A few puffs of the winds of change are
starting to emanate from the agency responsible for auditing the Western
Australian Public Sector, the independent Office of the Auditor General. (Once
its independence was questionable- now not so much.)
The letter (below) was sent in March of this Year to the Public Sector Commissioner, Mal Wauchope, and the Auditor General, Colin Murphy requesting a public sector, forensic audit on the York Recreation & Convention Centre’s financial situation.
The presumption on my part, whether both men liked it or not, is that local government council administration is part of the Western Australian Public Sector as it is funded, in a major part, through a system of State Government grants and loans, being from what is defined as ‘State Government Monies.’ (So if it waddles, quacks and swims, it’s a duck).
Mal Wauchope did his best Pontius Pilot impersonation saying local government council administration is nothing to do with him and, probably, beneath his dignity. Mr Murphy was more circumspect, claiming that as far as he was concerned local government was not funded by state government monies, and therefore he had no auditing jurisdiction.
My response was there was no known clear, legal and equitable definition of what constitutes ‘state government monies’ in the public domain- and in the public interest. Also what was considered to be ‘Royalties for Regions’ funding? state government monies, or a winning Lotto ticket?
Now after a nine-month gestation period, Mr Murphy does have the power to audit Local Government Council Administration annual accounts and the proverbial has hit the fan, finding half failing to provide proper books of account and verification.
Since then Mr. Murphy has discovered the biggest surprise of all, that Public Sector Agencies are not screening employees’ properly. This is a situation that would not be tolerated in the Private Sector.
Their Human Resources engagement priority policies, procedures and protocols are poor, both in screening new staff and monitoring existing employees.
There is a persistent failure to conduct criminal background checks, confirm the actual identity of the employee and verify any qualifications they provide. (The criminal background check is not part of the litany of failures heaped on the Shire of York Council Administration, it knew Christian Tarou Chadwick was a criminal.)
And, guess what!-this creates the inherent risk of employing inappropriate staff which turned out to be a quintessential ingredient of what has happened at the YRCC.
The letter (below) was sent in March of this Year to the Public Sector Commissioner, Mal Wauchope, and the Auditor General, Colin Murphy requesting a public sector, forensic audit on the York Recreation & Convention Centre’s financial situation.
The presumption on my part, whether both men liked it or not, is that local government council administration is part of the Western Australian Public Sector as it is funded, in a major part, through a system of State Government grants and loans, being from what is defined as ‘State Government Monies.’ (So if it waddles, quacks and swims, it’s a duck).
Mal Wauchope did his best Pontius Pilot impersonation saying local government council administration is nothing to do with him and, probably, beneath his dignity. Mr Murphy was more circumspect, claiming that as far as he was concerned local government was not funded by state government monies, and therefore he had no auditing jurisdiction.
My response was there was no known clear, legal and equitable definition of what constitutes ‘state government monies’ in the public domain- and in the public interest. Also what was considered to be ‘Royalties for Regions’ funding? state government monies, or a winning Lotto ticket?
Now after a nine-month gestation period, Mr Murphy does have the power to audit Local Government Council Administration annual accounts and the proverbial has hit the fan, finding half failing to provide proper books of account and verification.
Since then Mr. Murphy has discovered the biggest surprise of all, that Public Sector Agencies are not screening employees’ properly. This is a situation that would not be tolerated in the Private Sector.
Their Human Resources engagement priority policies, procedures and protocols are poor, both in screening new staff and monitoring existing employees.
There is a persistent failure to conduct criminal background checks, confirm the actual identity of the employee and verify any qualifications they provide. (The criminal background check is not part of the litany of failures heaped on the Shire of York Council Administration, it knew Christian Tarou Chadwick was a criminal.)
And, guess what!-this creates the inherent risk of employing inappropriate staff which turned out to be a quintessential ingredient of what has happened at the YRCC.
*******
A
TIMELY REMINDER THAT:-
The ‘White Elephant’ that is the York Recreation & Convention centre is still ‘the elephant in the room’.
Mal Wauchope Dated: 26 March, 2015
Public Sector Commissioner
Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH, WA 6005
CC Mr. Colin Murphy
Auditor General.
Your Ref: A REQUEST FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT ON THE YORK RECREATION & CONVENTION
CENTRE’S FINANCIAL SITUATION.
