THE QUINTESSENTIAL QUINTET

York is now a rarity in all levels of government, having a plenum of women councillors who, by the quality of who they are, and their majority within council chambers, have the mandated power to run the Local Government Area of York, the Council itself and its administration.

In October 2015, four were individually endorsed by the electorate gaining nearly 100 votes more than their nearest rival and collectively, as 1/3^rd of the candidates, they received well over half the total vote. One was later elected unopposed.

Singularly, these five women are from more diverse backgrounds, with some- a greater range of required accomplishments, than any previous York Council. Collectively, they have no known self-interest, have a thorough knowledge of the York psyche and the ability to do what is necessary to re-invigorate their community.

The overall problems they face is that York has an ageing population, the second highest, per-capita in Western Australia. This contributes to the fact that York’s average annual income is half the Australian average and, in individual circumstances, is defined as being below the so-called ‘Poverty Line”.  Neither of these two facts provides the foundation for positive future growth dynamics for attracting new business investment and a significant additional population.

Unlike Northam and Toodyay, York does not have a relatively inexpensive, regular public transport system to create a peri-urban community with a commuter-based population. So it cannot provide a significant workforce to the metropolitan area. (Its main access road from the metropolitan area, the Great Southern Highway is a ‘highway’ in name only.)

York cannot provide inexpensive commercial utility services, (electricity, water and Liquefied Natural Gas) to attract small to medium sized manufacturing industries away from the metropolitan area, nor does it have a ready-made skilled workforce to compliment this relocation.

York, currently, does not have co-ordinated economic support groups such as a Chamber of Commerce or Local Business Association to assist in advising Council on how to attract new retail, manufacturing and tourism businesses to the community, for the overall benefit of the community.

One of the main economic indicators, the local housing market value is static at best and given that WA’s economy is now close to that of the ‘rust bucket’ states of South Australia and Tasmania, is unlikely to improve. There is also the impost of excessive, unacceptable commercial and domestic Council Rates.

What York does have is ‘five wise women’ who must soon start to show their metal, by assuring the community they have senior Local Government Administrative Staff that can be relied on to assist Council to deliver York a positive economic future in what could be adverse, state economic conditions.
One matter that must be redressed is the continuous adverse publicity and adverse public perception, within and without the York Community.

Since December 2015, in the online public forums ‘The Real voice of York’ and shireofyork6302 blogspot.com’ there have been 500 public comments, many regarding disturbing allegations about the past employment activities of the Shire of York’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Ms. Tyhscha Cochrane.

This must be addressed – and hopefully cease- in the best interest of the community and the person involved. It is unfair and inequitable to all parties concerned for this to continue!

Here is a letter regarding this matter sent to Shire President, David Wallace that I am hoping you have received a copy of, have discussed and now intend to make a public statement about. 

************

                                                    LETTER TO SHIRE PRESIDENT WALLACE

Date January 21, 2016.

Mr. David Wallace,
President
Shire of York Council
1 Joaquina Street
YORK, 6302.

Dear Sir,


Your Ref: -                         DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER POSITION.



As you would be aware the City of Perth’s Lord Mayor, Ms. Lisa Scaffidi, has arbitrarily terminated the contract of the city’s Chief Executive Officer, Gary Stephenson.

In her recent press statement, Ms. Scaffidi, claimed that it was the unanimous decision of Council that was ‘completely mutually exclusive’ to the Corruption and Crime Commissions investigations into her alleged travel rorts. (‘Completely Mutually Exclusive’- which also means ‘Absolutely, Commonly, Absolute’, is a bemusing attempt at tautology that should see the Public Relations Officer, who created it, leaving the building at the same time as Gary Stephenson.

Its inference is that Mr. Stephenson’s departure bears no relationship what-so-ever to the CCC’s upgraded investigation into further possible breaches of conduct by other Councillors, and also staff, based on information provided by him to the CCC. (If Mr Stephenson was requested by the CCC to provide this information, he would have no option but to do so.)

