THE SIMPSONS (Episode 2015, titled “The Jolly Best of Luck”, based on a true story.)

The Simpsons is a Local Government farcical, cartoon character comedy set in the fictitious town of Springfield, which is actually the Shire of York.

Graeme Simpson stars as Homer, the feckless Acting CEO of the town and Tony Simpson, as the Local Government Minister Mr. Burns, the archetypal, political villain who loathes Springfield and its citizens,

There is Brad Jolly as Bart Simpson, the ignorant brat who thinks non-compliance means probity and James Best is Waylon Smithers, Mr Burns’ Local Government Commissioner ‘love child’ who comes to Springfield to teach its miscreant citizens a thing or two.

Episode 2015 is based on the formal release of Freedom of Information documents requested by some citizens of Springfield concerned about the size of Waylon Smithers pay-check compared to what he was actually up to.

Originally, Homer was asked if Mr. Smithers was double dipping, being paid $63,933.72 as Commissioner and then $39,000 (Inc. GST) as a consultant who had also brought his Hames Sharley ’Ouija Board’ to summon forth the spirits of visioning and the poltergeists of ideation?

Homer’s answer was ‘yep’ for the cost for both the consultant mumbo-jumbo and the Commissioners Fees.

That is actually both a ‘yep’ and a bit of a ‘nope’ Homer.  

It is now known that the Tax Invoice (WA) 010321) from Hames Sharley for Smithers’ Review of Springfield Local Planning Strategy was for $39,000 with $36,000 going to Smithers.

But, the official Springfield Credit Payments Listing for the payment to Hames Sharley for the Review of Springfield Local Planning Strategy was for Tax Invoice (WA 01030 (wrong invoice) and for $41,775.53 (wrong amount.) Now that is $2,775.53 worth of funny business.

The Credit Payment Listing also suggests Mr. Smithers was paid $13,200 per month, which over a six month period, works out to be $79,200, with an additional $8,000 allowance for Springfield ‘sleepovers’.

Springfield also paid $19,000 in legal fees in this time. Normally you do not have to pay for lawyers if you have done nothing wrong.

Adding up the cost of Smithers monumental achievements, over a six month period he left Springfield close to $1 million poorer.

So this is what makes The Simpsons so much fun to watch.

Then ‘gasp’ we find that Smithers may not be Mr. Burns love-child after all.

Homer tells Springfield that Mr. Burns wanted a commissioner and a trainer/mentor to bring Springfield into line.

A very grumpy Mr. Burns responds to Homer, telling him that neither he or his Department of Local Government and Communities approved or endorsed additional payments to be made to Mr. Smithers to undertake either community visioning or council training.

Also, that Homer better tell this to Springfield or else, because he lied to its citizens.

However you have to give it to Homer. He turns around and effectively calls Mr. Burns a liar, reminding him of his initial letter of instruction indicating that Mr. Smithers had been given a dual role carrying out the duties of the Council- and training.

Whether you believe the words of a either a politician or an Acting CEO depends on how far you can hurl a 5,000 kg elephant. Then Bart, one of Mr Burns’ favourite brats, puts in his two cents worth.

This is because as Executive Director, Sector Regulation and Support, Bart regulates nothing, supports nothing and had probably just had one of Mr Burns’ shiny Florsheim’s embedded between his buttocks because of his retarded efforts.

Initially Bart had been in it up to his eyebrows in Springfield, introducing Waylon Smithers to Homer in January 2015.

Bad brat Bart told Homer that Smithers was a jolly well qualified consultant in community visioning and both he and Mr Burns would support Homer in hiring Smithers to be both the Commissioner and a community vision consultant.

Later Homer gets a few guffaws from the audience when he makes the understatement of the year that from then on Bart ‘was very quiet during the whole process’.

It appears that Bart forgot to tell Mr. Burns about his sanctioning Homer to do the dual hiring. Then has the audacity to infer that he had never suggested that Smithers be hired, and paid extra, as a consultant.

Regarding Bart, you can believe what he tells you for the distance you can toss a Boeing 747.

Timing is an integral part of comedy and Burns and Bart had let all this visioning, training bullshit fester from January 2015 to September 2015 at an extremely expensive laugh a minute, and after Smithers had already left Springfield.

