YULETIDE IN YORK

The Festive Season is almost upon us when families gather together in unity and harmony. In many ways the community of York is a family and needs to stand united as it faces up to 2017.

In 2016 much unfavourable comment was made about Ray Hooper, Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle, Mark Duperouzel, Tyhscha Cochrane, Gail Maziuk, Jacky Jurmann, Graeme Simpson, Tony Simpson, Brad Jolly, Jennifer Matthews and James Best. Mia Davies, the Local Member, was noted as being in constant, agoraphobic absentia when most needed by the community regarding a rubbish dump.

The complete list of the destructive or inept is too long to mention. Most of them have gone and maybe it is time to stop mentioning them. What they have done to York is well known by those who want to know and those who are their friends will always be non-believers.

There is little good reason to help turn current community pariahs into future martyrs. That is unless a new scandal erupts with subpoenas issued for some more naming and shaming over document tampering.

Occasionally there will be incredulous reflection on other past Shire Council buffoonery instigated by some of those mentioned above. They include such lasting legacies of incompetent property portfolio management as the extension of a lease agreement until 2037 that could only proceed with Ministerial approval that was never sought- or having no lease agreements at all- including the York Golf Club. Most will have financial and legal ramifications.

So the murky fiscal swamp this group has created may take much time and money to drain. York is going to have to survive and attempt to thrive in a morass for a few years to come.

We now have what many thought was the full list of potentially positive game-changers, Paul Martin, Suzie Haslehurst, Paul Crewe and Esmerelda Harmer. Three have strong backgrounds in the local government industry, although this certainly does not automatically guarantee success in re-creating a rural utopia.

Yet given their past reputations it has become more and more difficult to understand why additional senior staff support is required by them. In addition, in the Shire of York Policy Manual under G 4.5, Asset Management, it nominated the Shire’s Works Manager as its ultimate authority/ asset management officer responsible under the Local Government Act, 1995, Section 56.1, Local Government (Administration) Regulations and under the DLGC’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Advisory Standard for York community assets.

This official document was dated January 28, 2016, and was not due to be reviewed until after the Local Government Elections on the third Saturday in October, 2017, by York’s incoming Council.

So just 10 months ago the Works & Services Manager, Allan Rourke, was the ultimate authority overseeing asset management for a further 11 months. What has changed, especially in areas where it could be considered to be asset management recovery, strategy and planning over-kill? Therefore the question had to be asked-why?

The Shire Administration’s informative response is that it ‘does not understand what assets it has’, ‘what condition they are in’ and how much they will ‘cost to maintain’, meaning it is unable to accurately determine any assets’ ‘long term financial sustainability’. It is an extremely serious admission with the possibility that York, as long suspected, has a large, drastic financial risk- Asset Register. (Given this, there can be no viable asset management strategy and planning scheme ready for implementation.)

Its remedy is to employ an Asset Management Officer under a three-year contract to join the team that is already in place, call it a sensible use of the Shire’s limited resources and deny this is empire building.  It is assumed that the ‘team’ mentioned as already in place is Paul Martin, Suzie Haslehurst and Paul Crewe, although this is yet to be confirmed.

The Shire will award a three-year contract as it envisages it will take that length of time just to develop detailed asset management plans, tending to suggest these years will be tough years needing four, maybe more, experts to get any sort of result.

Those who still believe that the asset management team was to be the three amigo’s, sans the officer position, but including the Works Manager, would like to know exactly when, where, how,  why, by whom and by whose ultimate authority was the decision made to create this additional position?

Mr. Martin openly admits that it was his recommendation to Council that, rather than engaging
consultants, an Asset Management Officer should be employed to do this work. He also claims that Council endorsed the asset management organizational review and the ‘officer’ recommendation.

This is the same Council that approved, Allan Rourke, as the asset management officer, being part of his other duties, at the beginning of this year. And it is the same CEO to whom it was suggested that undergraduates, studying an appropriate syllabus at local Universities, could be used to review such matters as part of an education/local government cooperative program.

