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.
Of course you didn't receive a reply David. Your used too many big words, made sense and worse still you asked a question!
ReplyDeleteI'm pleased that the 'new' Council is considering overturning the ridiculous biased "Unreasonable Complainant" policy that Best and Simpson introduced on 6 July last year, remember, that was the meeting where armed police were in attendance as quasi bodyguards for James Best who "feared for his safety". 'Worker'!
ReplyDeleteThe policy was instigated by Simpson, Maziuk and the union, Maziuk was terrified she would be jobless as soon as Matthew Reid was reinstated, which happened to be the day after Best and his sidekick Simpson adopted the "Unreasonable Complainant" policy. My word, James Best was busy destroying York in those last few days of his sovereignty. 'Worker'!
Regardless of what some naysayers have to say about the 'new' Council, they are committed to establishing strong policy focused decision making, so theoretically, all the naysayers should now sleep well after they read (those who can) the policies and have an understanding of the direction Council is taking.
Policy will dictate decisions from now on, not a reprehensible repulsive reptile like Ray Hooper, I know that won't sit comfortably with some of Ray's sycophantic cohorts, but tuff titty, times are changing, welcome to the new world.
What will the carriage goers make of it?
For 3 years Ray Hooper with support from Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper constantly changed the rules re running an event in York which made sustainability and risk impossible to manage. Whilst policy might not be concrete and subject to interpretation at least they wont be "under review" which meant - we can do what we like if we dont like you. Bring on robust policies I say.
ReplyDeleteValid point AEM. Even if you don't agree with the content of a policy, at least you know where you stand. Boyle and the Hooper's had one direction 'amalgamation', nothing else mattered, all other Council business was based on personalities. Councils thinking process was purposefully kept vague and ambiguous this allowed Ray Hooper to abuse the processes.
DeleteRay Hooper with his outdated so called policies and procedures was going to rule the world, that's until Reid the iceberg slashed a gaping hole in his planned voyage to the top. taking out some of those compartments one by one. cant wait to have modern up to date policy from the new council.
ReplyDeleteThere is a considerable distinction between 'policies' and 'guidelines'. Put simply, policies set out WHAT an organisation intends to do in relation to specific areas of interest or activity. Guidelines state HOW policies should be implemented. The detestable halfwit Simpson could never have got his mind round that.
ReplyDeleteFrom the big man himself..Mr Denis McLeod
ReplyDeleteLocal Government Update The Role of Policy in Local Government Decision-making - Lessons from the Save Beeliar Wetlands case
The decision of Chief Justice Wayne Martin on 16 December 2015 in the case Save Beeliar Wetlands (Inc) v Jacob [2015] WASC 482 (Save Beeliar Wetlands case) contains much useful discussion of the role of policy in administrative decision-making processes, which has potential application to local governments, particularly in their making and application of local planning policies. Summary of decision The gist of Martin CJ’s decision was that:
(a) In the circumstances of the Save Beeliar Wetlands case, the EPA was legally obliged to take account of policies which it had developed to facilitate the performance of its functions with respect to environmental impact assessment: [4] and [183];
(b) As the EPA did not take account of its policies in its assessment of the Proposal for extension of the Roe Highway from the Kwinana Freeway to Stock Road (Stage 8), its environmental impact assessment, and its report and recommendations to the Minister allowing the Proposal to proceed, were invalid;
(c) The Minister’s decision to allow the Proposal to be implemented, relying on the EPA’s report and recommendations, was consequently also invalid;
(d) The EPA must determine, in light of the Court’s reasons and in light of current circumstances, the steps which must be taken to undertake and complete an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal which conforms with its obligations under the EP Act.
That is a brief summary of the effect and the significance of the case. But there is a great deal of discussion in the reasons of Martin CJ on the subject of policy, and the way in which policy should be dealt with by decision-makers.