The big joke is that all this not so funny comedy of errors occurred when Springfield did not have a council because according to Mr. Burns, it had made too many errors. Now that is the biggest laugh of all and makes Mr. Burns look even more stupid.

Credits roll
David Taylor

Now you can read the FOI documents.

IT IS TIME TO RELEASE THE FITZ GERALD REPORT (Then there will be nothing left to hide.)

Date Feb 17, 2016
Hon. Tony Simpson
Minister for Local  Government and Communities
8^th Floor Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH, 6005

Dear Minister

Your Ref:-                              ‘GOODNIGHT AND GOODLUCK’  (Ed Murrow)
                                                           (The Fitz Gerald Report)
  
It is predicted that in March, 2016, you will have your appellation and ministership removed by Premier, Colin Barnett, in a much anticipated, and necessary, ‘Cabinet reshuffle’.

If the debacle that was your markedly ill-informed, and belated, interference with the Shire of York Council is a measure of the quality of your supervision as the Minister for Local Government and Communities, then your probable dismissal is well deserved.

In April 2014, at the time of Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper’s resignation from his position, you made a media statement that “to have Ray resign, it’s going to put a bit of a hole in York”.

This was a supportive, deferential assertion, in direct contradiction to well documented contrary evidence, regarding Mr. Hooper’s long-term narcissistic, manipulative and arguably incompetent employment performance, which was already in your possession.

You went on to state that Mr. Hooper’s resignation had come “at a time there is a bit of community pressure on a number of issues”.

At this time you were fully conversant with what these issues were and chose to make the insulting inference that these York community complaints were isolated and puerile, even though they were numerous and legitimate, dated back prior to your term in office, and also came from other Local Government Areas such as Kalgoorlie and Chittering.

One of these ‘bits’ of community pressure came after the Shire of York Council administration was found by an independent regulatory authority of appropriate jurisdiction to be ‘defective’ which has the synonyms of ‘broken, flawed, inept and useless’.

From April 16, 2014, it was patently obvious that your intent was to support Mr. Ray Hooper, castigate the community of York and malign the Shire of York President, Matthew Reid, because they had the temerity to question your ability and authority, and that of your department.

On July 8, 2014, the SEARTG experiment was effectively cancelled through actions taken by you.

On July 25, 2014, just 17 days later, the Fitz Gerald Report was allegedly released, raising serious Local Government compliance and integrity issues regarding York’s former Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper, and former Shire of York Council Presidents, Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper.

You were fully aux fait with what would be the content of the Fitz Gerald Report well before its release and realized that the adverse naming of these individuals in this report did not auger well for the continuing positive development of SEARTG.

This triumvirate was an integral and influential group within SEARTG from its inception. One had resigned and you were aware that the other two could be forced to resign or not seek re-election, leaving your support for SEARTG in a potentially parlous position without a powerful contingent representing the largest council, the Shire of York.

You would have also realized that the actions of these three could be found unacceptable by other Local Government Area members of the SEARTAG group. Even SEARTG’s Chief Executive Officer, Dominic Carbone, was again adversely mentioned in this report.

I now bring to your attention the alleged malicious falsehood generated by you regarding the release of the Fits Gerald Report that is actually dated by its author, Michael Fitz Gerald, as being on July 22, 2014. This is three days prior to its supposed ‘official’ release to the President and Councillors of the Shire of York on July 25, 2016.

A fairly brief summation of the report and its recommendations, titled ‘York council could probe former Chief’ by Kate Emery, was published in The West Australian Newspaper on July 26, 2014.
  
The article chose to name Mr. Ray Hooper, Mr. Tony Boyle and Mr. Pat Hooper as having allegations to answer in the public interest. Also, that at least seven other persons had abrogated their responsibilities and should, publically, have to explain why.

Prior to publication the newspaper would have assured itself, through its lawyers, that it had the legal right and a public obligation to do this.

At no stage since have those adversely mentioned in the report sought to take legal action against anyone over the content of the article and the Fitz Gerald Report itself. The affected councillors chose not to publically defend their reputations and have left the Shire of York Council in disgrace.

You and senior members of your staff deliberately and methodically set out to bring Matthew Reid’s reputation into disrepute, a reprehensible action by a Minister of the Crown and his bureaucracy.
Therefore, you, and your staff owe the former President of the Shire of York, Matthew Reid, a public apology.