In the 2014-2015 Financial Year the Shire of York Council (Council) approached Mr. Guy Lehmann of Muntz & Partners, York, with the intent to commission him to provide an in-depth, future business development plan for the York Recreation & Convention Centre (YRCC). The projected cost for his services was in the vicinity of $10,000.
The YRCC is thought to be a $7.8 million local community asset facility funded by Royalties for Regions, Local Government grants and municipal funding. To my knowledge no known appropriate cost estimates, including whole-of- life cost projections or any other reasonable financial evaluation was done for the overall expenditure on the project compared to its cost-benefit value to the local community it was supposedly built to serve.
It would appear that there were no key performance indicators attached to continuing outlay, nor were there efficiency, effectiveness and economy standards set for the completed facility and its future use, including affordable staffing levels and required maintenance- and any required compliance with the terms and conditions of its commercial Tavern Licence.
The granting of a commercial Tavern Licence to a Local Government agency, Council, has serious connotations regarding competitive neutrality. It placed a ratepayer funded licenced premises in direct competition with the private sector, conceivably assisting in the closure of four privately owned licenced establishments over the past three years. (Several have since re-opened, one at a related initial cost to the community of $625,000)
This fiduciary duty of care for the YRCC should have been undertaken by the senior Local Government, Public Service Officers employed by Council to do so. The overall performance of said officers is an integral part of your jurisdiction- encompassing the Department of the Auditor General in financial risk management matters.
In the 2013-2014 Financial Year Council’s projected estimate of the gross revenue return from the YRCC compared to outgoings was exceedingly overstated. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of October 21, 2013, the budgeted amount of return from the YRCC was nominated as being $2,268.163 when the actual return was just $754,710.
In the private sector, such a colossal over estimation would see those responsible dismissed.
It could also be considered to be highly suspicious that such a definitive revenue forecast could be made and be presented on an official Council document without being queried at any future audit.
Council’s senior Local Government, Public Service Officers’ explanation for the massive discrepancy was that the figure quoted related to total recreation not just the YRCC. The obvious response to this would be- that as the YRCC was a purpose built facility to encompass most, if not all, recreational activities where did the massive shortfall of $1,513.453 in projected income come from?
To put this into perspective, based on the current population, every man, woman and child in the
Shire of York would have to contribute at least $600 each to accrue a return to the YRCC of $2.27 million in any given financial year- with the meaning of ‘total recreation’ the great unknown..
The second question should be- given the potential for such a discrepancy why was such an expensive project as the YRCC mooted, and then built, in the first place?
The designated Local Government, Public Service Officers acting on behalf of Council in this matter, in attendance on this date, was Mr. Ray Hooper, Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Tyhscha Cochrane, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Jacky Jurmann, Manager Planning Services and Mr. Gordon Tester, Manager – Environmental Health and Building Services. Mrs. Gail Maziuk, Projects and Senior Finance Officer is not listed as having attended this meeting although she should have been there.
Only two of this administrative group remain as employees of Council, one being the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Tyhscha Cochrane. Although still employed, Mrs. Maziuk is no longer Projects and Senior Finance Officer and is no longer publically listed as being a senior staff member of Council.
(Mr. Tester resigned, but has since been re-employed as the Shire of York Council Administration’s ‘Manager of Development Services, a senior position, while Mrs. Maziuk is commonly referred to as a Human Resources & Compliance Officer.)
Therefor the reason for Council wishing to contract an external expert in business, taxation and financial consulting to provide a business development management plan for the YRCC should be patently obvious.
On October 21, 2014, the then Chief Executive Officer, Michael Keeble, went on record, in writing, to say that the Guy Lehmann Report, ‘as being the business plan for the YRCC’, would be ready shortly.
This was a blatant untruth. At that time it is highly unlikely that Mr. Lehmann had commenced any tangible formal investigation into the future business direction of the YRCC. It has been alleged that required, relevant financial records were deliberately withheld from him, possibly by senior Local Government, Public Service Officers, who acted without due authority in preventing his access to this information. There may well be personal reasons for this suppression, including fear of future accountability and liability regarding past, possibly indictable offences caused through the financial mismanagement of the YRCC project as a whole.
