RESULTS - LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINARY ELECTION 17 October 2015

DENESE SMYTHE

HEATHER SAINT

PAM HEATON

JANE FERRO

TREVOR RANDELL

SHIRE OF YORK FRAUD INVESTIGATION.

The content of this letter, sent to Tony Simpson, will not be answered. He has the usual ‘easy out’ that he cannot comment on a current Police investigation.

However, if fraud is proven it raises the specter of who else knew about it, for how long and why was any potential evidence withheld from the appropriate authority? In this case the ultimate authority in criminal investigation is the Police.

No-one, not even a Member of Parliament, should be exempt from doing their public duty when any reasonable person should know there is enough evidence to suggest a crime may have been committed.

Dated October 13, 2015

Hon. Tony Simpson
Minister for Local Government
8^th Floor Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH WA 6005

Dear Minister,

Your Ref:- YORK SHIRE- Major Fraud Squad to investigate possible Corporate Credit Card misuse.

You must admit that, 2014-2015, has been more than just your average annus horribilis for you as Minister for Local government and Communities and for your abjectly dysfunctional, administratively deficient, ideation moribund department.

In February this year, Perth City Councils unanimously rejected your amalgamation proposals, which did not impress Premier Colin Barnett. The placing of the City of Canning and the Shire of York under administration are also potential black marks on your public record. Particularly York, where just two days of investigation, by a minion of yours, started a Department of Local Government and Communities inspired-‘train wreck’.

This has been followed by recent revelations that two of the most senior elected members of Local Government, the Lord Mayor of Perth, Lisa Scaffidi, and her deputy, Rob Butler, either did not know or chose to ignore the section of the Local Government Act 1995, dealing with third-party contributions to trips undertaken by councillors on council business. Either way, it is extremely embarrassing for you.

You and your department should be directly responsible and accountable for administering the Act and it may be that, neither the Premier, nor your colleagues would be particularly impressed with you and your department’s efforts in ensuring compliance with the Act.

Now you could be facing the real ‘smoking gun’, regarding reports that have appeared in The Australian, The West Australian and News Limited’s online publications across Australia.

It is the WA Police Major Fraud Squad’s investigation of possible fraudulent misappropriation of municipal funds by a former senior employee of the Shire of York through the misuse of a corporate
credit card and, potentially, other matters.

There a number of issues which could be ticking time-bombs if charges are laid and there is a successful prosecution with resultant felony convictions.

They are as follows:-

1. In 2008, the then Department of Local Government and its Acting Director General, Quentin Harrington, was advised, in writing, of York community concerns regarding the possibly fraudulent use of a Shire of York, corporate credit card. This was seven (7) years ago.

The only response was for the Shire of York Council to refuse to publicly disclose the purchases made and the amount of expenditure accrued on this card(s) until forced to do so in early 2014 under the Freedom of Information Act, 1992.
   
The Departments then Acting Director General, Quentin Harrington and his successor, Jennifer Matthews, were well aware of specific concerns- but chose to do nothing, no appropriate investigation, no divine intervention, no advice on prevention, and no proposal for a cure. And the allegations have been known by the Department of Local Government (and Communities) for seven (7) long years.

2. On November 20, 2014, you and your Department of Local Government and Communities issued the Shire of York Council with a ‘Show Cause Notice’ to why it should not be suspended, giving it 21 days to respond. 

You and your department did not accept the Shire’s response and on January 6, 2015, you suspended the council for six months.
    

This Shire of York response has now been provided to the Major Fraud Squad as definitive evidence relating to the possible fraudulent misuse of municipal funds, dating back to 2008.

Should the response contain evidence leading to felony convictions, you and your department have had in your possession, custody and control, a document of proof of criminal activity for a period of not less than eight (8) months regarding allegations first raised with your department in 2008.

You may be a baker, not a lawyer, but even a baker, who is now a politician, should know that any reasonable suspicion that a criminal act may have occurred requires you to advise the Police, then, if deemed necessary, the CCC. A Minister of the Crown has this fundamental obligation, like every other citizen.
   
At the very least, this matter should require a public explanation by you prior to the next WA
State Election on March 11, 2017. It is almost certain that in the court of public opinion, your
actions may not meet community, or electorate expectations and standards.

