ASSETS? WHAT ASSETS!

An asset in a Local Government Area’s case should be some material thing that has real commercial value, is readily available to meet community debt, cover past and future commitments to the community and be an endowment for its future for generations to come.

Does the Shire of York have these kinds of easily recognizable, valuable assets?
NO

If the Shire of York approached any private lending institution, from banks to cash convertors, for a loan would it have readily available assets to guarantee finance for a substantial community capital investment project?
SORRY!

It would have to rely on its limited cash reserves or a Commonwealth or State Government handout.

One asset that York has, but many do not identify- is the Avon River. It has a high level of commercial value potential as a tourist attraction but is neither a saleable item or owned by the Shire.

It has also suffered from serious neglect that should have been recognised by the Minister for Water, Mia Davies, when she was deliberately ignoring the Allawuna Farm debacle.

Government agency boundaries of responsibility are often intentionally blurred. However since the closure of the Water and Rivers Commission, Ms. Davies Department of Water has some management authority of WA’s river systems including their quality.

According to all the current Opinion Polls Ms. Davies is five weeks away from sitting on the opposition benches or going back to mixing cocktails.

State Parliament has already been prorogued, so Ms Davies can only make pork barrelling promises to the second largest town in her electorate that she may not be able to keep.

One million dollars to clean up and improve the ambiance of the Avon River at York would have many positives for the future of York tourism and the town itself. Unfortunately snowballs do not survive in Hell.

One thing that has escaped recognition, and close scrutiny, is the Asset called ‘Human Capital’ from which it is possible for material things to be created of real commercial value, where appropriate financial management can meet and reduce community debt, ensure past and future commitments are covered through good governance and ensure future prosperity.

These Assets should be the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of York, Paul Martin, the Executive Manager Corporate and Community Services, Suzie Haslehurst and the Executive Manager Infrastructure and Development, Paul Crewe.

Human Capital, in this instance, means the combination of demonstrable skills, knowledge and experience possessed by a Local Government Officer viewed in the context of their value/ or cost to the community employing them.

In combination this Human Capital asset threesome is costing the ratepayers of York around $700,000 per annum in financial imbursements.

Unfortunately for Ms. Haslehurst she was recently the subject of what is called a ‘Fishing Trip’ when a line is thrown into muddy waters to see what is caught- besides mud.

Ms Haselhurst was landed hook, line and sinker when she responded to questions regarding her knowledge of the YRCC, proving herself to be a local government official expert on delivering a response that was more and more about less and less until her reply was all about nothing!

Her valuation as an asset to the ratepayers of York should now be questioned.

A mortgage loan officer for a major bank receives half the overall salary package that Ms. Haslehurst does. Yet this person must sell around $20 million worth of housing loans per annum to guarantee a permanent employment position in an extremely competitive market.

No quantified demand what-so-ever is placed on the Executive Manager Corporate and Community Services to reduce costs, improve services and produce an acceptable profit from overseeing finances, human resources, information technology, customer services, administration and governance, the YRCC and the Forrest Bar & Café, the swimming pool and the library.

Ms. Haslehurst’s future executive decisions a far more likely to generate substantial, unsustainable debt than a profit. Paul Martin and Paul Crewe’s judgements may provide the same scenario.

It must be realized now that no executive officer within any Shire Council administration should feel too comfortable, nor should any elected official. Their actions will continue to be monitored, with or without their knowledge, and reported to government officials, appropriate authorities, and online, if they considered to be less than satisfactory.

In 2014, a document universally known as The Fitz Gerald Report mysteriously appeared at 50 Hasler Road, Osborne Park, registered offices of The West Australian newspaper. Its content was scrutinized by a company lawyer and the decision made to publish an article in the public interest the next day.

The names of former CEO Ray Hooper and Councillor’s Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper were published yet no action for defamation was taken by them against either the publisher, the author of the work, or the owner, the Shire of York and its community.

It resulted in the discrediting of two elected members of local government, eventually leading to both their resignations and finally a mass exodus of unpopular, incompetent Shire staff.

A continuous barrage of criticism from private citizens against Tony Simpson, the then Minister for Local Government, directed to the Premier Colin Barnett saw Simpson resign, citing his lack of confidence in Barnett, when it was the Premier’s lack of confidence in him that led to his demise.

Overall the phenomenon is known as ‘People Power’.

Many in York claim it is a conservative community. So is Nedlands yet it has every social, business and public amenity known to man.

Conservatism is not a bad ethos when it does not mean unenterprising, unprogressive and stultified.

When houses are empty, businesses closed and population drifts away it is reactionary development restraint called ‘conservatism’ in name only, nothing else, with potential for there to be nothing left.

So when the doors of Aldi open in Northam, how reactionary, enterprising and progressive will York’s conservative shoppers be. We will all have to wait and see and that includes the management and staff at York IGA!

The last Monday in February, 2017, is the 27^th. This should be the date of the first Ordinary Council Meeting of the Shire of York Council for the year.

It will be portentous and ominous occasion when the progress made by the Shire of York in sorting out the problems and providing proper discussion papers for delivering fair and equitable resolutions for the YRCC and the newly named Forrest Bar & Grill, and other matters, will come under intense scrutiny from those very good at ‘scruting’.

If it is not $700,000 worth-then the Shire of York’s reputation will be put to the pen that is far mightier than the sword. Any criticisms will be fair and objective- not deliberately destructive!

David Taylor.
     

THE ASSET HUNTER

 A Novel by A Asset Hunter

Chapter 1.
I stood like a statue, swathed in black-ink darkness, surrounded by eerie, lonely silence.

My nostrils had been assailed by a peculiar, yet familiar stench, the decomposing corpse of an asset.

I groped for my torch, flicking the switch, releasing a narrow stream of silvery light across bristling blades of grass- a park, an asset, alive. I flipped open my notebook and wrote down my find.

Cautiously moving forward, breathing heavily, I spied a dark, swamp-like pool, the source of the odor.

I smiled to myself, relieved, it was not one of ours, the Avon River is the responsibility of the
Department of Water.