At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on February 16, 2015, chaired by Commissioner James Best,
those in attendance were advised that Mr. Lehmann had resigned from his post because of “external pressure”. What this external pressure is should be of major concern and the subject of an external, independent investigation. External pressure, in certain circumstances, can be deemed as being ‘coercion’, a criminal offence.
The fact that Mr. Lehmann resigned from the post, obviously given to him shortly after the departure of Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper, on April 15, 2014, suggests that for an inordinate and inexplicable length of time he may have been prevented from exercising the terms of his contract of employment. Therefore there may be the potential for him to seek legal redress from Council for its lack of proper support. This could involve financial recompense above and beyond any payment for the services he was prevented from providing.
At the Annual Electors Meeting held on February 25, 2014 also chaired by Commissioner Best, Mr. Best stated that Dominic Carbone and his firm Dominic Carbone and Associates would deliver the report on the YRCC as the replacement for Guy Lehmann.
Mr. Best’s determination to hire, Dominic Carbone, is fundamentally flawed.
Mr. Carbone could be considered a failed Chief Executive Officer from the twice sacked City of Canning Council. This Council refused to renew his contract because of an alleged financial erratum.
His website, Dominic Carbone & Associates, states he is an Accountant and Auditor with no specified qualification in accountancy or degrees in business management and/or business planning.
Mr. Carbone is a close associate of former York Council Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper. Mr. Hooper is a senior Local Government, Public Service Officer who arguably failed in his Fiduciary Duty of Care to adequately ensure the financial viability and sustainability of the YRCC.
It is a logical matter of principle that a failed senior Local Government, Public Service Officer, Dominic Carbone, should not be given the responsibility of undertaking a financial management report of any kind which involves the activities of another failed senior Local Government, Public Service Officer, and a close associate.
Mr. Best states that Dominic Carbone has a detailed understanding of the YRCC. The question is why? It suggests is that Mr. Carbone’s comprehensive knowledge of the YRCC is because of his financial advice involvement in the initial research, development, final approval and construction of the YRCC, dating back to 2007. Any failures in Fiduciary Duty of Care could therefore reflect on Mr. Carbone.
Mr. Best’s assessment that Mr. Carbone has credibility in business planning is also a matter of some conjecture.
Along with Mr. Hooper, Mr. Carbone played a major role in the development of the South East Avon Voluntary Regional Organization of Councils (SEAVROC) which became the South East Avon Regional Transition Group (SEARTG).
Mr. Best may not remember but Mr. Carbone was the Executive Officer of SEARTG when it was involuntary closed down by the Minister for Local Government and Communities (DLGC).
However, in the minutes of the SEARTG final meeting of July 8, 2014 it was suggested that SEARTG had underestimated the reduction in funding provided by government. It could be assumed that as Executive Officer, Mr. Carbone, bore some responsibility for SEARTG‘s financial affairs and any deficiencies in such.
An official email regarding the GUY LEHMANN REPORT/YRCC dated March 4, 2015, from James Best,
suggests he may now have withdrawn his publically stated support for Mr. Dominic Carbone and it is his intention to personally review the report and possibly complete it.
Mr. Best suggests that the report had gaps, inferring that Mr. Lehmann may have failed to fully comply with the directions given to him by Council. Due to the high probability of duplicitous actions being taken by Local Government, Public Service Officers to prevent Mr. Lehmann’s access to financial information required to make any proper business analysis, it could be considered to be a pejorative inference by Mr. Best.
Mr. Best also states that there would be a change to the liquor licencing structure inferring that the original Tavern Licence application was not justified and now found to be totally inappropriate for the amount of viable commercial usage the tavern and the attached convention centre could conceivably receive.
Mr. Best refers to the finalization of a Competitive Neutrality Plan. This is probably because, in the past, the YRCC management has openly touted for increased business by establishing such commercial enterprises as a coffee club in direct competition with local cafĂ© proprietors. This is in contravention of an official agreement signed by the senior Local Government, Public Service Officer at the time of application for a Tavern Licence, Councils’ Chief Executive Officer Mr. Ray Hooper, stating the YRCC would not attempt to attract business away from local, privately-owned, commercial enterprises.
On two occasions during the licence application process, Mr. Hooper was advised, in writing, by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (DRGL) that Councils application may be rejected because
its community interest assessment was at first virtually non-existent, then un-substantive, incongruous and flawed. With hindsight, Mr. Hooper’s commitment to competitive neutrality and community interest could be considered questionable.