It will certainly be a surprise to all if you have the good grace or internal fortitude to do this.

In an attempt to salve a modicum of your lost reputation you should now ensure that the Fitz Gerald Report is released to the community of York and allow, in this instance, your successor to take up your role with a clean slate.

You have the power and the obligation to set the record straight and do something decent for a community that is part of ministerial role to support.

The release of the report will give a community closure- as there will be nothing left to hide.

Yours sincerely

David Taylor.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL COUNCILLORS (But Policy Review is not your job.)

While many enjoyed the Christmas/ School Holiday break catching up with family and friends , the Shire of York Councillors spent a lot of their time with an expensive, independent expert, trying to catch up with a much needed, mandatory ‘Policy Review’ and badly needed amendments. (This is right now- not in the past, but certainly caused by it-and specialist experts can cost at least $1,000 per-day!)

By statute Local Government Area Policies must be continuously reviewed, in a nominated timely manner, to ensure that they meet ever changing, Local Government Area objectives including health, safety, building and planning standards defined as being in the best overall interest for the growth and economic and social wellbeing of the local community.

It is not a prerequisite for elected Local Government Council members to be directly involved in any policy review, other than voicing the opinion of ratepayers where they feel that a policy may impinge on individual rights and some amendments could be justified.

Policy Review and amendment is what the Chief Executive Officer and his most senior Public Service Officer are paid, in York, close to a half-a-million dollars to do as part of their contract of employment.

According to the WA Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, York is a Band 3 Local Government Area regarding allowances remuneration to Councillors for their commitment of time and effort. This means that the current Shire of York Council of seven elected members would be lucky to claim, as a group, the annual amount spent by Ray Hooper on travel, meals, accommodation and incidentals accrued on his corporate credit card. (An average- in the vicinity of $25,000 per annum.)

Band 3 Local Government Area Councillors are not adequately remunerated, given the responsibilities they undertake and the community expectations they must be seen to meet.

In some ways this explains the abiding interest of some past Shire of York councillors and presidents in turning SEARTG into the South East Avon Voluntary Regional Organization of Councils (SEAVROC).

An avaricious motive would be that this would have increased certain Council Member’s allowances to Band 2 levels, a potentially massive multiplication.

The latest available Salaries & Allowances Tribunal figures show that the Lord Mayor of Perth (Band 1) can claim up to $133,000 before getting stuck into Conflict of Interest gratuities. Mayors and or Presidents on Band 2 can claim an annual allowance of up to $61,800 prior to accepting potentially illegal gifts of travel and entertainment. Band 3 is less than 30 percent of that, if you are lucky.

However all senior Local Government Area Public Service Officers are extremely well remunerated for the services they are supposed to provide, but sometimes do not!
Regular and proper Local Government Area Policy Reviews were not carried out by Ray Hooper with the support of his Deputy, Tyhscha Cochrane.

Nor was it carried out by Acting CEO, Michael Keeble, with the support of his Deputy, Tyhscha Cochrane.

Acting CEO Graeme Simpson was requested to undertake the review and, although having the support of a Commissioner, James Best, and for a period of time Tyhscha Cochrane, he did nothing.

Acting CEO, Mark Dalcombe, was engaged to do the review but has been unable to do so because he has had no senior Public Service Officer support to allow him to undertake this potentially, time- consuming task. (Tyhscha Cochrane has only just returned from Maternity Leave.)

So it was (and still is) up to Shire of York Councillors to assist a highly paid, external contractor to review and amend, where necessary, up to 54 Local Government Area Policies that should have been done, in-house, under contracts of employment, by those already paid to do so. (The additional contracting cost should appear buried within the Materials and Contracts section of the Shire of York, Annual Report for the 2015-2016 Financial Year.)

Besides what they have already done, the Shire President and his fellow Councillors should be commended for Council’s public broadcast of what Council considers to be a reasonable explanation of the meaning of ‘policy’ when related to Local Government in York. (This was published within ’The Voice of York’ pages 6 and 7, The York & Districts Community Matters, February 2016 edition).

Former Acting CEO, Graeme Simpson, had a distinct problem with what a Local Government Area Policy meant, what constituted an amendment and what-on-earth was a guideline. So Council has publically set the record straight.