Catlike, I span around and moved towards a row of darkened buildings. I noted the time, 9 PM.

I stepped out into emptiness, my footsteps beating a hollow, sad refrain on the pavement asset lining Avon Terrace.

With heavy heart I recalled the lyrics of an Elvis song, ‘down at the end of lonely street at Heartbreak Hotel’.

Yet in this street, the hotel was already in darkness along with every other business.

For a second, I thought I could hear music, laughter, frivolity borne on a gentle breeze wafting through the town from the east.

It was nothing, just my imagination.

I remembered that the happiness enjoyed at the beautiful old house on the hill was soon to be a memory. Not my problem, not our asset, but I felt for those who had their own lovely asset removed through unprincipled principles.

I thought, the world can be a cruel place, when just a few curmudgeons could end the wedding bliss of many.

My eyes caught a shimmering light, a beacon in the blackness. I was drawn towards it like a moth to a flame.

I knew what it was, the jewel in the asset crown, the shining example of a modern asset, the Shire of York owned Tavern now known as the Forrest Oval Bar and Café.

Had it recently changed its name? Why? For what reason?  My care factor was as non-existent as cars in a local carpark I was instantly alert, the hairs sticking up on the back of my neck with excitement, recalling my past examination of forensic evidence. 

There were the photographs of noisy, crowded streets, cluttered with tourists. The dancing and singing, - the once cherished musical cacophony of jazz. Ethereal, yet tangible, liabilities. Thankfully shrouded in the mists of time- and soon to be forgotten.

I flipped open my notebook to where I had hastily scribbled ‘events’ noting the exciting sporting action of mixed social bowls, social twilight bowls and cricket training.

To cap it off was the $6 Kids Meals at the asset affectionately known as the YRCC, KFC.

Now I realized just how far forward York had advanced over a decade with assets like this.

Feeling the need to explore an actual asset, I entered the brightly lit bar. The hollow echo was familiar. The bar was empty.

No, not quite, huddled in a corner were two men- important men. Maybe they were once shire presidents, at least councillors.

I moved forward. One turned his head and snarled at me “Piss off- this is my bar and my town”!

Did he actually say that? - I can’t recall.

As I stepped back into the darkness something dawned on me.

With apologies to Raymond Chandler.

David Taylor.

IS IT CROTTY TIME?

Shire CEO, Paul Martin, said he wanted an Asset Management Officer to ‘capture’ those illusive local historical, economic and social investment and development indicators called ‘Assets’.

The Shire of York may have now tracked down the one to hunt York assets that have been on the loose since the early 21^st Century, with some long since morphing into liquidity liabilities through past council policies of insanity.

The chosen one’s role will be to arrest road damage and decay, hunt for historic sites, pursue parks, gardens and public property, catch-up with culverts, seize a swinging bridge and swimming pool, tackle technology failures and wrestle with the wreckage of the YRCC. (The YRCC is one asset that is known to exist because Executive Manager Corporate & Community Services, Suzie Haslehurst, has said so.)

A possible candidate, Mr. Andrew Crotty’s work related resume is quite impressive.

He has engaged in Road Asset Management System’s Operation and Management, Road Asset and Pavement Condition Data Analysis, Data Capture Technology and Systems and Information Management and Data Flow Processes on behalf of ARRB Group, a road engineering consultancy specialist.

This means he can provide concrete advice and solutions for bad roads, poor pavements and the Shire’s near to non-existent and inefficient data technology and documented information management systems.

The last problem, totally dysfunctional and lax records management, was proven by former President, Tony Boyle, when he publically besmirched the character of some ratepayers by bitching that it cost $90,000 to cover simple requests for FOI information from the Shire’s database.

These were records lost, trashed or were being deliberately suppressed for which he threatened dire public retribution to those who asked for them.

This was just prior to the DLGC discovering that the Shire of York was in breach of the standards of records retrieval required under the State Records Act, 2005

Even now, in 2017, Ms. Suzie Haslehurst  claims she is still trying to find the records of the YRCC dating back to when the doors opened.

Having left ARRB Group in 2014, from January to October 2015, Mr. Crotty has amused himself at the City of Stirling developing asset management principles and practices for the council’s building department.

This was followed by his current stint collecting data for the building department of the Town of Cambridge to be used for asset management purposes.

Mr. Crotty was obviously extremely efficient in his time at Stirling Council or they actually had the mandatory up-to-date Asset Register for him to review- that the Shire of York apparently does not have.

He has spent an average of 16 months in his past three positions and appears to have been unemployed or holidaying between October, 2015 and March, 2016. (Maybe this is because asset management is not considered to be a full time, or long term appointment within metropolitan local government councils?)

Should he be the one who takes up the Shire of York’s, apparently permanent challenge, he will have a hard local road to travel with collapsing edges, missing bitumen and heavy haulage problems  created by the closure of Tier3 grain rail lines.

Since 2011, when the Shire of York allegedly diverted road funding to the YRCC glass mausoleum, there has been continuous, contentious, systemic and perpetuated failings in the design, construction and maintenance of York’s local road system and related structures.

At the same time there has been no appropriate measurement of the Australian Road Safety Standards required to be met by Council for its roads and related structures.

As of May 2016, the Shire had a 60% annual shortfall in available funding to keep York’s roads in their current condition, with nothing left for improvements.

As a Local Government Area it bears a responsibility and duty-of-care to all road users to ensure they can travel safely, at the speed limits on its road assets.

Any necessity for the Shire of York to have permanent Asset Management Officer dates back to 2004 and the advent of Ray Hooper. It is for sure and certain that Hooper would feel no need to create or maintain a Shire of York Asset Register.

Known asset grant stripping to fund the creation of another asset was a game that Ray Hooper later played with the full cooperation of President’s, Pat Hooper and Boyle, supported by a majority of councillors.

It is another case of the past haunting York’s present, and future- with the need for another hired hand to seek and shift the deckchair assets on the Titanic.

Paul Martin took over the position of CEO with local expectations that he would turn deficiencies into efficiencies. This resulted in the removal of Tyhscha Cochrane, Gail Maziuk and Gordon Tester.