Mr. Martin says that all decisions can be viewed on the Shire’s website and it is assumed that the curriculum vitae, demanded by the Shire from Asset Management Officer Applicants, are also easily located on this site. That is assuming the files are available for viewing?

Others would like to know where they can readily access the Shire’s current Strategic Community and Corporate Business Plans so they can now peruse the content in greater depth.  (An online search is greeted by ‘this file cannot be found’.)

Obviously York’s future asset ascertaining officer must have a national industry recognized qualification, the minimum being a Graduate Certificate in Asset Management or a Graduate Diploma in Asset Management with at least five-year’s experience in a similar role prior to be chosen for this ‘make-or- break’ appointment. (This should be the community expectation regarding qualifications for the role.)

The Shire claims the officer will focus on ‘capturing’ all of York’s assets, although no-one was aware that one had escaped and is hiding in a backyard at Meckering.

The Shire assures the York community that most local governments have a designated, full time
Asset Management Officer. This can be easily confirmed by contacting other Wheatbelt Shire’s such as Merredin, Dalwallinu, Dowerin, Toodyay, Goomalling, Mukinbudin, Narembeen, Morawa, Pingelly, Tammin, Wagin, Wickepin, Wyalkatchem and Kellerberrin and talk to their Asset Management Officer.

It is highly unlikely that many, even any, of these shires have the financial capacity to employ a stand-alone Asset Management Officer with nothing to do but chase and capture assets because, like York, they have limited resources.

When you read any of the dwindling lists of advertised employment opportunities in WA you will find a universal requirement. Auto technicians, chemist assistants, store persons, concierges, bar staff, wait persons and bottle shop managers all must have strong, excellent, or fantastic communications skills as a number one priority.

Certainly with the Shire of York and many other rural council administrations communication skills is neither a featured priority nor a recognized necessity, particular if it involves regular, transparent communication with the community about what is actually happening within the shire. (Community ignorance is bliss according to far-too-many local government officers.)

Those who are without strong, excellent or fantastic communication skills should not attempt to use a too descriptive term to answer a question- describe employment activities- or diffuse situations- as it can be confusing and is certainly inordinately ridiculous. The impressively expressive unskilled communications term ‘capturing assets’ comes straight from the Local Government ‘Wanka-Pedia website.

Within the Shire of York Administration, Communications appears to be a ‘C’ word- never to be used.

The closest position description, encapsulating external communications within the employment profile for any new management staff is that of, Suzie Haslehurst, being in charge of ‘Information Technology’. This mainly consists of a website, which allegedly delivers clear, concise, important and easily accessible information on a well- constructed, quality, and interesting public platform.

It should also include an efficient electronic data-base, official document storage and retrieval system that the Shire did not have 18-months ago when it was found, through a DLGC investigation, to be non-compliant with sections of the State Records Act, 2000.

Unfortunately the Shire of York’s website is an abomination for such an important, historic town. It reflects poorly on its senior management’s intent to-and involvement in- the provision of quality promotional outcomes and suggests that the current commitment by the shire to communicate with its own community and the rest of the world -is amateurish at best.
 
It should also be considered to be rather offensive and demeaning to its ratepayers.

Amid the dilapidated roads, footpaths, drains, open space and buildings, Information Technology is also classed as an Asset by the DLGC. Maybe it is one of the assets the new Asset Management Officer needs to capture and rapidly strategize and plan to use effectively.

Running down roads hunting for assets to capture is important, albeit a reactive process caused by obviously incalculable, past neglect that will generate no immediate, new, income stream potential.

Communications is a pro-active response that can provide, through renewed awareness, promotion and marketing tools for new and improved local business opportunities.

The WA Tourism Council has called for the winner of the next State Election to guarantee at least $80 million to destination tourism, one of the few investment growth opportunities in this State.

Expenditure on area promotion and festivals related to the annual $ 8 billion WA Tourism Industry by the Shire of York is less than $50,000 in this financial year-or about 0.5 per cent of its projected, overall annual income.

Within the senior ranks of York’s administration not one has a position description that encompasses and recognizes the extremely important assets that communications and tourism are and the positive end result they can provide.