You would be aware of the media reports suggesting that the Premier, Colin Barnett, has serious concerns regarding the probity of Local Government including its lack of accountability, statutory compliance and the numerous suggestions of misappropriation of municipal funds.
You would also be aware that the Minister for Local Government and Communities, Tony Simpson, has admitted there are endemic and systemic weaknesses relating to basic compliance in Local Government financial management. He has called on the Auditor General to expand his role to prevent the prevalence of fraudulent misappropriation of funds and corruption, both being potentially criminal offences.
The Auditor General already has the statutory authority to investigate the fiduciary performance of Local Government, Public Services Officers.
At the York Annual Electors Meeting of February 25, 2015 electors voted not to adopt –That the 2013/14 Annual Budget for the Shire of York is received. That the Shire of York’s Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 2014, as presented, be received and That the Shire of York’s Independent Auditors Report, for the year ended June 30, 2014 be received. This is not a resounding endorsement of the abilities of those hired by Council to provide financial management
services and guidance.
In addition, Council’s senior Local Government, Public Service Officers have, in the past, refused to release financial information documents referring to YRCC to a member of the public claiming that the public already had access to such information. This gives credence to the allegation that the same officers, and others, may have attempted to withhold information from Guy Lehmann.
The Freedom of Information Commissioner’s response was that not all of the requested documents are publically available. His summation therefore was that the agency (Council) was required to deal with the request for these documents. The judgement can be found in Walters and the Shire of York (2014) WAICmr 24 of December 22, 2014.
As of today’s date I am not aware that Commissioner Best, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Simpson or any other Local Government, Public Service Officer in authority over Council documents has complied with any request or demand issued by the Freedom of Information Commissioner.
The Auditor General is quoted as being a totally independent arbiter of the performance of Local Government, Public Service Officers in their financial duties to the State and by inference, the community at large- and each individual community in particular.
I now call on the Auditor General, Mr. Colin Murphy and his staff to undertake their prescribed duty and investigate all financial matters concerning the YRCC in relation to the fiduciary performance of
individual Local Public Service Officers of York Council dating back to 2007.
Given that Mr. Murphy has been requested to assist in the assuring the much needed compliance by Local Government Council’s regarding financial management issues I would hope that it is placed on public record what measures he will exercise to ensure such compliance.
As of this date, December 3, 2015, Mr. James Best has completed his term as Commissioner and the Acting Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Simpson’s contract of employment has not been extended or renewed.
Mr. Dominic Carbone of Dominic Carbone & Associates has not presented any review of the York Recreation & Convention Centre to the Shire of York Council. (To the best of my knowledge, nor has anyone else.)
Mr. Best’s intention to change the liquor licence structure of the YRCC has not been brought to fruition.
Mr. Best’s determination to formalize a Competitive Neutrality Plan, encompassing the Shire owned YRCC and perceived, private enterprise competitors, has not occurred. What did occur was his insistent assistance in funding a private enterprise, the Palace Hotel York, through the purchase of another property by the Shire of York for $625,000.
The Shire of York Council Administration still refuses to comply with legitimate demands for public access to council documents.
The Shire of York Council Administration has failed to provide proper books of account and verification for independent, official financial audits.
The Shire of York Council Administration does not screen its employees properly.
A forensic audit on the York Recreation & Convention Centre’s financial situation has not been undertaken by the Shire of York Council, a committee acting on behalf of the Shire of York Council, the Shire of York Council Administration, an independent auditor, or the Office of the Auditor General.
David Taylor.
York Ratepayer.
The ‘White Elephant’ that is the York Recreation & Convention centre is still ‘the elephant in the room’.
Mal Wauchope Dated: 26 March, 2015
Public Sector Commissioner
Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH, WA 6005
CC Mr. Colin Murphy
Auditor General.
Your Ref: A REQUEST FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT ON THE YORK RECREATION & CONVENTION
CENTRE’S FINANCIAL SITUATION.
In the 2014-2015 Financial Year the Shire of York Council (Council) approached Mr. Guy Lehmann of Muntz & Partners, York, with the intent to commission him to provide an in-depth, future business development plan for the York Recreation & Convention Centre (YRCC). The projected cost for his services was in the vicinity of $10,000.
