ALL THAT JAZZ. (A festering sore-causing a farcical festival folly)

The sign in Avon Terrace said it all, Perth Jazz Festival, and that was exactly where it stayed.

A cavalcade of caravans-du-cuisine descended on Avon Terrace, blocking the sunlight from local businesses as they hunted for the ravenous hordes of tourists, both carnivores and vegans. They found very few famished- indeed even to feed.

Disgruntled and angry, many food vendors slunk back to Perth, looking for the real festival and vowing never to return. They had hardly made enough to pay for the petrol used in their 190k return dash-for-cash.

Drift back a decade to a far different, euphoric story of the famous, magical York Jazz Festival.

Even the tourist memorabilia was not shlock. The celebratory Tee-Shirts were iconic collectables, the promotional posters magnificent, modernist art-nouveau creations that were proudly hung on walls as a memory of a wonderful weekend.

There was the delicious smell of a barbeque in the beer- garden at Settlers House, accompanied by horns, saxophones, clarinets, symbols, drums, guitars, bass and banjos beating out the syncopated rhythm of ‘Trad Jazz’.

In Settler’s courtyard, athletic dancers flung themselves around in a traditional, New Orleans’, style salute to the music.

Across the street young acapella angels tested their vocal chords on ‘Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B’, sounding just as good as the Andrew Sisters.

The place was packed – yet totally laid-back.

That WAS the York Jazz Festival- popular, fun and mostly FREE.

This Shire of York has failed to recognize and compensate for a profound change and long memories.

A theft of thousands of dollars from York Tourist bureau Inc. destroyed the festival, its reputation and any confidence the community had in the Shire of York CEO, Ray Hooper and Shire President Pat Hooper.

The Hooper’s were persona-non-grata with those who bothered to find out why- and the underlying angst remains to this day.

Lies, nepotism, cronyism, non-existent auditing, and dastardly finger-pointing were the order of that day. It included the all-time classic statement, by Ray Hooper, that the thief ‘was enticed to take funds’ in a maniacal attempt to absolve himself, Pat Hooper and the Shire of any blame for the loss of ratepayer’s money.

Like Elvis, the York Jazz Festival, in its most popular form, had left the building, never to return.

The Shire of York has not learned from the past and made three huge mistakes.

It believed it could ride on the back of others to make a new, not York- but combined jazz festival work without any ideas and real effort of its own.

It failed to realize that a successful encore was highly unlikely, when the audience had left years ago.

It is also failed to comprehend that the once beautiful face (and atmosphere) of York has decayed dramatically, it has little to offer for the tourist dollar and many feel that they far prefer ‘the water to the Wheatbelt’ -if they are going to get ripped-off.

Apparently the Shire of York’s ideation effort consisted of assisting competitors of the Forrest Bar & Café as venues for the festival, with $23,000 of ratepayers ‘hard earned’. For what positive reason- is hard to understand?

An odd fact is that the theft of money raised from the York Jazz Festival could only be proven to be around $12,000.

The severe damage was in the detail, unpaid taxes and no long service leave accrual, caused by a recidivist bookkeeper-thief who had already spent two years in jail. The effect on York’s reputation at that time was inestimably, but immense.

This time round, everything at York’s end was decidedly amateurish. Inadequate self-promotion and marketing, not enough artists and even less ‘headline artists’, some claustrophobic venues with no proper facilities for stage lighting, and an overall mismanagement malaise.

There are many that feel that the Shire of York, Local Government Officer Hierarchy is running out of time- as the community is running out of patience. There are no runs on the board with no fundamental, innovative and functional development strategy.

These shire employees should realize they can be considered ‘only as good as their last effort’ and there is no job for life in York.

Their nexus (and plexus) could come as early as October’s WA Local Government Elections- and they should make themselves aware of this, and react accordingly.

Otherwise it may be time to think outside the square and hire private experts in the necessary fields of expertise, not career local government public servants, protected from the pressure to perform.

The other option is to hire local government officers from states like Victoria and South Australia where there is a vibrant and financially successful, historic town, tourism industry.

David Taylor.

SHIRE OF YORK/ SHIRE OF EXMOUTH- FAILURE TO PUT CONTRACTS OUT TO TENDER.

(The above has been raised, in writing with the appropriate authorities as defined below.)

On August 1, 2014, a local York plumbing business submitted a quote, Ref-3584, for the ‘Storm Water Reuse project, Forrest Oval’ to the Shire of York- being for work to the value of $159,170.00.

The quote itself is not a problem. The amount is.

Under Local Government (Functions and General ) Regulations 1996, Provision of goods and services Part 4, Tenders for providing goods and services (s. 3.57) Division 2, 11 are to be undertaken as follows:-

WHEN TENDERS HAVE TO BE PUBLICALLY INVITED
(1) Tenders are to be publically invited according to the requirements of this Division before a local  government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services if the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be more, or worth more, than $100,000.