3. On June 17, 2015, your Commissioner for York, James Best, declared that a Corruption and Crime Commission review had determined that the process the Shire (of York) undertook to handle allegations of misconduct (against itself) was appropriate.
  
The incongruity of being allowed to investigate yourself probably escapes both you and the CCC, but not the Police.

Ironically it could become apparent, if it is proven that individuals employed by the Shire of York who found that their investigations were appropriate are, in future, charged with withholding relevant information pertaining to the fraud allegations or with being accessories to such a felony.
  
Given the above, your chances of being re-elected and holding onto your ministerial position mayhinge on an investigation and judicial process taking more than fifteen months.

However it is quite possible that you may not survive that long.
  
Premier Barnett has already:- 

a) criticized Local Government for refusing to amalgamate,

b) criticized Local Government  for raising rates by exorbitant amounts,

c) suggested that legislation be enacted to prevent future massive Local Government rate hikes,

d) suggested most CCC investigations involve allegations against Local  Government,

e) suggested that legislation should be enacted to allow the Auditor General to have more direct involvement in auditing Local Government expenditure,

f) intimated that Lord Mayor of Perth may have reasons to step aside after her CCC investigation,

These appear to have been the Premier’s initiatives- not yours, suggesting he prefers to trust his own judgement than bothering to ask for you and your department’s opinion.

It is highly unlikely that you will respond to my correspondence and I do not particularly want you to.

However, I will respond on your behalf as you would.

“Unfortunately as Minister, I cannot respond, as the matter is subject to a current, on-going
Police investigation”.

Yours sincerely

David Taylor
Shire of York Ratepayer.

SHIRE OF YORK PRESIDENCY (May only the best Man, or Woman win.)

A disturbing rumour is circulating within certain sections of the York community that the new Presidency of the Shire of York will be automatically gifted to a particular Councillor- as a sinecure, not based on past performance or suitability.

This should not occur. Powerful, self-interest factions within a local community do not have the right to expect that a Council Member aligned to them will be automatically chosen as President.

Nor should any candidate, approached with the offer of a block of votes, declare allegiance to- or their support for the self-interests of any particular lobby group.

There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that two past Presidents may have been elected as ineluctable choices. The general consensus of opinion is that neither served in the best interest of the whole community and one brought the Shire of York Council into, much publicized, disrepute.

When newly elected as a Councillor, Matthew Reid, was chosen as Shire President by his fellow Councillors, post the date of the election, by popularity and a perceived ability mandate. He was no-one’s pet president.

In the near future there will be seven Councillors, thereby reducing the need for a
‘casting vote’ normally exercised by the President. This should, and I repeat should allow, more open and accountable governance and, hopefully, more focussed, robust debate in the decision making process.

After their election, all Councillors must be allowed the unfettered right to choose who they want as President without any outside pressure and interference.

The person elected must be the Councillors’ choice only. Not as a spokesperson for the farming sector, the town’s business owners or local ratepayers, but as the representative of everyone and all their diverse legitimate, viable and positive business, social and community interests.

Because of what has occurred in the past, for at least the next two years, there cannot be a part-time President who has other major business commitments and could pursue other interests to the detriment of the positive future promotion and development of the Shire and community of York.

It will require the new presidential incumbent to be fully committed to the holistic redevelopment and improvement of a town of many facets- as a vibrant 21^st century community, with an extremely important, 184 year-old historic past dating back to the Swan River Colony.

It is a big ask- and a big task- with failure not an option.

David Taylor
York Ratepayer.

Shire of York councillors vote to begin fraud investigation at special council meeting

• by: ALYESHA ANDERSON
• From: PerthNow
• October 08, 2015 3:49PM

The Shire of York’s town hall. York councillors voted for Major Fraud Squad officers to begin an investigation. Source: News Limited

SHIRE of York councillors have voted to call in the Major Fraud Squad to investigate possible corportate credit card misuse.

The vote was held at a special meeting of the council on Tuesday night.
According to the meeting minutes, it took less than 10 minutes to answer public questions and vote that the fraud squad be called-in.Tuesday’s meeting was opened at 5.01pm by outgoing Shire president Matthew Reid and was closed by 5.09pm.

The gathering was called after a notice was sent out on Tuesday by York’s acting chief executive Graeme Simpson.The Shire has refused to answer questions about the nature of the allegations or who has alleged to have committed them.