This is where the efficiencies may have ended with the hiring of two Executive Managers, Paul Crewe and Suzie Haslehurst, another senior officer in Esmerelda Harmer and the soon to be appointed Asset Management Officer.

In the efficiency modelling scheme of things, four senior employees replacing three is an overall financial administration negative- not a positive.

When Suzie Haslehurst’s responsibilities include managing assets such as information technology, the YRCC, the swimming pool and the public library it makes you start to wonder?

When Paul Crewe’s responsibilities include asset management and asset planning, works and services, which should include road and road asset infrastructure maintenance, parks, gardens and public buildings and capital projects, which is the creation of new assets, it makes you wonder what the hell is going on?

It is a legitimate question-especially when Paul Martin oversees everything, there is a Curator of Cultural Heritage looking after York’s historic museum assets, there is a Manager of Works and Services and a Planning Officer to assist Paul Crewe, and last but-by no-means least, Esmerelda Harmer, to assist the CEO.

So what is actually left in the asset department to capture other than the place names and locations of assets that are probably known to all and sundry?

Why are not Executive Managers, Mr. Crewe and Ms. Haslehurst, perfectly capable of locating, managing and, where necessary, improving the assets that are their responsibility within their management portfolios?

The release of the Minutes for the Ordinary Council Meeting in February, 2017, will be a momentous occasion that should allow ratepayers to prove if a pleasant Shire Council Administrative regime is any better, for York, than extremely unpleasant ones that engaged in, among other misdeeds, empire building?

The accompanying discussion papers delivered at this meeting, their content and presentation must be first class for that question to be answered!

David Taylor.

SHIRE’S STYGIAN COFFERS-

It is time to shine a light on the dark, murky and shadowy past, current and ongoing financial situation of the YRCC Asset. 

 POST SCRIPT

However the Shire of York can keep certain things in total darkness

BUDGET DEFICIENCY.

Within the Local Government Act 1995 it states “Where a Local Government- IN AN EMERGANCY proposes to impose a Supplementary General Rate or a Specified Area Rate it is NOT REQUIRED to give LOCAL PUBLIC NOTICE of that proposed SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL RATE, SPECIFIED AREA RATE, Modified Rate or Minimum Payment.
Effectively- this could mean that if the Shire of York considers the YRCC as responsible for a ‘Budget Deficiency’ and considers this ‘An Emergency’, York ratepayers may not be provided with any information or reason for, a rate hike in the 2017-2018 Financial Year. (Isn’t that comforting to know?)

With just two months to go to the State Election in March, WA’s senior bureaucrats suddenly become extremely active to try and be indispensable should there be a changing of the political guard.

Opposition Leader, Mark McGown, has already stated publically that he will slash the number of senior public servants if elected. ‘Slash’ is a word that turns lazy, ineffectual hibernating incumbents into consternated, hyper-ventilating, knee-jerk reactionaries.

Through 8 years, 96 months, or 2,920 days and three Ministers, including one who resigned in disgrace, a Perth Lord Mayors’ probity compliance debacle, thieving CEO’s, misuse of municipal funds including credit cards and financial failures to the point of alleged mendicancy, Jennifer Matthews, the Director General of the Department of Local Government, has ruled as the dominatrix over her own departmental, local government compliance and governance disaster.

Maybe in hasty response to the WA Corruption and Crime Commission’s not so veiled criticism of her departments’ overall handling and involvement in the Dacre Alcock, Dowerin affair, Ms. Mathews has now issued her second edict TO ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS this year. It is, as you would expect, CIRCULAR No 02-2017.

Those of you who thought that local government rates policy is based primarily on the Gross Rental Value (GRV) or Undeveloped Value (UV) categorization of your property by the Valuer-General, with any increase exceeding the inflation rate supposedly deeply  frowned on by the State Government, may have to have a quick, ’hip-pocket nerve’ re-think.

Given the GVR and UV slump in today’s WA property market you would  expect to be entitled to a substantial Shire Council rates rebate or at least rate rises put on hold -or restricted to WA’s current annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation figure of 1%.)

NOT REALLY!

According to Ms. Mathews’ BUDGET CONSIDERATION IN RATE SETTING 2017-18, “in accordance with section 6.36(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995 the advertised rates of a local government are to apply based on an estimate of budget deficiency”- like the $600,000 theft in Dowerin. (There is not one mention of GVR, UV, CPI or increased government funding.)

“The rate (you pay) in the dollar should be supported by the budgeted deficiency, which is based on the expected expenditure for the provision of community services and amenities as outlined in the strategic community plan and the corporate business plan” says Ms. Mathews. (What is not stated is that budget deficiency could be considered to be an endemic and systemic problem, mainly within Rural, Regional and Remote Local Government Areas.)

This, in York’s case, includes the York Recreation & Convention Centre (YRCC) as both a community service and amenity that has never had the word community in its name and, arguably, has never really served the community as the amenity it should have been.

In May 2016, Dr. James Plumridge, wrote to the Shire asking fair and reasonable questions regarding the construction costs, municipal fund diversion, running and repair cost and profit and loss statements for the YRCC, as is his right. (He was also fully entitled to a lucid response over what he considered to be a potential case of a Budget Deficiency- that he never received.)

At that time the Shire should have been taking budget efficiency measures based on the estimate of any possible budget deficiency for the next Financial Year. It should and must have known the answers to Dr. Plumridge’s questions regarding the YRCC when he asked them, even if it was based on the past year’s figures. (His request was not date specific!)

As of the 31 of December, 2016, or within two (2) months of receiving the current annual audit report a shire council is automatically called on to accept this report. In the case of York it should be at the first Ordinary Council Meeting held in February 2017.

York’s report must contain proper accounts and verifications, specifically and formally related to the operations and debt repayment of, and for, the YRCC for the financial year. (Ratepayer should consider this to be a non-negotiable demand.) 

Dr. Plumridge followed his first request up in November, 2016, with a number of pertinent questions regarding the Shire’s Business Plan for the YRCC for which he received a less than satisfactory response from CEO, Paul Martin, dated December 6, 2016.