The YRCC is thought to be a $7.8 million local community asset facility funded by Royalties for Regions, Local Government grants and municipal funding. To my knowledge no known appropriate cost estimates, including whole-of- life cost projections or any other reasonable financial evaluation was done for the overall expenditure on the project compared to its cost-benefit value to the local community it was supposedly built to serve.
It would appear that there were no key performance indicators attached to continuing outlay, nor were there efficiency, effectiveness and economy standards set for the completed facility and its future use, including affordable staffing levels and required maintenance- and any required compliance with the terms and conditions of its commercial Tavern Licence.
The granting of a commercial Tavern Licence to a Local Government agency, Council, has serious connotations regarding competitive neutrality. It placed a ratepayer funded licenced premises in direct competition with the private sector, conceivably assisting in the closure of four privately owned licenced establishments over the past three years. (Several have since re-opened, one at a related initial cost to the community of $625,000)
This fiduciary duty of care for the YRCC should have been undertaken by the senior Local Government, Public Service Officers employed by Council to do so. The overall performance of said officers is an integral part of your jurisdiction- encompassing the Department of the Auditor General in financial risk management matters.
In the 2013-2014 Financial Year Council’s projected estimate of the gross revenue return from the YRCC compared to outgoings was exceedingly overstated. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of October 21, 2013, the budgeted amount of return from the YRCC was nominated as being $2,268.163 when the actual return was just $754,710.
In the private sector, such a colossal over estimation would see those responsible dismissed.
It could also be considered to be highly suspicious that such a definitive revenue forecast could be made and be presented on an official Council document without being queried at any future audit.
Council’s senior Local Government, Public Service Officers’ explanation for the massive discrepancy was that the figure quoted related to total recreation not just the YRCC. The obvious response to this would be- that as the YRCC was a purpose built facility to encompass most, if not all, recreational activities where did the massive shortfall of $1,513.453 in projected income come from?
To put this into perspective, based on the current population, every man, woman and child in the
Shire of York would have to contribute at least $600 each to accrue a return to the YRCC of $2.27 million in any given financial year- with the meaning of ‘total recreation’ the great unknown..
The second question should be- given the potential for such a discrepancy why was such an expensive project as the YRCC mooted, and then built, in the first place?
The designated Local Government, Public Service Officers acting on behalf of Council in this matter, in attendance on this date, was Mr. Ray Hooper, Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Tyhscha Cochrane, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Jacky Jurmann, Manager Planning Services and Mr. Gordon Tester, Manager – Environmental Health and Building Services. Mrs. Gail Maziuk, Projects and Senior Finance Officer is not listed as having attended this meeting although she should have been there.
Only two of this administrative group remain as employees of Council, one being the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Tyhscha Cochrane. Although still employed, Mrs. Maziuk is no longer Projects and Senior Finance Officer and is no longer publically listed as being a senior staff member of Council.
(Mr. Tester resigned, but has since been re-employed as the Shire of York Council Administration’s ‘Manager of Development Services, a senior position, while Mrs. Maziuk is commonly referred to as a Human Resources & Compliance Officer.)
Therefor the reason for Council wishing to contract an external expert in business, taxation and financial consulting to provide a business development management plan for the YRCC should be patently obvious.
On October 21, 2014, the then Chief Executive Officer, Michael Keeble, went on record, in writing, to say that the Guy Lehmann Report, ‘as being the business plan for the YRCC’, would be ready shortly.
This was a blatant untruth. At that time it is highly unlikely that Mr. Lehmann had commenced any tangible formal investigation into the future business direction of the YRCC. It has been alleged that required, relevant financial records were deliberately withheld from him, possibly by senior Local Government, Public Service Officers, who acted without due authority in preventing his access to this information. There may well be personal reasons for this suppression, including fear of future accountability and liability regarding past, possibly indictable offences caused through the financial mismanagement of the YRCC project as a whole.
At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on February 16, 2015, chaired by Commissioner James Best,
those in attendance were advised that Mr. Lehmann had resigned from his post because of “external pressure”. What this external pressure is should be of major concern and the subject of an external, independent investigation. External pressure, in certain circumstances, can be deemed as being ‘coercion’, a criminal offence.