Putting all of Ms. Scaffidi’s very basic, uninformative, quaint rhetoric aside regarding’ new directions,’  ‘a new executive team, and ‘there has been a lot going on, probably more going on in the past 12 months than might have gone on in many years’-  Mr. Stephenson was sacked because he ‘pimped’.

Will Mr. Stephenson, personally, take the City of Perth Council to court for wrongful dismissal, or in conjunction with Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA)?  It may occur, but it is unlikely.

What has been reinforced here is the ability of a Local Government Council to investigate the performance of Senior Public Service Officers in its employ and take punitive action against them should Councillors agree to do so. (This is without providing substantive evidence of any wrongdoing.)

York should now be in the early stages of a renaissance that also requires ‘new directions’ and ‘a new executive team’ to bring this to fruition.

It is now very much in the community interest that the position held by Ms. Tyhscha Cochrane, as Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of York, is either unequivocally reconfirmed by the Shire of York Council, she is allocated another position- or her contract is terminated.

Given the serious content of allegations made against Ms. Cochrane that is in the public domain, it is only fair to Ms. Cochrane that this should occur and be considered as a matter of urgency by Council.

The Shire of York Council must evaluate Ms. Cochrane’s past performance regarding her compliance with the all the terms of her contract and equate this to her value to the community should she continue in her current position. It should include an appropriate risk-management assessment.

Should Council not have the ability to undertake such a process then it should acquire an independent arbiter who can. 

If Council is unaware of the disparaging and disturbing melange of accusations against Ms. Cochrane, it should rapidly proceed to acquire this information to determine the truth. Otherwise there is the potential for a negative impact on the overall morale of the community and its perception of Council’s future ability to adequately handle its affairs.

Yours sincerely

David Taylor.

SHIRE OF YORK COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW

At this point in time your Shire of York Councillors are undertaking the unenviable task of reviewing and amending the policies, used by the Shire of York Administration, to regulate the raft of administrative procedures required to augment Local Government Laws and statutes. This is done to suit specific aspects of generic Local Government Area governance.

It can range from building code restrictions, because of unusual local environmental and geophysical issues, to what animals (and how many) can be kept on domestic properties within the town boundaries.

It has to be done because it appears there has been no adequate ‘Policy Review’ since, Ray Hooper, became Chief Executive Officer in 2004.

For much of the past twelve years, some of the existing policy and guidelines have been misinterpreted and misused through basic ignorance of their socio-economic impact, and a degree of self-interest, thereby stifling the growth of private enterprise and community expansion.

Such actions range from failure to support and application for an appropriate liquor licence for an historic, luxury accommodation enterprise, citing possible noise pollution as a major factor, to  anomalies, including poor record keeping, regarding the Shire of York’s extensive and expensive corporate credit card usage.

The most cost-effective method for population expansion is through urban infill, as there is easy access to the required utility services already available. This does not occur when there is a demand that all subdivision of existing private properties require the expensive installation of underground electricity supply to all current, and future, dwellings. (For those who do the math, it makes the development of a fully-serviced block, with completed site-works, next-door-to valueless taking into account the development cost compared to the Real Estate valuation.

Infill development is also impeded by such demands as a shed, the size of a single car garage, must be removed from a block development because it may be used as a dwelling. This is ludicrous, laughable-and true.

Some Chief Executive Officers’ appear to have no idea of the difference between the dictionary definition of ‘Policy’ and ‘Guidelines’. claiming that council policies ‘need not be adhered to’.

Written confirmation of this attitude led to the following letter being sent on November 12, 2015.


Mr Graeme Simpson
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Shire of York
1 Joaquina Street
YORK, WA 6302

Dear Sir,

Your Ref :-               SHIRE OF YORK COUNCIL POLICY versus ITS GUIDELINES.