In a statement, the Department of Local Government said it is “aware of allegations concerning the misuse of corporate credit cards at the Shire of York, due to documentation included in the response to the show cause notice issued last year.“If the Shire forms the view that sufficient grounds exist for referring those allegations, the police are the appropriate agency to receive and if necessary, investigate those claims.
“The department does not comment on police matters.
“The department is providing advice and assistance to staff and councillors at the Shire of York, who are working through a number of issues raised in a probity audit last year.
“The department has also established a Monitoring and Mentoring Panel whose function is to guide and assist the council to provide good governance for the community.

Outgoing Shire of York president Matthew Reid Source: News Corp Australia

In the notice, Mr Simpson said an urgent meeting was required after he had sat down with Major Fraud Squad detectives on Monday afternoon.

The purpose of the meeting was to “consider the actions recommended” by Detective Sergeant Kearns Gangin from the Major Fraud Squad at WA Police.
It is also set to “provide clear direction” to Mr Simpson so he can formally request a fraud investigation into “possible offences”.

Detective Senior Sergeant Steve Potter of the Major Fraud Squad confirmed to PerthNow he met with representatives from the York Shire Council on Monday. “They have been asked to provide documentation and information and then an assessment will take place here to establish if offences have taken place,” he said. “If that is established further decisions will be made by this office in relation to who will investigate.”

According to the notice, a full copy of the Shire of York’s response to a State Government show cause notice last year should be “immediately” provided to the Fraud Squad.
The investigation comes two weeks after the resignation of Shire president Matthew Reid, who departs just two months after councillors were reinstated.

The council had been suspended for six months after Local Government Minister Tony Simpson voiced concerns about the shire’s ability to provide good governance.
PerthNow has contacted the Shire of York but they directed media inquiries to Mr Reid, who is yet to respond to requests for comment.

Mr Reid will finish with the council on October 17. Mr Simpson said he would not comment on the matter at this time.

LEST WE’VE ALREADY FORGOTTEN ANZAC DAY 2015

RECAPPING:-
On, April 25, 2015, the whole of Australia celebrated the 100^th Anniversary of the Gallipoli Landing, a momentous occasion in our nation’s history.

Many small towns across the country obtained an ‘ANZAC Centenary Local Grant’ to help commemorate an epic day of remembrance, showing the deepest respect in honouring their ancestors who fought and died in the war-to-end-all-wars.
               
So did the SHIRE OF YORK, which eventually obtained the grant after stuffing the process up, big time!

WHY?
In April 2014, the Shire of York’s Senior Finance & Projects Officer, Gail Maziuk made an application through the office of Christian Porter, Parliamentary Secretary to the then  Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, for an ANZAC Centenary Local Grant of $38,154. (It has never been denied that Ms Maziuk did this. It should have been her direct responsibility and cannot be blamed on Ray Hooper who had resigned.)

The nominated intent was to refurbish York’s name plate memorial with an enlistment register with regimental colours and provide a concrete plinth for the Krupp gun. It was an extremely worthy cause that would receive the required funding.

Evidence suggests that the Shire of York’s grant application could be best described as an embarrassingly flawed abomination, similar to its original application for the Tavern Licence for the York Recreation and Convention Centre where no proper community impact analysis was provided. Ms Maziuk was the Senior Finance & Projects Officer on each occasion and Mr Gordon Tester was the nominated applicant for the Tavern Licence on behalf of the Shire.

Both could be considered “monkey see, monkey do” level applications, where both the Federal Government was eager to hand out the ANZAC grant, and the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor had been told by the then Minister, Terry Waldron, to give approval for a Tavern Licence to the Shire of York, prior to the 2013 State Election, as a political ‘Pork Barrelling’ exercise.

Records show that the Shire of York’s ANZAC grant application for $38,154 only contained quotes totalling $7,450, a $30,740 shortfall in necessary cost information. There was another quote for $4,085 which bore no relevance to any memorial funding. It was officially a grant application fiasco!

As of 3.20 PM, Tuesday, January 13, 2015, both Commissioner James Best and Acting CEO Graeme Simpson were made aware of this abject failure by an external Email, and what their obligation was to the York community. That was to immediately attempt to obtain the grant and allow the people of York to honour their fallen in front of a newly renovated shrine, on a special, centuplicate remembrance day that will never be repeated.
This reminder was delivered just three months prior to April 25, 2015.