However, the icing on the community mud cake came on Thursday January 12, 2017 when Ms. Suzie Haslehurst, Executive Manager Corporate & Community Services stated that many of these questions could not be answered because the answers were still being sourced. (Some may consider this response as being next door to total bullshit!)

With regard to the continuous questioning of YRCC costs since its inception, a lack of any response from the Shire suggests that ratepayers could expect a budget deficiency that could cause further major rate-gain pain because it has not effectively ensured legislative compliance and budget efficiency in 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and through 7 months of 2016-17 Financial Year (with a possible repeat looming in 2017-18.)

It should be assumed that Ms. Haslehurst has by now made herself familiar with the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET PROCESS-TIMELINE in relation to the most pressing problem in her personal portfolio-the YRCC.

Between January and March this year, Ms. Haslehurst should estimate the YRCC’s financial position at June 30, review its corporate/business plan, its expected revenue, its expenditure, including efficiency and effectiveness, consider any alternative sources of funding, the amount to be raised from differential general rates to cover YRCC costs and the impact that will have on the different categories of ratepayers.

Around March/April she should do a reality check, taking into consideration the amount of rate revenue required to fund the YRCC for the year, ensuring the amount is reasonable, fair and equitable and develop objects and reasons to ensure it is legislatively compliant.

As of May 1, 2017, begins the notice period where the Shire of York can advertise its intention to impose differential general rates that could be impacted by the financial position of the YRCC.

Therefore, from January to May, Ms. Haslehurst should be continuously engaging in community consultation with all stakeholders to comply with her documented YRCC, four-stage, YRCC Management Review Plan conclusion date-being prior to June 30, 2017. (It should be around May 23, 2017.)

If she does not- then it is “Houston we have a problem”.

The definition of Differential General Rates is that it is an equitable and fair rating system in response to the different categories of ratable land, which takes into account access to, or consumption of, council services that include amenities such as the YRCC which may have extensive financial losses.

Twenty-two days after the date of publication of the advertisement the Council considers the related submissions and determines the level of differential rates subject to the amount of budget deficiency.

This will be the time that the Shire of York Council’s financial ability and senior executive performance could be severely tested with the past ‘honeymoon period’ well and truly over.

Good luck in restoring faith in Local Government in York.

David Taylor.

A YEARS RECONCILIATION OF COUNCIL COFFERS AND CREDIBILITY

From: Suzie Haslehurst
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 7:51 AM
To: davidgrant@westnet.com.au
Cc: David Wallace; Paul Martin
Subject: RE: A Years Reconciliation of Council Coffers and credibility

Dear David,

Thank you for your email and reference to your social media post.  I’ll endeavour to respond to your satisfaction, however as noted in my response to the public questions received in late November, much of the information requested is currently being sourced.

Dear Suzie

I am assuming from this that you have had no current relevant information in your possession regarding any matters involving the YRCC dating back to its opening date and beyond to respond to public questions received in November last year.

This lack of knowledge includes but is not limited to initial and subsequent funding, architects fees, all building and other construction costs, any and all running costs, documented income projections compared to actual income and any other audit information and other matters of commercial importance or fiduciary interest commencing six-years-ago in 2011?

There is no Peter Lehman report including a Business Plan to be used as a resource by you although I was personally advised, in writing, by former Acting CEO Michael Keeble that there was such a document?  There have been no other investigative actions taken by any-third party involving the YRCC that may have been instigated by former Shire President, Matthew Reid, in his communications with Michael Keeble, or others including Acting CEO Graeme Simpson between 2012 and 2016?

You therefore have no documented insight what-so-ever into the YRCC’s past operational status to allow you to respond to questions, prior to November 2016?

So where are you currently sourcing this information from- as all such information must be held and be easily accessible to you, retained within the Shire of York Offices?

Suzie:

When the new CEO commenced in late April 2016, his first job was to finalise the outcomes of the major strategic review undertaken by the new Council with the Acting CEO.  In June, following a period of community consultation, Council adopted as part of its Corporate Business Plan (p 20) the action “YRCC Management Review” to be undertaken during the 2016/17 financial year. Subsequently, an organisational restructure led to some changes in staff and a comprehensive recruitment process to fill three new positions.  The CEO was reluctant to commence the review process without the appropriate staff resources in place and wanted the new Executive Manager Corporate & Community Services as the person responsible for implementing any changes, to lead the process rather than it being led by consultants.

DT:
This information most, who wish to know, already know and the organizational restructure leading to staff changes was due to alleged mismanagement and incompetence including failure to keep proper Shire records being in breach of the State Records Act, 2000.

Effectively, the date in June 2016, when Council, adopted the action “YRCC MANAGEMENT REVIEW’, was seven (7) months ago.

Personally, I am not aware of any past community consultation undertaken by the Shire directly pertaining to the future of the YRCC undertaken between April 2016 and June 2016?

Was this obtained through written submissions or through direct contact with stakeholders and how was this community specifically advised that this process was being undertaken?

Suzie:

My first task following my commencement as Executive Manager Corporate & Community Services on 31 October 2016 was to develop a timeline for the YRCC Management Review.  In November, Council approved a process and timeline for the review which will be concluded prior to 30 June 2017. Any proposed changes will be implemented in a staged manner to ensure a smooth transition for all concerned.

DT:
I am aware that you have only been in your position a short time.

My concern is that in the four (4) months between June and October why the Chief Executive Officer did not undertake preparatory information gathering (after the “YRCC MANAGEMENT REVIEW” )to assist you in reducing the timeline for your review that appears to take a further five (5) months?

Suzie:

Since then, a Management Review plan has been developed. This incorporates the following phases;

1.      Project planning and review – identification of the key issues since the YRCC opened, review of capital and operating costs since opening, review of business plans undertaken to date, investigation of current liquor licensing arrangements, identification of the main stakeholders and development of a community engagement strategy.