In the case of Local Government, the definition of ‘Policy,’ is the definitive course of required, fully documented and recorded, regulatory measures to be taken on all relevant matters associated with Local Government Council Administration- as necessitated by local community socio-economic activity, its health and wellbeing and taking into due consideration environmental factors. (Each Policy must be available for Public access, review and comment!)   

It is mandated mainly under State Local Government legislation and under advisement from local elected council representatives to assist in meeting specific local community needs, as long as it conforms to the bases of such legislation, being all its laws and statutes.

Definitive is a word that is unambiguous. It means final, ultimate, authoritative, unconditional and
without qualification.

You claim that a local government ‘Policy’, that can seriously affect an individual or a whole community, is not ‘definitive’ but is a plan or course of action, a guiding principle to influence and determine decisions.

Interpreting your words it appears that Local Government Policy is a non-regulatory, non-authoritative guideline which does not require any measured form of legal justification or appropriately formalized amendment in its implementation and administration. (We are not talking an additional twelve chickens or four horses here.)

You are talking about the ‘Third Tier of Australian Government’ policy formula and how the community can be adversely affected by it.

The original question put to you is that the Shire of York Administration considers Council policies
to be guidelines? Your final response was that it is totally wrong and unreasonable that Council policies must be adhered to.

Guideline is a word with a degree of ambiguity. It can mean just a piece of advice, recommendation
or suggestion and lacks jurisprudence.

So what did you mean?
 (There was no reply)

David Taylor
Shire of York ratepayer.

SEARTG SAGA (TIME TO ACCOUNT FOR DEATH KNELL MEL)

In July 2014, The Minister for Local Government and Communities, Tony Simpson, brought down the curtain on SEARTG, for financial reasons, by refusing to continue to fund it.

For four years the CEO of SEARTG, Dominic Carbone, and his company, Dominic Carbone & Associates (ably assisted by some local councillors, administrators and DL Consultants) performed an expensive charade on behalf of the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) and the DLGC as they created a costly nothing out of potentially something.

Incidental expenses included a $30,000 “Carpet bagging” expedition to South Australia for the SEARTG bandwagon with unbridled wining and gourmet dining enjoyed by all (including those gourmand luminaries Ray and Pat Hooper and Tony Boyle- (my oysters in Champagne thanks.)

In an official internal memorandum regarding SEARTG, dated January 22, 2013, R. Hooper ,the CEO Reporting Officer for SEARTG (with his Disclosure of Interest-nil) stated that SEARTG had been provided government (DLGC) funding of $500,000 to investigate structural reform for the region to include business, asset management, strategic community and financial planning.

As CEO of the Shire of York, Ray Hooper, then assessed the strategic implications of this financial assistance on ‘The Shire of York’s 2012 Strategic Community Plan’ goals. These 2012-2013 goals, included,’ Maintain and preserve the natural environment during growth, enhancing the rural nature of York and ensuring a sustainable environment for the future’, and, ‘Value, protect and preserve our heritage and past’.

This was as of January 22, 2013. On February 11, 2013, a Special Meeting was held in York regarding the development of agricultural land West of York for disposal of waste from the Metropolitan Area-Allawuna Farm. (This makes Ray Hooper’s documented desire to preserve the natural environment and heritage infinitely hypocritical as per usual.)

Seven days later, at the Ordinary Council Meeting, dated February 18, 2013, it was advised that the LGAB wanted SEARTG transition funding to be $3,234,342 being for investigation into all structural reform. The State Government’s recorded funding commitment was $2.94 million. (At the same time Ray Hooper’s contract of employment as CEO of the Shire of York, ending on August 8, 2013, was renewed for two years on the understanding he would gain a senior position after the SEARTG amalgamation and allow certain Councillors to suck on a multi-million dollar teat.)

There will now be a formal demand for an account of all expenditure for these years of what could   be defined as unfettered, unaccounted-for largess –a huge, nebulous, financial outlay with no known positive result. This will be forwarded to all parties deemed to bear some responsible and interest in another local government debacle. (The Auditor General, Colin Murphy, could become a very busy man.)