Once the Policy Review process is complete it will be up to the individual ratepayers to assess the impacts of the review and any amendments it contains

The fact that each Shire Council has to have its own, personalised Code of Conduct is a continuing anachronism that has led to well publicised Conflict of Interest investigations, in particular the acceptance of gifts. (It can be argued that the current Code of Conduct is not working,)

The Code of Conduct is regulated by The Local Government Act 1995, The Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1995 and The Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 with some additions and amendments by individual Shire Councils.

In the Shire of York Council’s case, one such addition under Interaction with Employees says   1. This includes but is not confined to harassment and discrimination on the grounds of gender, pregnancy, age, race or ethnicity, religious belief or allegiance, nationality, political affiliation, marital status, disability or sexual orientation. (These are noble sentiments indeed, adapted from what began as The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, but for what reasons was it inserted in York’s Local Government Area Policy Review?)

What should be added is the WA Criminal Code Act, Compilation Act, 1913.

The current Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson, recently set the ball rolling by demanding that Shire of York Councillors receive training. Once this process is completed, state wide, individual councillors should be made totally responsible for their own actions.

This should include, where a serious Policy breach has occurred, individual councillors forgoing their right to local government, ratepayer-funded  legal support, be forced to reimburse the full cost of what was the cause of the breach, fined an appropriate pecuniary penalty according to the level of severity of the breach and or, where necessary, incarcerated. (This will basically put the CCC out of business and stamp out breaches (even those myriad Minor Breaches) allegedly investigated by the Local Government Standards Panel.)

Another reason for some enthusiastic optimism is Councils’ policy regarding future Chief Executive Officers.

A major Key Performance Area (and quality of service indicator) will be that the CEO will be totally responsible for all staff including their initial employment, the standards set for their employment performance through their own Key Performance Indicators and any internal and external employee infractions that could denigrate the integrity of the Shire of York. (Putting it in a blunt context, if his staff do not perform to reasonable expectations, it’s the CEO’s head on the chopping block,)

There is one perceived anomaly that the Shire of York Council should see the necessity for it to be redressed. It is with regard to the monthly publication of ‘The Voice of York’ within the editorial pages of The York& Districts Community Matters Newspaper.

Although informative, it is still a form of propaganda, as a paid advertisement published for and on behalf of a Local Government, the Shire of York Council. It arguably crosses the boundaries regarding regulation of what is generally acceptable in the publication of government information in the print media.

It can be easily rectified by a small advisory notice within the pages of The Voice of York stating that the Voice of York is published on behalf of The Shire of York, 1 Joaquina Street, York WA 6302.

Should Council decide to seek a legal opinion on this then it can approach Media Lawyers such Allens (08) 9488 3700, Corrs, Chambers Westgarth on (08) 9460 1666, or alternatively the Australian Press Council on (02) 9261 1930.

For those who still do not wish any one to dwell on the past, remember the Shire of York mantra.
‘BUILDING ON OUR HISTORY TO CREATE OUR FUTURE’.

David Taylor

THREE STRIKES (Shire of York Annual Report 2014-15 Financial Year)

Western Australia has ‘Three Strikes’ Mandatory Sentencing Laws which basically mean, if you commit three criminal offences, you can go straight to jail, no matter what. 

Currently the Western Australian economy is in a parlous, degenerative state because of too great a reliance on the ‘Mining Boom’, now in rapid decline through a major downturn in Chinese economic growth.

This indicates that the second half of the ‘2015-16 Financial Year’ will see a marked reduction in State Government expenditure, including loans and grants (such as Royalties for Regions funding) , provided to WA’s Local Government Areas.

There is also the concern of a pending parliamentary upheaval with the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson, likely to be replaced in March. (The Premier has little choice but to do so as no government policy for major Local Government Area change has been successfully implemented since Simpson took office.)

Mr. Barnett’s publically stated opinion on ‘Local Government’, in general, is that it has some highly overpaid employees, its staffing levels are too high compared to the services actually delivered, it is pillaging the pockets of its ratepayers, its financial recording activities are considered incompetent by the Auditor General and some of these activities are giving the highly expensive Corruption and Crime Commission a reason to exist.

If a ‘Three Strikes’ policy was linked to the overall performance of Local Governments’ in Western Australia there would be an alarming number of councils in serious trouble.