DT:
Given your four-stage development process- at what stage are you in this process?  1. Project Planning and review suggests that:-

a) the key issues are now just being identified and were not available to the CEO when he responded, on your behalf, in writing, to the public questions in November, on December 6, 2016?

b) you have yet to identify who the main stakeholders are?

c) there have been other Business Plans put forward in the past, including one authored by Guy Lehman?

d) community engagement strategy is not the community consultation undertaken in June?

Suzie:
Stakeholder engagement – organised meetings and information sessions with identified stakeholders (ie users, Forrest Oval Advisory Group and other sporting clubs, businesses, interested community members)

DT:
a) you have now identified who all the stakeholders are?

b) is the former President of the Shire of York, Pat Hooper, a member of the Forrest Oval Advisory Group?

c) if he is-given his extensive initial involvement in the overall YRCC development and business direction and given those circumstances, could this not be considered to be a serious case of Conflict-of-Interest? 

Suzie:

2.      Discussion paper – outline of capital and operating costs and usage to date, market analysis and the options identified resulting from stakeholder engagement and document review. A Council briefing so that Council can endorse the Discussion Paper with preferred option for public advertising.

DT:
a) have you personally read the submissions and objections made to the Department of Liquor Licencing ( and the DLGC) regarding the Shires determination to obtain a Tavern Licence?

b) are you personally aware of OECD Competitive-Neutrality Principles with regard to its intent to prevent unfair competition being undertaken by public funded government agencies and governments against private enterprise?

c) are you aware that on numerous occasions the YRCC advertised ‘Coffee & Cake’ mornings, and other finance gathering functions, to the general public, bearing no relationships to local sporting events or sporting clubs, financial or otherwise, that would be in contravention of Competitive-Neutrality Principles?

Suzie:

3.      Community engagement and consultation – advertising, information sessions/consultation, 2 x 1-day fact finding trips by Councillors and key stakeholders to other facilities in the region to review alternative management models and structures and to gain some understanding of the costs involved.

DT:
a) are you aware that only one other Shire owned facility, in the region, may have a Tavern Licence?

b) to the best of my knowledge no other Shire owned facility, in the region, has a designated conference centre?

c) no Shire owned facility, in the region has both a Tavern Licence and a conference centre?

d) so in which facilities in the region do you expect to find alternative management models and structures that encapsulate the future requirements of the YRCC?

Suzie:
Development of a Business Plan for the preferred option taking into account community feedback, Council adoption for public comment, advertising for two weeks before final adoption of the Business Plan.

4.      Implementation of the new Business Plan.

DT:
I strongly suggest that the Shire ensures that any new Business Plan takes into due consideration the OECD Competitive-Neutrality principles and does not intend to engage in any business enterprise that may have any negative consequences for current privately owned businesses in York.

Suzie:
I note and appreciate your business plan suggestions which will be considered during the development of options for the management of the YRCC.  I look forward to your feedback on the draft business plan.

DT:
Thank you for that, but the current ownership structure, business structure and physical structure of the YRCC premises, in the main, precludes most forms of viable business development.

Suzie:

Sport and recreation is an important part of maintaining a healthy and vibrant community.  Council and Shire staff are committed to not only providing the best possible facilities to accommodate our community but also to minimise the cost of services to ratepayers while taking into account the need to promote economic development for the town. These principles underpin the review and will inform the resulting YRCC Business Plan.

DT:
I concur with everything you have to say here.

However, I am led to believe that Shire employees enjoy a significant, ratepayer subsidised discount for membership of the YRCC gymnasium. Is this correct? If so- it may have certain connotations regarding gratuities received by public service employees through their employment that you may wish to make yourself aware of?

Suzie:

I understand the frustration experienced regarding the YRCC and the desire to see the matter resolved expeditiously.  The process outlined above will provide an opportunity for the community and YRCC users be involved in each step and to have provide into the options for the improved future operations of the YRCC. The Shire is committed to this.

DT:
I totally agree. The frustration has gone on for inordinate period of time when all available information over the past four years suggested that expeditious action should have been taken years ago!

Suzie:

It is then the role of Councillors to approve the best business model that balances three critical elements: services to the community, new business development within the Shire and the cost of operations.

DT:
I think you may be missing the point here. Any business development within the YRCC should be owned and operated by a private local sporting consortium or other co-operative with community approval, possibly under the strictures of the Associations Incorporations Act, 2015. No business should be owned by the Shire, just the premises.  

Suzie:

To do this correctly will take time to create the best opportunity for the long term and successful operation of the YRCC which remains a valuable community asset.

DT:
Personally I think you are rapidly running out of time and I disagree- as currently the YRCC is a liability that must be retained as a community asset. You have all the financial information right now to prove how valuable a community asset the YRCC is to the York community and I call on you to do so.

Suzie:

I trust this addresses the main points of your email.  I look forward to your input during the review process.

DT:
No not really, I have authored and received such communications that lack clear definition for much of my working life. It is what I expected.

Regards
David Taylor

NULLARBOR YORK.

The Nullarbor is an almost treeless plain created by millions of years of weathering evolution- through exposure to the elements.

If Main Roads WA has its way their Wheatbelt roads will provide an endless, almost treeless vista to road users, courtesy of exposure to a chain saw.

Over a decade ago a damning, independent WA Road Safety Report claimed that many rural roads had a similar safety rating to those in third-world countries. Guatemala, Eritrea, El Salvador and Rwanda are considered to be third-world.

The report had nothing to do with trees. It was about alleged substandard engineering methods, construction and maintenance. Some road cambers were claimed to be so poorly designed they could turn vehicles into deadly projectiles, not hold them to the road at reasonable speeds.

One vehicle, with its speedometer still registering the required speed limit, struck a tree, 2 metres above its base. The accident was, in part, a combination of a miniscule crumbling road verge and, arguably, a camber on a bend that was an engineering nightmare.

This was in 2006, on a rural road maintained by Main Roads and the bend remains the same. The sole occupant was killed. The tree was probably superfluous. The differential height between the 600 millimetre-wide road verge, and the surrounding topography, was at least 3 metres.