Best’s response was a ridiculous, tautological denial. The grant application had not been unsuccessful, there was still grant funding available and, apparently, all that was required was missing invoices to be forwarded.

No-one had said it was unsuccessful- just that York did not have it and wanted it prior to ANZAC Day.

The fact that $30,740 worth of important invoices, affecting a once in a lifetime celebration, had gone missing for nine months was  a irrelevant oversight to Commissioner Best, instead of an inexcusable error.

Unfortunately, the trivialization of responsibility for accountability by Senior, Local Government Public Servants is a stance fully supported by the Department of Local Government (forget the Communities).

So now you can guess why it is imperative to elect some new councillors with known accountancy and business acumen, academic discipline, great communications skills and an understanding of past mistakes, to ensure a more positive future and to compensate for the continually demonstrated, professional inadequacies shown by some of the Shire of York Administration and the DLGC.

These people will have to clean up a mess! A mess that may well include an investigation by the WA
Police Major Fraud Squad into financial matters concerning former Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper, with the possibility there could be accessories before (and/or after) the fact.

Also, as the Shire of York Administration has now been told, by Council, to hand over all relevant documents for police examination, any failure to do so could have serious consequences. One may be ‘attempting to hinder a Police investigation’ which can be deemed to be a criminal offence.

The candidate profiles suggest that James Plumridge has the academic discipline, Heather Saint, the financial background, and Jane Ferro, the local business experience to be worthwhile, newly elected members. This is not an opinion- it is there in black and white and not based on perceptions or emotion. Also each appears to have no illusions- or delusions- of what will be required and the unenviable task that confronts them.

A primary responsibility will be to evaluate the current capabilities of the Shire of York Administration to perform its role effectively with no permanent Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy CEO on maternity leave.

Key staff member, Gail Maziuk, has now changed positions from Senior Finance, Projects & Administration Officer to Human Resources & Compliance Officer. Why? Is a matter for conjecture and the community can form its own opinion.

What is not in dispute is that both these roles, outside of Local Government, would require the employee to have tertiary qualifications in accountancy, project management and Human Resources as well as extensive experience and success in each Key Performance Indicator for their primary duties and responsibilities. That is a given.

Now Mr. Gordon Tester has resurfaced at the Shire as Manager Development Services but not in his previous role as Manager, Health and Building Services. Then- he should have had the nickname

“Toilet Tester” because he had no idea how many toilets were required for public use in a particular local business that required public toilet facilities.

It is alleged that Mr Tester should bear a large degree of responsibility for the WA State Ombudsman declaring that the Shire of York suffered from a “Defective (flawed, shoddy, inoperative, inadequate, deficient) Administration”.

What Manager Development Services means to York is anybody’s guess? What Mr Testers professional accreditation to perform this role is anybody’s guess? And why he was not re-employed as the Environmental Health Officer is another matter for conjecture.

The Environmental Health Officer is now a Mr George Johnson, who is not an employee, but under contract to provide his extremely expensive professional services to the Shire ad infinitum.

Finally, the proposition has been put forward that an academic should be intrinsically honourable and that a school teacher is an academic. It is a humorous, but flawed assumption. Not even the priesthood is full of honourable men and a primary/ secondary schoolteacher is not considered an academic. ‘An academic’ is a scholar, lecturer or Professor at a university or other seat of higher learning.

If this is the type of presumption made by the average Local Government Election voter, that all is needed in a councillor is honour, then similar to Perth Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi, we all get what we deserve. So Mr or Mrs ‘Get Real’- get real! And make your vote really count.

David Taylor
York Ratepayer.

Notice of Special Council Meeting - 6 October 2015

NOTICE OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING    

A Special Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, 6th October, 2015 commencing at 5.00pm in the Lesser Hall, York Town Hall, York.   

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING  

1. Consider the actions recommended by Detective Sergeant Kearns Gangin, Major Fraud Squad Western Australian Police Force. 

