stated: "it is understood that the purchase of Lots 800 and 801, South Street, was directly related to a conceptual urban planning design for a village square, or similar." The connection is absolutely clear, both from putting together the various items about the $625,000 that were in the Budget Agenda and Minutes, and from an approx 4-page document of which a few copies went out with Agenda for the final or second last Shire Meeting with Mr Best. It was titled Draft ConceptStatement Town Square - Shire of York 1st July 2015, and was Appendix A to Item 9.2.1 of the Special Council Meeting on 2nd July.
Hello Liz, I've just finished reading the 'extensive' four page report. Its one of those bullshit reports more than likely written by Hames Sharley.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe way things are at present the CEO is working with the insurer and their lawyer in all matters concerning the Fitzgerlad report and related matters, although, that in itself is not an issue.
What cannot happen is that the CEO does not report upstream to the Council.
That is to say that the CEO needs to report or consult with his employer, being the Shire, in for instance conducting or settling any matter on behalf of the Shire.
The Shire would otherwise have no collective input on whether it wants to settle or dispute a potential claim that might arise from the Fitzgerald report or related matters. The CEO would be left to 'shoulder' the decision.
This would appear to go directly against the defined roles of the CEO under the Local Government Act, in particular the duty to implement Council decisions and to ensure that advice and information is made available to the Council so that an informed decision can be made.
The Shire is able to delegate power to the CEO and to discharge the CEO's duties. For this to occur, an absolute majority is required, unless the Minister gives approval under section 5.7(2) and the Act.
This brings forward the question as to whether the Shire is likely to vote on any delegation or discharge of the power that would see the CEO acting on the Shires behalf in relation to the Fitzgerald report or related matters.
Issues also exist in regards to the solicitors for the insurers avoiding conflict.
Solicitors nominated by an insurer owe a duty of care to both the insurer and the insured party.
However, there are often circumstances where the goals and best interests do not align with the insured party.
The Shire is the insured. The Shire needs to know what is going on. The CEO cannot and should not be isolated in dealing with the insurer.
The insure must act for the Shire as a whole. If there is an issue regarding the different ttypes of claims then this should be managed through different insurer firms and Shire protocols based on case-by-case basis, and not global basis.
Presently, the Council is totally out of the loop (at their own peril) and the administration is running the show (at our peril).
On looker - the Councillors are responsible for the delegation, not the Shire.
DeleteI think you will find certain staff within the Administration have been deliberately keeping the Councillors our of the loop! Administration Staff are delusional, they believe they are in charge of everything.
I have just received a letter from Graeme Simpson not even answering the question I asked and stating that my issue has been left to sine die, how nice well I like to use the conditio sine qua non.
ReplyDeleteGraeme if you think you can quash a resolution without being substantiated, your daft, you need to retire at the moment you are bringing the Shire of York into by breaching your contract of employment by wilful neglect in your employee's responsibilities and obligations to council and the ratepayers of the shire of York.
He has a habit of writing nonsensical replies. Incurable, I'm afraid. Look on the quanda blog for a prime example; but there have been many many others, too.
DeleteDarlene, the mans an idiot, don't try and make any sense of his actions, its a pity the moron didn't apply "sine die" to Best's resolution to buy the old school.
ReplyDeleteYork's got what York deserves.
ReplyDeleteYes it has, and that happened because people chose to denigrate those trying to alert everyone about what was happening. A 'lie detector' would have been a useful tool during the Hooper, Boyle, Hooper decade.
ReplyDeleteNow it is up to the people to stand together and fight to have the truth, and those responsible for where we are, exposed.
It seems ridiculous that it took the resignation / sacking of a CEO and the resignation of a couple of scallywag Councillors for the town to roar!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous30 August 2015 at 00:47 - No CEO was sacked.
ReplyDeleteThe term scallywag is generally a description used for mischievous, naughty children.
I doubt anyone who witnessed the behaviour of the councillors during shire meetings - prior to the last election - would describe them as scallywags. The councillors were nasty, vindictive bullies who enjoyed being members of an overcrowded "cesspit of misguided power".