Instead of improving these roads to the standards expected of a highly developed Western civilization, Main Roads WA, as a Government agency, has always chosen the ‘el cheapo’ option including its construction and maintenance tendering processes going to the lowest, or most politically expedient bidder. (One example of this appears on a summer’s day when your tyres have got more bitumen on them than the road.)

So with aesthetically pleasing, ancient trees gone, vehicles can now safely plunge into deep roadside ditches, set alight the metre high, dry grass lining the verges and then plough through fences and into paddocks. Or clip one of the remaining tree stumps and cartwheel through the air.

It certainly is not a Government knee-jerk reaction to last year’s carnage on WA country roads.

Apparently ‘Direct Interest’ emails were sent to the Shires of York, Beverley and Quairading, via the Department of Environmental Regulation, requiring shire input and any objections to culling 200-year-old trees.

This was 14-months ago, on or about the 10^th or 11^th of November 2015 with the ‘no-response’ deafening.

In the Shire of York’s defence, at that point in time, the new council had only been in office for a month and the shire administration was still dead in the water, floating around like a miniature Titanic.

But that is where any sympathy and empathy ends.

Once again the Shire of York has failed to advise the community of matters of serious local public interest. This time- regarding an extremely important conservation issue.

The matter should have undergone a community consultative process with Main Roads WA required to publically provide alternatives to such drastic, ugly and probably unnecessary measures.

The Shire finally spoke to the press rather than first talking to its own people. The quote is ‘it’s unfortunate that a lot of those big old trees will have to go but it is a safety thing. I would hate to see someone’s child or grandson or granddaughter run into one of these trees’.

It is vehicles running into trees and is always the end result of human error or mechanical failure.

Given Main Roads WA’s past record, its human error is bad road design and poor maintenance. A tree is just an impact factor that can be blamed, (along with other vehicles, bridges, culverts, power poles, fences, buildings, traffic lights and wildlife), rather than any systemic failures.
.
The Shire of York’s error is still the lack of communication, an endemic failure to include its own community in its determinations which in the past bordered on contempt. What it borders on now is anyone’s guess.

And there goes any revitalized, scenic bus tour industry, in the South East Avon, down the gurgler.

David Taylor.

WHAT A TANGLED WEBSITE WE WEAVE.

Regarding The Real Voice of York, ‘Does Anybody read this Blog’? There appear to be a few Geeks whose cerebral cortex is attached to their laptop resulting in the development of their social media conscience and literary skills being inhibited by a past incestuous relationship between ‘Donkey Kong’ and the ‘Super Mario Brothers’.

Some share the same name- ‘Anonymous’. Some write things like ‘Just a Geek fact James (sic) don’t need to prove it (sic) ask the tech world and it will mellow your claims a little into something more beleivable’.

It is a shame that a Geek from the tech world appears unable to punctuate a sentence and spell believable. The rule is usually ‘I’ before ‘e’ my friend- not freind, but their can be a problem!

Obviously you do not have to have an over-abundance of computer savvy , numeracy neurons to understand that automated robots troll the world’s websites, possibly vastly inflating the number of page-views---or not, as the case may be. The trolling is not done for fun. It is done using key words for key reasons, including trying to access bank accounts and hunting for the next suicide bomber.

However- not one critic of social media websites can claim that they have not had a massive impact on public perceptions and reactions, including in the US elections, and to suggest that readership of any social media site is 10 per cent or less, compared to its page views, is playing with a large synaptic-gap. A computer literate hick, who makes negative claims that cannot be substantiated- is still just that- a hick!

The emergence of ‘Social Media’ has stuffed up the poor quality major newspapers, in WA, to the extent that their circulation has collapsed by at least 60% in the past 20 years- despite a massive increase in population. Now The Sunday Times is owned by The West Australian and it is ‘Custer’s last (newspaper) stand’ with just one proprietor left.

The term readership versus circulation has always been amorphous. Not one newspaper proprietor can accurately gauge actual readership compared with those who only read the comics and death notices, then use the rest to light a fire or line the bottom of the cockie’s cage. This applies equally to online page-views compared to readership but please do not put your laptop under ‘Tweety’.

So despite the prognostications of Councillor Randell that no-one reads York’s social media websites and a pixilated soothsayer suggesting that The Real Voice of York has had its pages read just 16,000 times- here comes the RAM bam thank you Mam!

It could have taken just one (1) powerful reader, digesting the content of just one (1) article by someone like James Plumridge that led to the resignation of former Minister for Nothing, Tony Simpson, and made James Best as popular as a slight explosion between the legs within local government circles. That, by the way, means just one (1) page-view –or hit.

In addition, if Mr Randell and others, Google ‘Commissioner James Best, Australia Day address at York’ you will view at least two York Social Media Site articles referring to his miserable effort in claiming social capitalism was being stymied by these sites promoting the views of self-interested extremists. Also-that he could not spell the poet W.B Yeats name properly, suggesting it was the same as a popular brand of domestic garden fertilizer

Among the authors noted, you will find the names James Plumridge and Councillor Jane Ferro.

So Councillor Randell- how many do you think have read these particular articles displayed on the World’s most popular search engine, and there are a lot more of them out there?

It has become the role of a community social media site in a democracy to reveal bad apples, bad governance, bad government decisions and more than the odd hypocrite. They tell the truth otherwise they would be sued out of existence.

Remember that York has the ignominy of being one of only two councils sacked and/or suspended in WA in the 21^st Century and the causes and their ramifications may have decades of serious local financial and social side-effects. This is an unfortunate truth.

Do we all forget the past and look to the future- while paying exorbitant rates to pay for that past, saying nothing about it and bitching about, and belittling, the social media sites that do? Or do we support them in telling the truth to make York a better place to live?

Then, when The Shire of York becomes The Real Voice of York itself through consultation via communication with its ratepayers, beginning by explaining what actually is going on in the present, these sites will become superfluous.

The letter to the senior executives of the Shire of York regarding the YRCC titled ‘New Year’s Resolution’, published on this site, has drawn a written response from one of those executives concerned that suggests some power to the people, by the people, for the people is delivered by social media.

An answer to the questions raised is said to be forthcoming before the end of this week. It should contain facts, not hypotheses.  These answers will be treated with the respect they deserve,

David Taylor.