2. Provide Clear direction to the Acting CEO by way of Council resolutions to; 

a)      Request the Major Fraud Squad investigate possible offences as discussed at the meeting of Council, and Acting CEO with Detective Sergeant Kearns Gangin and Detective Sergeant Stuart Mirfin, Major Fraud Squad Western Australian Police Force at 2.00pm Monday 5 October 2015.

b)     Immediately provide a full copy of the Shire of York Response to the Show Cause notice as tabled at the Special Council Meeting 11 December 2014 to Detective Sergeant Kearns Gangin, Major Fraud Squad Western Australian Police Force.

c)      Immediately write to Detective Sergeant Kearns Gangin, Major Fraud Squad Western Australian Police Force requesting that the Major Fraud Squad investigate possible offences.   

Graeme Simpson  

GRAEME SIMPSON ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  

             

Date: 6 October, 2015

KRIEG and Minister for Local Government, Re [2015] WAICmr 17 (24 September 2015)

Decision D0172015 – Published in note form only

Re Krieg and Minister for Local Government [2015] WAICmr 17

Date of Decision: 24 September 2015

Freedom of Information Act 1992: Schedule 1, clauses 3(1), 3(3) and 3(6)
Freedom of Information Regulations 1993: regulation 9(1)

Julian Krieg (the complainant) applied to the Minister for Local Government (the Minister) under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (the FOI Act) for access to ‘a copy of the “Minority Report” to the Shire of York Show Cause Notice issued on 18 November 2014’. The Minister decided to refuse access to the requested document on the ground that it was exempt under clause 3(1) of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act.

The complainant applied to the agency for external review of the Minister’s decision. Following receipt of the complaint the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) required the Minister to produce the original of the disputed document and his FOI file maintained in respect of the complainant’s access application. The Minister and complainant provided further submissions on the matters in dispute.

The Minister notified the third party that the complainant had sought external review of his decision, and advised him of his rights to be joined to the complaint as a third party, under section 69(2) of the FOI Act. On 11 June 2015 the third party notified this office that he wished to be joined as a third party to the complaint, and subsequently provided submissions to this office. The third party submitted that the disputed document was exempt under clause 3(1) and that disclosure of the document was not in the public interest pursuant to clause 3(6).

On 3 September 2015 after considering the information before him, the Commissioner provided the parties with his preliminary view of the matter.

It was the Commissioner’s view that, except for a small amount of personal information about third parties that is exempt under clause 3(1) (the edited matter), the disputed document is not exempt from disclosure because any personal information in the disputed document about the third party amounts to prescribed details under clause 3(3) in relation to the third party’s functions as a local government councillor.

No further submissions were made by the Minister or the third party in response to the Commissioner’s preliminary view.

Clause 3(1) provides that matter is exempt if its disclosure would reveal information about an individual (whether living or dead). Clause 3(3) provides that information is not exempt under clause 3(1) merely because its disclosure would reveal prescribed details relating to an officer’s or former officer’s functions as an officer.

Regulation 9(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information Regulations 1993 (the Regulations) provides that, in relation to an officer of an agency, prescribed details include ‘anything done by the person in the course of performing or purporting to perform the person’s functions or duties as an officer...’

Section 74(2) provides that the Commissioner must not include exempt matter in any decision. As the Commissioner considers that this obligation extends to matter that is claimed to be exempt, he is constrained from describing the disputed document in detail. However, in his notice of decision the Minister described the disputed document as ‘the Report’.

The Commissioner considered that the subject matter of the disputed document and the circumstances in which it was created by the third party indicated that the disputed document was written in the third party’s capacity as a local government councillor.

In Re K and the City of Canning [2012] WAICmr 3 at [29], the Commissioner concluded that a local government councillor was a ‘member of an agency’ and therefore an ‘officer of the agency’ where the agency was a local government.

Having examined the disputed document, the Commissioner considered that, except for the edited matter, the information in the disputed document would do no more than ‘merely’ reveal prescribed details about the third party. Matter that is not exempt under clause 3(3) is not subject to consideration about whether or not disclosure is in the public interest.

The A/Commissioner considered all of the material before her and was not dissuaded from the preliminary view that the disputed document amounted to prescribed details as provided by clause 3(3). Therefore, except for the edited matter, the disputed document was not exempt.

Accordingly, the A/Commissioner set aside the Minister’s decision.

Note: For background information about the 'Minority Report' refer to article published on Wednesday 11 March 2015.