The fact that Mr. Lehmann resigned from the post, obviously given to him shortly after the departure of Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper, on April 15, 2014, suggests that for an inordinate and inexplicable length of time he may have been prevented from exercising the terms of his contract of employment. Therefore there may be the potential for him to seek legal redress from Council for its lack of proper support. This could involve financial recompense above and beyond any payment for the services he was prevented from providing.
At the Annual Electors Meeting held on February 25, 2014 also chaired by Commissioner Best, Mr. Best stated that Dominic Carbone and his firm Dominic Carbone and Associates would deliver the report on the YRCC as the replacement for Guy Lehmann.
Mr. Best’s determination to hire, Dominic Carbone, is fundamentally flawed.
Mr. Carbone could be considered a failed Chief Executive Officer from the twice sacked City of Canning Council. This Council refused to renew his contract because of an alleged financial erratum.
His website, Dominic Carbone & Associates, states he is an Accountant and Auditor with no specified qualification in accountancy or degrees in business management and/or business planning.
Mr. Carbone is a close associate of former York Council Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper. Mr. Hooper is a senior Local Government, Public Service Officer who arguably failed in his Fiduciary Duty of Care to adequately ensure the financial viability and sustainability of the YRCC.
It is a logical matter of principle that a failed senior Local Government, Public Service Officer, Dominic Carbone, should not be given the responsibility of undertaking a financial management report of any kind which involves the activities of another failed senior Local Government, Public Service Officer, and a close associate.
Mr. Best states that Dominic Carbone has a detailed understanding of the YRCC. The question is why? It suggests is that Mr. Carbone’s comprehensive knowledge of the YRCC is because of his financial advice involvement in the initial research, development, final approval and construction of the YRCC, dating back to 2007. Any failures in Fiduciary Duty of Care could therefore reflect on Mr. Carbone.
Mr. Best’s assessment that Mr. Carbone has credibility in business planning is also a matter of some conjecture.
Along with Mr. Hooper, Mr. Carbone played a major role in the development of the South East Avon Voluntary Regional Organization of Councils (SEAVROC) which became the South East Avon Regional Transition Group (SEARTG).
Mr. Best may not remember but Mr. Carbone was the Executive Officer of SEARTG when it was involuntary closed down by the Minister for Local Government and Communities (DLGC).
However, in the minutes of the SEARTG final meeting of July 8, 2014 it was suggested that SEARTG had underestimated the reduction in funding provided by government. It could be assumed that as Executive Officer, Mr. Carbone, bore some responsibility for SEARTG‘s financial affairs and any deficiencies in such.
An official email regarding the GUY LEHMANN REPORT/YRCC dated March 4, 2015, from James Best,
suggests he may now have withdrawn his publically stated support for Mr. Dominic Carbone and it is his intention to personally review the report and possibly complete it.
Mr. Best suggests that the report had gaps, inferring that Mr. Lehmann may have failed to fully comply with the directions given to him by Council. Due to the high probability of duplicitous actions being taken by Local Government, Public Service Officers to prevent Mr. Lehmann’s access to financial information required to make any proper business analysis, it could be considered to be a pejorative inference by Mr. Best.
Mr. Best also states that there would be a change to the liquor licencing structure inferring that the original Tavern Licence application was not justified and now found to be totally inappropriate for the amount of viable commercial usage the tavern and the attached convention centre could conceivably receive.
Mr. Best refers to the finalization of a Competitive Neutrality Plan. This is probably because, in the past, the YRCC management has openly touted for increased business by establishing such commercial enterprises as a coffee club in direct competition with local cafĂ© proprietors. This is in contravention of an official agreement signed by the senior Local Government, Public Service Officer at the time of application for a Tavern Licence, Councils’ Chief Executive Officer Mr. Ray Hooper, stating the YRCC would not attempt to attract business away from local, privately-owned, commercial enterprises.
On two occasions during the licence application process, Mr. Hooper was advised, in writing, by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (DRGL) that Councils application may be rejected because
its community interest assessment was at first virtually non-existent, then un-substantive, incongruous and flawed. With hindsight, Mr. Hooper’s commitment to competitive neutrality and community interest could be considered questionable.
You would be aware of the media reports suggesting that the Premier, Colin Barnett, has serious concerns regarding the probity of Local Government including its lack of accountability, statutory compliance and the numerous suggestions of misappropriation of municipal funds.