Instead of hanging the dedicated  York Tourist Information Bureau office staff out to dry, trying to  capture a share of a market that is far more complex than finding local physical assets, the Shire of York should engage communications experts to plan, promote, market and sell York to the world in a timely manner. This could take 12-months but certainly not 3-years.

Instead York will get the great white asset hunter to join the elite crew. (By the way the War Memorial Krupp gun is an asset and the proposed Equine Centre at the York Race track was mooted at least 10-years ago but is still a 4-year plan in the making.)

David Taylor

ASININE ASSET ACCOUNTING (go that extra mile but not on York’s assets.)

IT IS JUST LIKE WINNING ‘LOTTO’ ……One POWERBALL and you could get a job as a Senior Local Government Officer with one of the 100-plus Rural, Regional and Remote Shire Councils in WA- York.

What can you win? Normally a salary placing you in at least the top 5 per cent of wage  earners in Western Australia, relocation and rental assistance, fully maintained vehicle or access to one, mobile phone laptop and landline payed for, probable use of a corporate credit card for meals, entertainment and sundry items, travel and further education allowances, your contract fully paid out even if you are totally useless- and you are hardly likely to be answerable to anyone important who is going to complain about your performance to anyone important.

It is usually a 37.5 hour week, no weekend rosters and with the Christmas-New Year break when many others engaged in community and customer services are working their butts off.

Any ‘further education allowance’ is a bit of a furphy because you do not really need any relevant tertiary qualifications to reach the council employee pinnacles outside of the senior management level of city councils.

In the past travel allowances have been used to attend meetings and functions that bear no relevance what-so-ever to any local community wants, needs and aspirations. It is usually a holiday when you are pretending to be working.

The Shire Councillors are highly unlikely to know what you are really up to unless they are actually told about what you cannot hide through classifying it as confidential information and it is almost impossible to be charged with any form of non-compliance under the WA Local Government Act, 1995. (Councillors are prohibited from having any direct involvement in the day-to-day running of shire business other than by being informed of such matters by the CEO- at his discretion.)  

If it gets a little too hot in the council’s gourmet kitchen, you resign taking all your massive entitlements and then get WALGA to promote you as an outstanding administrator to some other council whose members either do not or cannot read their daily newspaper about your financial destruction of another town.

You are at very long odds to be charged by WA Police with a criminal offence and the WA Corruption and Crime Commission, often called the three- C- circus, has had more mismanagement and corruption within its own ranks than successful prosecutions.

You are at even longer odds to be made accountable by your ratepayers because your Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) within your contract do not specifically qualify and quantify the results you must achieve. There are no performance requirements such as you must reduce community asset debt by at least $3 million per annum for the term of your contract, help increase tourist numbers by 20,000 per annum or the town’s overall commercial profitability by 10 per cent each Financial Year.

And, of course, the actual terms of your contract are normally withheld from ratepayers and any form of public scrutiny.

Some Councillors are unlikely to complain about your performance to anybody as you were either employed directly by Council or it approved your employment.

Senior Local Government administrators often feel the need to have at least one personal,  well paid ‘mini-strator’/manager/assistant for each major (and minor) role they undertake.

York is no exception.
Executive Manager, Suzie Haslehurst, has the YRCC asset/ liability as one of her responsibilities. She will soon have the assistance of the Asset Management Officer as well as the support of CEO Paul Martin who has overall responsibility for everything and the YRCC Manager who is obviously in charge of running the YRCC. Then there is Paul Crewe and the Planning Officer.

Executive Manager, Paul Crewe, who has Asset Planning and Asset Maintenance as part of his portfolio-also will have the assistance of the Asset Management Officer as well as CEO, Paul Martin, the YRCC Manager, the Manager Works and Services, the Planning Officer and the support of Suzie Haslehurst.

The basic requirements to be an Asset Management Officer on the Shire of York’s Official Website is to be motivated, organized, able to cope with multiple projects and a team player, similar to the advertised requirements for a junior staff member at Hungry Jacks.