Once again the reasons for amalgamation failure are as transparent as the DLGC’s obvious lack of accountability, in fact, any ability.

The Local Government Advisory Board claims to be an independent statutory body set up under the Local Government Act, 1995, to assess and advise the Minister for Local Government on proposals to change local government boundaries, including all amalgamation schemes.

It is comprised of a board of nine members from DLGC, WALGA and Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) only and is directly responsible to the Minister, Tony Simpson.

There is no community interest group involvement, just the usual local government- attached leeches determined to maintain a powerbase within the framework of the lucrative local government grants, funding and salary package and allowances regime with nil compliance constraints. (So any claims of independence are at best facile, at worst non-existent.)
                                                                                                                                             

Mel Congerton - wannabe LG Commissioner

 

The LGAB Chairman is a Local Government Councillor, Mel Congerton, who is a staunch, long-serving Liberal Party member which caused the Shadow Minister for Local Government, David Templeman, to question Mr. Congerton’s personal independence and thereby his ability to appropriately chair the LGAB.

As Mr. Templeman should, particularly when the LGAB Chairman is appointed by the Minister for Local Government as being Tony Simpson’s choice - making Mr. Congerton extremely beholding to his mentor.

Almost beyond belief, but not quite, Mr. Congerton wrote to Tony Simpson in 2013 asking to become a Local Government Commissioner if the opportunity arose. This was when his LGAB was supposedly in charge of ensuring amalgamations took place within city councils and was ensuring funding for Dominic Carbone to do his thing at SEARTG.

His extremely compromising ‘begging-bowl’ effort at this time suggests Mr. Congerton expected all amalgamations to fail so he would like to be paid as a Commissioner to oversee any mess that he held much of the responsibility for creating. (It should be remembered that Local Government Commissioners are actually rare appointments, made only when a particular Local Government Council (and/ or its Administration) is deemed to be failing for some reason by the Minister for Local Government.)

Because the State Opposition found out and called for Mr. Congerton to resign, Minister Simpson had to say that his minion’s action had been ‘very inappropriate’. This malapropos understatement, brought about by the circumstances of an extreme conflict of interest, should have resulted in a statutory penalty for a chairman of a statutory body chosen by the Minister. (Like ‘see you later Mr. Congerton’.)

As of January 6, 2016, the senior members of the LGAB are Mary Adam (DLGC), Shayne Silcox (LGMA), Helen Dullard (WALGA), Karen Chappel (WALGA) and last, but by no means least- as Chairman, the so-far unsinkable Mel Congerton .

So when you read or hear a State Government Minister pontification about the independence of Independent Statutory Boards such as the LGAB, wet yourselves’ laughing. And if you are told these boards are highly competent and professional- try not to crack a rib.

Its Chairman is chosen by the Minister, it relies on the government for funding and its motley crew consists of in-house representatives who are as independent as a 2-day-old baby.  There is not one representative that could be described as being free from outside control or not subject to another authority-and with any ability other than to maintain the status quo.

It could be argued that SEARTG, funded by $3 million of our money, was never really meant to be because WALGA, the DLGC, the LGAB and the LGMA have 139 Local Government Councils to oversee and all these extra funds to play with. (The bigger the carcass, the larger the number of highly-paid vultures needing to circle overhead.)

To provide a potential successful amalgamation process, whether forced or by agreement, $3 million would be better spent by approaching the appropriate faculties at Western Australian universities to develop totally independent, logical and unbiased modelling for developing and transferring to a system of professional Local Government Regions of Councils.

Given the state of the WA economy this could be soon after March 17, 2017, without Tony Simpson, Brad Jolly, Jennifer Matthews and others like Mel Congerton who should be forming a conga-line outside Centrelink. (Unfortunately come rain, hail or shine, there will always be a Dominic Carbone, a Ray Hooper, some self-interested councillors and some lowly-skilled, public sector officers.)

David Taylor