TO DAVID WALLACE, PAUL MARTIN, SUZIE HASLEHURST, PAUL MILES, BRAD JOLLY and MARK McGOWAN.

David Wallace

Paul Martin

Suzie Haslehurst

Shire of York Council

Your Ref : - ‘NEW YEARS RESOLUTION’- RESURRECTION or UNFORTUNATE REVOLUTION.

All politicians, government departments and agencies related to the local government sector have acquainted  themselves with the contents of the Fitz Gerald Report. All now should understand its underlying message of openness and transparency required in reporting local government expenditure, including gifts and Corporate Credit Cards, and to engage in direct, meaningful consultative communications with ratepayers and the community, without the past, infamous, Shire of York rancor. That is whether they agree with it or not.

Your Shire’s recent uninformative, ineglatarian responses to legitimate questions from ratepayers regarding the YRCC strongly suggests it has not learned its lesson and continues to follow the DLGC’s and WALGA’s desire for Shires to remain mum, dumb and articulately unresponsive. This because neither trusts the overall abilities of Councillors and Local Government officers to act responsibly, particularly in rural Local Government Areas.

The department and the Minister responsible for liquor licencing were all aware of the Shire of York’s inept attempt to obtain a Tavern Licence for the YRCC that was only granted after the Director General for Liquor Licencing, Barry Sargeant, intervened and had his minions basically write the application for CEO Ray Hooper. Sargeant and others were fully aware of the strong objections to the granting of a Tavern Licence, (not an appropriate sporting club liquor licence.) It was a ethically, morally, socially and commercially inequitable and discriminatory act in a competitive business arena.

It was a reprehensible decision to allow a government body to obtain a licence to compete directly against similar private enterprise businesses in a small town and led directly and /or indirectly to numerous closures and failures of licenced premises in York. Sargeant’s written response to the granting of this overkill licence was there was no law or statute preventing him from doing so. You cannot get a more morally corrupt and egomaniacal statement from a public servant than that.

Relevant official documents at that time showed that the senior management of the Tavern and its Licence included Gordon Tester which, some may say, was a bit like placing Charlie the chimpanzee in charge of a NASSA space program. The designated, highly competent manager of the premises resigned in the first year and Mr. Tester disappeared to Esperance, only to reappear, then disappear again.

You can now understand why, and have some sympathy for, the licenced premises that chose not to pay the Shire for non-existent parking bays when a major competitor, the YRCC Tavern, had adequate public and/or private parking paid for by both local competing businesses, other businesses and domestic household ratepayers. This sum of $300,000 plus remains as a blight on the Shires Sundry Debt Register today.

In 2014 the Shire of York, allegedly, commissioned a Mr. Guy Lehman to do a comprehensive review and business plan to attempt to make the YRCC efficient and self-sufficient. Now, three years on, you are still fumbling and bumbling around and making obfuscatory excuses for your continuing inability to resolve this extremely serious issue.

The Council itself has been in office for 14-months and the CEO for twelve, a more than adequate time frame for half-a- dozen management reviews, development plans, discussion papers, business direction assessments and community consultations for one of the Shire’s most pressing problems. Maybe the tardiness is because the President has a conflict of interest in this matter regarding his close association with a particular sport, perhaps the Shire has not got its priorities right or possibly the wrong staff have always been chosen to, eventually, try and get the job done.

One word that appears still not to be used too often by this Shire is community consultation, even though the debt is a major community liability. Consultation may well be the very last object of the protracted enquiry process. Then this tactic can be used as an excuse by Council to delay any further action by blaming the time taken in the consultitive process, including lack of community response- or that the response is inconclusive enough to require a fresh go-to-whoa enquiry commencing in mid 2018.

What should be clearly understood by three current Councillors is that their term in office concludes on the third Saturday in October, 2017. Should they wish to seek re-election they need to put some decent extra runs on the board and quickly. This should include an already implemented solution to the YRCC problem prior to the release of the DLGC analysis of the YRCC’s financial accounts for 2015-16 and the recognition that, in rust bucket WA, 1/10^th of the population of Australia has 1/3^rd of the Local Government Councils. So the Shire had better be on  top of the performance ladder and not be considered mendicant.

Here are some  extremely simplistic business plan suggestions that could enhance the profitability of the YRCC, but for various valid reasons will not happen, not the least of which is because of the architectural design layout of the building and that it is fully licenced premises and part of a dedicated sports venue.

1. Lease the eating area as an Indian or Thai restaurant as some Sydney hotels and taverns do. (Probably not a large enough client base to be profitable for the lessee.)
2. Lease the gymnasium to a fitness center franchise. (Not a large enough client base for the lessee.)
3. Lease the convention area to create an amusement arcade for children, similar to  ‘Time Zone’. (It is on premises licenced 24/7 therefore illegal.)
4. Lease the bar area to a franchise selling local wines, micro brewery or micro distillery products. (Should this be feasible there could be a massive conflict of interest depending on who supplies the liquor.)
5. Use unused external space to create a Commando style training area for corporate team bonding sessions linked to the convention center. (WA corporate business is in a financial cycle close to a recession.)
6. Use the convention area as a display center to promote local business and its products (Not enough products to display.)
7. Use the convention area as a permanent display for memorabilia depicting the careers of Wheatbelt sporting heroes. (There is an impressive list, but probably not enough commercial sponsorship interest without AFL approval and support.)
8. Transfer the York Tourist Bureau to the convention center to free the historic Town Hall for other uses. (Not enough commercial uses for the Town Hall to make this profitable.)
9. Offer the use of the convention area to WA Universities as an off-campus classroom to conduct surveys and undertake specific education programs focused on improving the socio-economic structure of the Wheatbelt.
10. This could include development of drone technology (and piloting training) to assist in the, low level, aerial surveillance and development of broad-acre farming including micro-management of salinity problems, and include agricultural productivity in general. (Probably not enough academic interest but that may change.)
11. Use the kitchen, restaurant and convention areas to create a monthly ‘Slow Food Convivium’ promoting and using local produce. ( If you do not know what this means-ask) The iconic CWA Cookbook turns 80-years old in 2017 and could be the basis for a ‘Historic Feast- Historic Town’ promotion where you could ask for the assistance of such gourmands as the West Australian’s food critic, Rob Broadfield.