You also have to be able ‘to maintain relationships with the community and stakeholders to achieve positive outcomes for the organization’. Unless the emphasis has changed dramatically York’s community is the major stakeholder and the positive outcomes should be on behalf of the community as the stakeholders- not the organization.

The full position description can be found on the Shire of York’s website www.york.wa.gov.au. But possibly not.

The advertisement is for one position only, yet the website advisory rabbits on about ‘the successful person for ‘each role’ meaning it has not been proof-read for mistakes. It is a timely reminder that if you cannot ensure all your public information is correct then how can you administer a $9 million per annum organization? (If you cannot handle the ‘small stuff’ the ‘big stuff’ can be stuffed.)

So what will come next? Will Mr. Crewe need the able assistance of a Capital Works Controller and, Ms. Haslehurst, the support of an Administration and Governance Support Supervisor? (With Paul Martin as the executive backstop when required? supported by another half-dozen new officers?)

You can make up dozens of plausible, important sounding names for new positions as you go along with no real need for them or performance parameters to justify them, other than to Council who may be hijacked into thinking they are necessary.

It may well be the case that the more employees a Shire Council has- the higher the pay grade for the executive management?

The most annoying part is why the new Asset Management Officer position should be necessary!
                                                                                                                                                            
It is because, since 2011, the Shire of York has not complied with an official local government edict to create and maintain a Local Government Asset Management Policy, Local Government Asset Management Strategy or a definitive Shire of York, Local Government Asset Register.

THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE

Instead it has turned long standing assets into huge financial liabilities by redirecting funding from established assets into new assets which are also now major liabilities- with the ratepayers bearing the brunt of every single, expensive, past mistake.

Mistakes must come to an end- and the best, in fact only time- is now! Future mistakes must not occur!

The Shire of York Council is investing around $3.3 million (or more) on behalf of the community in staff wages and benefits to get a mistake-free, positive socio-economic result in a reasonably generous time-frame.

With the acquisition of an Assets Management Officer you can add at least another $120,000 to the annual budget through wages, benefits, insurance, office space and ‘tools of trade’.

David Taylor.   

SHIRE PLANNING MIRE: / THE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MOUSE:

THE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MOUSE: -The Shire of York’s Strategic Planning Scheme strategy!

The kettle boils, a cupboard door is opened and a scream ‘Mouse’ shatters the silence of the Shire office coffee break. A distraught employee racially abuses and physically assaults two co-workers then falls to the floor in a dead faint before being sent on stress leave.

Six-month’s later the Shire’s Occupational Health & Safety Committee, after paying a psychoanalyst $50,000 for the customary report, concludes that in all probability the viewing of a mouse, in cupboard situ, feasting on the shire’s biscuits, was sufficient cause for the actions of the employee who will remain on indefinite, fully-paid stress leave.

A Confidential Workers Compensation payout of $300,000 each is negotiated with the two staff that were abused and assaulted. 

Three months later the Financial Audit Committee finds that over a three-year period, said mouse may have consumed $2000 worth of shire ‘Tim Tams’ which is changed to $200 worth of cheap assorted biscuits on the official audit report.

Within a month an emergency Senior Executive meeting is called to mouse-debate a strategic planning scheme for the removal of said mouse. However, prior to any decisions being made, legal advice must be sought from McLeod’s Solicitors’, specialist rodent legal team.

Within nine-months, and $130,000 later, McLeod’s respond, advising the Shire not to advise ratepayers of the presence of a mouse on shire premises and that said mouse can be legally removed, alive or dead.

Almost immediately, within four weeks, an executive decision is made to set up the special 2016-2056 Strategic Rodent Removal Planning Scheme Committee consisting of three sub-committees, ‘The Cheese Selection Committee’,’ The Rodent Removal  Ethics Committee’ and the Rodent Asset Committee.

Each committee is granted twelve months and $400,000 each for the obligatory approach to three separate experts on Mouse Cheese Evaluation, Mouse Removal Methods and whether the mouse should be accounted for as an asset or a liability on the Annual Financial Statements for the 2032-3033 Financial Years.