Information provided in the Shire of York’s ‘Annual Report for the Year Ending June 30, 2015’ seems to verify some of the Premier’s adverse perceptions.

Two of the Shire of York’s Local Government Public Service Officers earned annual cash salary that placed them in the top 4 per cent of Australia’s wages and salary earners. This does not include the 30 per cent (at least) individual on-costs consisting of annual and long service leave, Superannuation entitlements, use of motor vehicles, use of corporate credit cards- and possible rental assistance.

This suggests that one of these officers’ total salary packages was around $225,000, the other, $250,000.

If you add the two other staff members whose salary cash component was in excess of $100,000, you will find just four staff members cost York ratepayers in the vicinity of $800,000, in 2014-15.

It is claimed that these officers were entitled to be paid within these salary bands. (Normally such salaries are based on a high level of performance linked to substantive Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) and compulsory levels of acquired tertiary qualifications, experience and achievement.)

Within the Shire of York offices there were also four designated Customer Services Officers and four Administration Support Officers, among the 26 administrative staff evaluated by the Shire as being a major part of its $3,478,180 ‘employee costs’. (The total number of staff employed throughout the 2014-15 reporting period was 42, with 11 resignations (and/ or terminations) and 5 new staff were hired.)

Materials and Contracts add another $2,988,116 as additional employee related on-costs. That is if ‘materials’ means what is used by Shire employees to deliver required services, and ‘contracts’ includes the hiring of third-parties to deliver services that Shire employees are unable to provide. 

In the last Financial Year, the senior Public Service Officers of the Shire of York delivered incoming revenue of $9,154,328 from a total expenditure of $9,532,115, a negative variance of $377,787.

It is claimed that there is a surplus of $1,998.492, fortified by a Government Financial Assistance Grant of $742,000. This will mean a reduction in such funding for the 2016-17 Financial Year, thereby diminishing  the amount of restorative roadworks and deferring a Tourist Walk Trail upgrade, indefinitely.

The loan for the purchase of the Old Convent School building and surrounds of $625,000, excluding  interest repayments, appears to be scheduled for this Financial Year with the potential to further reduce any form of State Government assistance to the Shire in 2015-16 and beyond.

As an example of Key Performance Areas (KPA’s) that are supposed to be instigated,  stimulated and supported  through Shire planning and development service, the value of building works within the Shire of York has fallen by 35 per cent since the 2012-13 Financial Year.

The tourism promotion and marketing of York, to assist in increasing tourism numbers, was $10,000 provided for regional area promotion of the Avon valley and $8,144 for local events with the potential to attract tourists. (A sum of $30,000 was held in trust on behalf of ‘The York Jazz Festival’ that no longer exists.)

So is the Shire of York Administration, especially its Senior Public Service Officers, currently meeting the reasonable expectations of the York community regarding its socio-economic aspirations and improvement in lifestyle? (That is- are they meeting what should be the KPI’s in all KPA’s?)

One method of evaluation is Situation, Task, Action, Result or (STAR).

The current Situation is that:-

1. In the Shire’s last reporting period, there was a shortfall of $377,787 between
    expenditure and revenue raised.

2. Approximately 26.5 per cent of the nominated surplus is a Government Financial
     Assistance Grant.

3. Around 70 per cent of all expenditure is employee- related, including all salary costs,
    materials (including plant and equipment), contracts and utilities

4. The value of building works has declined by a total of 35 per cent over three consecutive
    annual reporting periods.

5. In 2014-15, just 0.19 per cent of an annual expenditure of $9.532.115 was allocated to the
    marketing and promotion of York for any purpose, tourism or otherwise.

The Task is for ratepayers is to accept or reject this economic performance, bearing in mind that the variance in revenue to expenditure in the last Financial Year can be referred to as a minor form of insolvency.

 The Action is for the Shire of York Council to demand, from its Administration, that there is an annual growth rate, which at least matches the inflation rate, in all necessary, economic KPA’s- or York’s local economy will be in a recession.

The Result will depend on the Shire of York Council’s ability to ensure that the Shire of York Administration can meet benchmark KPI’s in all KPA’s.

A number of people in the York community insist that the past has to be forgotten so a brighter future can be realized.

What is here is the economic situation at present. So now you can work out the future!

David Taylor
York Ratepayer.