You would also be aware that the Minister for Local Government and Communities, Tony Simpson, has admitted there are endemic and systemic weaknesses relating to basic compliance in Local Government financial management. He has called on the Auditor General to expand his role to prevent the prevalence of fraudulent misappropriation of funds and corruption, both being potentially criminal offences.
The Auditor General already has the statutory authority to investigate the fiduciary performance of Local Government, Public Services Officers.
At the York Annual Electors Meeting of February 25, 2015 electors voted not to adopt –That the 2013/14 Annual Budget for the Shire of York is received. That the Shire of York’s Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 2014, as presented, be received and That the Shire of York’s Independent Auditors Report, for the year ended June 30, 2014 be received. This is not a resounding endorsement of the abilities of those hired by Council to provide financial management
services and guidance.
In addition, Council’s senior Local Government, Public Service Officers have, in the past, refused to release financial information documents referring to YRCC to a member of the public claiming that the public already had access to such information. This gives credence to the allegation that the same officers, and others, may have attempted to withhold information from Guy Lehmann.
The Freedom of Information Commissioner’s response was that not all of the requested documents are publically available. His summation therefore was that the agency (Council) was required to deal with the request for these documents. The judgement can be found in Walters and the Shire of York (2014) WAICmr 24 of December 22, 2014.
As of today’s date I am not aware that Commissioner Best, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Simpson or any other Local Government, Public Service Officer in authority over Council documents has complied with any request or demand issued by the Freedom of Information Commissioner.
The Auditor General is quoted as being a totally independent arbiter of the performance of Local Government, Public Service Officers in their financial duties to the State and by inference, the community at large- and each individual community in particular.
I now call on the Auditor General, Mr. Colin Murphy and his staff to undertake their prescribed duty and investigate all financial matters concerning the YRCC in relation to the fiduciary performance of
individual Local Public Service Officers of York Council dating back to 2007.
Given that Mr. Murphy has been requested to assist in the assuring the much needed compliance by Local Government Council’s regarding financial management issues I would hope that it is placed on public record what measures he will exercise to ensure such compliance.
As of this date, December 3, 2015, Mr. James Best has completed his term as Commissioner and the Acting Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Simpson’s contract of employment has not been extended or renewed.
Mr. Dominic Carbone of Dominic Carbone & Associates has not presented any review of the York Recreation & Convention Centre to the Shire of York Council. (To the best of my knowledge, nor has anyone else.)
Mr. Best’s intention to change the liquor licence structure of the YRCC has not been brought to fruition.
Mr. Best’s determination to formalize a Competitive Neutrality Plan, encompassing the Shire owned YRCC and perceived, private enterprise competitors, has not occurred. What did occur was his insistent assistance in funding a private enterprise, the Palace Hotel York, through the purchase of another property by the Shire of York for $625,000.
The Shire of York Council Administration still refuses to comply with legitimate demands for public access to council documents.
The Shire of York Council Administration has failed to provide proper books of account and verification for independent, official financial audits.
The Shire of York Council Administration does not screen its employees properly.
A forensic audit on the York Recreation & Convention Centre’s financial situation has not been undertaken by the Shire of York Council, a committee acting on behalf of the Shire of York Council, the Shire of York Council Administration, an independent auditor, or the Office of the Auditor General.
David Taylor.
York Ratepayer.
Good on you David. Thank you for the effort you are putting in to expose the lack of open accountability by the inept unqualified Shire of York Senior Staff... past and present!
ReplyDeleteSooner or later the 'protection bubble' will burst!
Top effort David.
ReplyDeleteOne the Auditor General commences the audit process in earnest there will a domino effect.
That is the nature of auditing. Any irregularities will be followed through and the root causes identified as a natural part of the process.
All the effort put in by the community and so kindly facilitated by this blog can now be brought to bear.
The weight of documented factual evidence that has been compiled is irrefutable.
Truth will prevail.
I can not believe that photo Gail Mazuik is she some kind of celeb or something. What the hell is she doing she is administration why is she with Pat Hooper oh that's right she's the purple circle token Bride.
ReplyDeleteShe thought she was untouchable because she was Ray's girl.
ReplyDeleteNow, the eyes of York are watching her every move and she is being exposed for the evil than runs in her veins.