Then, for a further four-years, lots of mouse-debating occurs as the decision to engage an employee or a contractor to remove the mouse is made. At the same time an independent Compliance Probity Expert is hired at a fee of $150,000 to analyse the ethical conundrums of whether the mouse should be alive or dead when removed from the shire premises. The opinion of a Risk Management Expert is also sought for a further $50,000.

The final decision, made on July 1, 2032, is to use the open market method for the delivery of capital punishment works at an agreed fee of $3.9 million which unfortunately is $2.3 million more than the shire has in bank or asset reserves.

On December 30, 2033, a former shire employee opens a cupboard door, screams ‘Dead Mouse ‘racially abuses and assaults two former co-workers and falls to the floor in a dead faint, before being sent on stress leave by the shire liquidators.

Apparently the mouse had been dead since 2017 from diabetes related obesity caused by eating too many Tim Tams. Animal rights activists are now seeking legal advice.

This is an allegorical synopsis of how the Shire of York has acted in the past and continues to act on even the most fundamental of strategic plans for its community.

In his response to the letter to him called ‘Shire Planning Mire’ (below) regarding financial and statistical irregularities that could affect future progress and prosperity, the CEO Mr. Paul Martin, confirms his commitment to the long term financial sustainability of the Shire but completely ignores the question of its current fiscal status and extremely inaccurate estimates of its projected population growth.

The Shire is currently working to find out what assets it actually has. This is information Mr. Martin concedes the Shire does not have. This despite the fact that the demand for a regulated Local Government Asset Management Policy and Asset Management Strategy was made by the Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli, in 2011.

However we do now have funding for an assets officer to develop asset management plans for each of the six asset classes once they are found. This should have been done six-years ago.

And of course at great expense to the ratepayer, one of the world’s most prominent accounting firms, Moore Stephens, will once again conduct a financial systems review into risk management, compliance and internal controls which you would expect highly paid CEO’s and their executive staff to provide.

In the end it appears that these executive officers are here to write out the cheques for hiring experts to give advice on open market economics and tendering processes for non-existent capital works programs- at great additional cost to the ratepayers!

David Taylor. 

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

2 November 2016

QUESTIONS REALLY ARE THE ANSWERS? - Let’s hope not.

A letter has been sent to both the Shire President and the CEO explaining the reasoning for the ‘Shire Planning Mire’ article and requesting suitable public responses to the financial and statistical questions raised including a potential massive over estimation of population growth.

It contained an assurance that everyone wishes York to succeed, but that there is a large portion of the population who have seen their towns’ finances and assets infrastructure virtually destroyed by past incompetent, vindictive, local government morons, ably supported by a few councillors.

Taking a jaundiced view of the Shire’s financial situation as it now stands is no- one’s idea of having fun. However it does give the Shire the golden opportunity to advise the community, in writing and/or via radio broadcast, that these assumptions are incorrect, set the official financial record straight and allow the town to feel confident it will move forward rapidly.

Confidence will not be achieved through the release of Strategic Planning Scheme documents filled with nebulous proposals for entry-level action coupled with rhetoric on ethical behaviour. It requires actual number crunching, showing focused reasoned expenditure for future projects with forecast net returns to the community.

The Shire was reminded that six- months ago it was told of the possibility of attracting important WA
Museum exhibits to York for the next four years. Also of the popularity of modern lighting projection art forms being displayed on iconic buildings. Since then both the City of Perth and the City of Joondalup have jumped on the art-lighting band wagon.

Did the Shire of York know that the Avon Valley was being investigated for its suitability to be the site for an open plains zoo? Did it ever express any interest in having it located near York, not at Chittering?

The all-encompassing question is has anything of this, progressive, nature been investigated by the Shire recently or has time stood still until the last Shire executive arrived on Monday October 1, 2016?

It is now up to the Shire of York to find the time to respond, publically, by providing quantified and qualified reasons why York is not in serious financial difficulty or if it is- what immediate remedial actions are being taken?

If the questions being asked really are the only answers- then the people of York deserve to know.
The previous Shire’s judgement that the community was only to be told what the Shire wanted it to know is way past the used by date for public acceptance.