In addition the Shire of York is to hand over the YRCC to the sporting clubs of York, possibly with the sporting clubs receiving some remedial financial support from Mia Davies’ Department of Sport and Recreation to obtain appropriate liquor licenses and improve the restaurant and other facilities in the best financial interest of the individual clubs, and as a local ‘grassroots’ sporting association. This is the way it should have been in the beginning without the grandiose project scheming and its even greater latter-day liabilities. Premier Colin Barnett claims grassroots sport is the cornerstone of our way of life, You can double that with country life.

All this could be done tomorrow on the understanding that the property is to be used in the best interest of sport and the community and the debt is the Shire of York’s debt problem to be funded by other means- not by the ratepayers.

I will be extremely interested to receive any responses that include actual responsible action, and easily achievable time frames- amid the usual rhetoric.

Yours sincerely.

David Taylor.

Wednesday, 28 December 2016

The YORK RECREATION and CONVENTION CENTRE CONUNDRUM.

A York Reconciliation of Council Coffers and credibility is on: – The people of York deserved a high quality, modern, sophisticated integrated sports facility with a club licence to sell alcohol to financially support each individual sporting club, so what went wrong?

The YRCC was instead purpose built to be a monument for the idolatrous worship of two-Hooper’s and a Boyle by some sycophantic Council supporters- and as a hang-out for the same triumvirate as being the South East Avon Region of Councils’ future powerbrokers.

It was to be their Avon Valley eerie where they could host important conferences, hold court, lord it over the other SEAVROC shires, drink to their hearts content in their own bar at any time, while huffing and puffing to the best of their highly exaggerated personal abilities. The tab guaranteed to be picked up by local ratepayers.

Sports facilitation was to be only a peripheral reason for the build, with local government political power the main rationale for this super expensive and way overpriced pile of bricks, mortar and lots of glass (currently overlooking battered fake lawns pretending to be lush green playing surfaces).

Originally costed by its architects at $7 million, today’s debt is your worst financial nightmare- and SEAVROC never happened.

By the YRCC’s 25^th Birthday it will be a non-recoupable community liability of at least $20 million including the initial building cost, annual running costs, maintenance, loan repayments, inflation and, by then, required restoration or demolition.

The YRCC Tavern is a highly unsuccessful business and always will be. Under Uniform Capital Allowances legislation it may have some potential asset depreciation known appropriately as “Black-Hole Expenditure” if it ceases to trade for any reason. This, unfortunately, is the best financial case scenario on offer and means the Shire of York Tavern Licence has to go.

The community now wonders what is going on as a financially deleterious disaster crawls into another long, unprofitable year since the YRCC Tavern doors were flung open to a mainly empty and mostly dusty carpark.

The current cruel answer is nothing.

The Shire President, the CEO and the Executive Manager Corporate and Community Services make ethereal statements regarding management reviews and the development of discussion papers but basically they have not got a clue. Neither did any of the previous Acting CEO’s who were asked by concerned members of the community to seek resolutions, mainly from outside experts, since Ray Hooper resigned on April 15, 2014.

There is no magical mystery tourism rescue, no major additional conference business and no possible added value development, other than being turned into a massage parlour or a Donald Trump bomb shelter, and there will certainly be no magnanimous government benefactor to provide grants for its economic turn-around.

Basically, as so succinctly and eloquently put by others, the YRCC ‘is the white elephant in York’s pyjamas’- and will remain so until hell freezes over.   

What should now be finally revealed is- WHY?

The promised analysis (investigative dissection) of the Shire of York’s fiscal affairs for the Financial Year 2015-16, by the Department of Local Government, will include a year’s assessment of the overall financial performance of the YRCC - also the purchase of the Old Catholic Convent building and surrounds.

The YRCC evaluation will be related back to its initial cost compared to its annual liabilities including the construction debt repayment, the current debt to equity ratio, utilities supply cost, restaurant and bar purchases and services, management and employee/contractor salaries, public liability insurance, maintenance of the building and surrounding sporting facilities and where necessary- the renewal of playing services.

The Tavern Licence is a separate issue where its Licensee, the Shire of York, has been in technical breach of its liquor licence obligations regarding the demanded bar facility opening hours of  90 hours per week, and related substantial meal service responsibility, since the doors were opened.

Now all this will be reviewed, in depth, for the nature, materiality and plausibility of this community asset, assessed through financial statements taken from its core business- then evaluated against its liabilities, unmet community obligations and expectations- and WA Local Government laws.

Some local officials involved may break out in a cold sweat.

A similar assessment will be made regarding the purchase of the Old Catholic Convent building that should hopefully give the purchasing authority, a diminutive Local Government Commissioner, a severe case of tightening of the sphincter muscles.

The YRCC is a lesson to be learned by those in charge in Local Government.

In a democratic society where the economy is driven by private enterprise no tier of government should be allowed to licence itself to unfairly compete against established local businesses using municipal funds. Given this- nor should it be allowed to adjudicate against others seeking such a licence to do business in the community.

Local government is there to supply services that no private enterprise or community group can adequately provide.

The Shire of York has no alternative but to cease its ‘anti-competitive’ behaviour and terminate its Tavern Licence, and then ensure the required liquor licence(s) can be obtained by the local sporting clubs as should have happened in the first place.

The Shire should then be truthful to itself and the community and admit that the original massive, unreconciled, underfunded, over investment in the largest community asset, capital works project in York’s history is an abject fiscal failure. It will be a financial burden on the community for many decades to come.

No so called Shire instigated management review, business plan and directional assessment- and no amount of discussion between those who have no power, ability, ideas and funding to resolve the problem will make a skerrick of difference.

The inequitable profit to loss profile accumulated by the YRCC since the day it opened is mostly here to stay. It will always be a much needed community asset that is also a perpetual liability.

David Taylor.