David Taylor.

*********

Monday 31 October 2016

Why the exorcism of the 2012 York Strategic Community Plan may not work effectively to improve its future! 

Nowadays many residents of York are asking each other difficult questions on the town’s future that may not have definitive answers and a favourable outcome.

Attempts at reasonable answers are often based on supposition because of a lack of conclusive evidence caused by the withholding of and/ or a dearth of relevant publically accessible information on financial problems.

In addition most local government strategic planning documents are full of platitudes, inanities that suggest local government officials have the ability, understanding and progressive entrepreneurship to deal with major economic issues of which they may have little grasp of- and certainly no ability to control. (Nice words-but no real formula for positive economic stimulus.)

Based on socio-economic statistics, Western Australia is now judged as the poorest performing state in Australia over a range of economic criteria including the issue of the faltering economy- causing rising unemployment, debt default and poverty.

In the end this situation is largely the responsibility of the WA State Government through its underperformance in critical areas. This, basically, is its inability to effectively control and improve the economy.

Based on similar statistics, the most underperforming sector within the Shire of York economy is the local government sector, the Shire of York Administration.

As a single administrative organisation it is probably York’s largest employer and by far the largest cost factor to the community and its economy.

The current employee salary payments and associated on-costs component of the annual budget is around $3.33 million to be sourced from the current total outstanding debt of $6.25 million. (Luckily the Shire has $3.6 million in investments and bank accounts that would cover employee costs for 12 months if everything goes pear shaped.)

In 2015 the comparison between total revenue to total operational expenditure showed a negative differential of nearly $270,000. A loss that should not occur!

Around the same time that the Shire incurred this loss it placed an added total impost over two years of a 16% rate-hike on ratepayers-five times above the annual national inflation rate. This burgeoning levy will provide up to an additional $800,000 based as a percentage of projected rate revenue of around $5 million per annum.

This amount will only help cover the annual cost of essential road maintenance and little else. This annual cost is estimated as being $1 million. (It should be remembered here that all economic modelling shows that a quality local road and major road transport system is a vital component of commercial development.)

Furthermore, based on Gross Rental Value on which rates are set, it suggests the York Real Estate market is booming with a median rental return of $400 per week and an average sale price of around $450,000 which could not be further from the truth.

It is also an economic disaster, forcing a community that has a low average household income, to pay similar rates to the well-appointed, leafy, middle income suburbs of Perth. (And last, but by no means least, it has pissed a lot of people off. So currently $5.9 million in rates remain unpaid by disgruntled ratepayers.)

Of York’s total revenue in 2015 of $9.1 million, around four million would have been government funding that in the future could be reduced or withdrawn given the current economic circumstances.

The Shire’s overall tangible assets are guesstimated at $133 million of which nearly $100 million is arguably non-saleable. This substantial figure is highly debatable as there is potentially a vast difference between book value, real market value, ultimately actual sale value and what can and cannot be sold. (The YRCC and the Old Covent School are classic examples of this.)

The Shire of York’s response has been to release its 2016-2026 Strategic Community Plan which, when viewed closely, is often a re-written, planning re-hash of its Strategic Community Plan- 2012 to the Future, overseen by Ray Hooper , Tyhscha Cochrane and Jacky Jurmann. (This was a projected future- which did not eventuate.)

This was also at a cost because an expert was hired to do the re-write.

It also contains elements of the Avon Sub-Regional Economic Strategy of 2013 that contained input from two controversial individuals. One was the Manager Planning Services  maestro from the Shire of York, Jacky Jurmann, now long departed and discredited, and Dowerin’s Mr. TAB himself , Dacre Alcock, whose regional development expertise is going nowhere for the next four-and-a-half years.

The Shire of York’s economic plan up until 2026 is partially based on 2012-13 indicators that included the mining boom, large injections of Royalty for Regions funding and assurances of the development of ‘Super Towns’,  one being Northam.

These economic positives with their affiliated development programs no longer exist- have been reduced or put on hold.

A major precursor to economic growth is population growth that exponentially increases the potential demand for local goods and services.

York’s Strategic Community Plan-2012 to the Future predicted a population of 6300 for the Shire by 2026. In 2002 the population was 3224. At this time it is recorded as being 3486, an increase in population by birth and new arrivals of just 18 per-annum, over the past 14-years.

At the current population growth rate York will fall short of its projected growth target by a massive 1644 persons and there is no current economic indicator to suggest why York’s population will reach anywhere near 6300 in ten years. (At today’s growth the population will be 3666 in 2026 (not 4600 as currently suggested by the Shire) and possibly reach 6300 by AD 2100.)

The required new infrastructure affordability including electrical power availability may well rest on the State Governments attempt to privatize Western Power before the next election.

Another development retardant is the state’s unemployment rate which is at a ten year high in a decade that included the 2007-08 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) followed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the US NINJA Housing Loan scandal (No Income, no Jobs and a hefty mortgage).

The 2016-2026 Strategic Community Plan brings with it words of comfort such as empathy, respect, courage, aspirational, affordable, adaptable, aligned and accountability.

Unfortunately this is cold comfort without any inspirational revelation of how the Shire will actually tackle its financial problems and achieve goals regarding development targets in acceptable time frames.

All state governments, when in financial difficulty, do one of two things, or both. This is reducing its workforce and/or selling off assets.

In particular asset sales are claimed to reduce debt and provide funding for critical new infrastructural developments.

Whether York, as a local government, has valuable assets that it could sell to rapidly reduce debt and provide sufficient funding to make a dramatic impact on future sustainable growth is highly debatable. (Financial records show it has estimated its saleable assets being property, plant and equipment at $34.5 million.) 

The sale of the YRCC building and its Tavern Licence, if a buyer could be found, would be lucky to gross the original Royalty for Regions grant funding. The Old Convent School would be lucky to gross $400,000. (However it would be remiss of the Council itself not to at least discuss this matter.)

The reduction in staff numbers should be an action of last resort. The impact on a small community such as York can be socially and economically catastrophic as the damage is collateral.

Normally any reductions in York’s situation will come from within the ranks of unskilled or semi-skilled employees. They are the most vulnerable, with little chance of re-employment, and any wages cost saving is comparatively small.

Any replacement will be done through the hiring of contract labour and it is extremely likely that this matter has been discussed by the current CEO and his new executive staff.

Another matter that would have been discussed, if a reduction in employee numbers has been contemplated, would be the Shire divesting itself of any unused property, plant and equipment. (Current economic conditions would suggest that the sale of unused assets would be at ‘fire-sale’ prices.)

All this must be viewed as an article by the Devil’s Advocate, based on a least positive assessment of financial figures and published proposals for developmental improvement-all sourced from official Shire of York documents.  

It does give Senior officials from the Shire of York the right to publically respond to its content and to refute, dispute, even discredit the truth and reliability of the matters raised.

Failure to publically respond may well suggest that currently the Shire of York has few concrete plans of action that will actually directly assist the future commercial development of York.

Rebuttal can be by way of explanation that the current rate shortfall of $5.9 million is because it is only four months into the financial year. Yet it certainly is a massive amount and a financial disaster in the making if 80 percent is not recouped within this financial year.

Although the population growth rate projection in 2012, that it would be 6300 in 2026, is a massive shortfall of some 2000 citizens, the Shire of York’s 2016 prediction may be less than 1000 out.

The Shire may say it has no intent to divest itself of either assets or staff. But if has not discussed these matters it would not be doing its job.

The Shire may claim that its 2012-2026 Strategic Community Plan was not used in the current one, or the amount used and its effect would be minimal. Information suggests that this would be a terminological inexactitude of Churchillian proportions.

Now congratulations to Colin King who has personally managed to drag York’s business reputation into the mire. ‘Serious dishonesty’ and the loss of his Real Estate Licence for life reflects poorly on any rural community he lives in or has used and abused to make his living.

His son Paul is likely to suffer the same fate and it is interesting to note that, in the past, there has been an alleged real estate sale business association between Colin King and former Shire President, Tony Boyle.  

David Taylor.