(This requirement in the tendering process is unambiguous and the quote exceeded the maximum amount allowable by $59,170.)

(The quote was accepted.)

In the Shire of York Annual Compliance Return 2014, under the heading s3.57 Functions and General Regulations, the Question was: ‘Did the local government invite tenders on all occasions (before entering into contracts for the supply of goods or services) where the consideration under the contract was, or was expected to be, worth more than the consideration stated in the Regulation 11(1) ($100,000) of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations (Subject to Functions and General Regulation 11 (2)’.

The RESPONSE was ‘No’ (the shire of York had not invited tenders and was therefore in serious breach of these regulations).
(There is no reasonable excuse for this failure as there were five (5) other plumbing businesses in York who were not offered the opportunity to provide a quote that, in this case, was a mandatory requirement.)

The Comments were: ‘Contractor engaged for works on Forrest Oval Dam Project as reported to the DLGC on 30/9/2014’.

The RESPONDENT was Gail Maziuk! (Who has since left the Shire).

The others allegedly involved were the Chief Executive Officer, Michael Keeble, (who resigned shortly after, on September 24, 2014, six (6) days prior to the matter, allegedly, being brought to the attention of the DLGC) and his Deputy, Tyhscha Cochrane, who has since resigned and was allegedly a personal friend of the contractor.

Another who, allegedly, should have had some input in engaging this contractor was Tabatha Bateman, the Shire of York’s Financial Controller and sister of Tyhsha Cochrane.

The Shire of York Council, who ‘reasonably should have known’ of both the legislation requirements and the contract, allegedly did nothing- although not suspended until January 5, 2015.

The Council consisted of Matthew Reid (Shire President), Mark Duperouzel (Deputy Shire President), Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper who have all resigned, or did not seek re-election. The remaining Councillors from that time are David Wallace (current Shire President), and Denese Smythe (current Deputy Shire President).

(The miasmic relationships within the Shire of York at that time could mean that Matthew Reid, David Wallace and Denese Smythe were not aware of the contract.)

The current Shire of York’s response is that no tender process took place. It was reported in the 2014 Compliance Audit Return that was not lodged until sometime in 2015.

Although the Shire of York claims that the breach was brought to the attention of the DLGC in September, 2014, there can be a difference in substantiation between that and the audit report.

The original contact regarding the breach could have been verbal and it has not been defined as from whom-to whom.  The 2015 report was definitely in writing and allegedly viewed by the DLGC.

The Shire claims that it did not think the DLGC would investigate this instance (breach) in isolation and it noted that Council was suspended in January (5) 2015, a Commissioner was appointed and a probity audit commissioned.

Firstly, the Shire of York Council was suspended by the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson, due to the public release of the Fitz-Gerald Report and, subsequently, the delivery of The Minority Report to the DLGC via Minister Tony Simpson, as well as the Shire’s and President Matthew Reid’s responses, and various tawdry allegations.

It had little to do with a single, illegal tender process that had commenced five (5) months before as inferred by the Shire.

Secondly, at this point in time- this instance (breach) was not in isolation.

The Shire of York had been accused of:-

a) Failure to maintain a proper documented record of its decision making processes; and

b) Not meeting standards of record keeping required under the WA State Records Act, 2000; and

c) Failure to deal with a ‘Code of Conduct’ complaint in a professional manner.

The Shire insists that the matter (instance) (breach) was reported to the DLGC but was not investigated.

The DLGC employee allegedly directly involved in this matter was David Morris, who has since moved on to the Department of Commerce.  

As recently as May 2, 2017, the WA Corruption and Crime Commission publically stated that it was prepared to prosecute former, Shire of Exmouth, Chief Executive Officer, Bill Price, for failing to put a local government contract out to tender, and, possibly, by placing friendship above probity.

The only difference between this case and the Shire of York’s is that one happened nearly three years ago and Exmouth’s is a substantially larger breach in financial terms only, being $900,000 rather than $59,170.

(Yet the overall financial impact of the Exmouth Shire contract on ratepayers was $1 million out of a $2 million shire investment in a particular project. In the case of York, its overall direct investment, and loss, in its community project exceeds $15 million.)

Given all circumstances there should be no statute of limitations from prosecution over the same type of offence, whether committed in 2014, 2015 or 2016.

It would appear that the DLGC did not pursue this contract breach as an investigation. The question is why?

As the WACCC is preparing to prosecute a former Local Government Officer for , arguably, the same offence as occurred at the Shire of York, will it investigate and possibly prosecute these other former Local Government Officers? If not-why not?

Another question is - if the DLGC had investigated the York offence in 2014-15, made it known publically and provided an appropriate penalty along with the cursory ‘Governance Bulletin’  would Mr. Price have acted in the manner that he is alleged to have done and be facing prosecution by the WACCC?

In the record of Public Examination of the Shire of Exmouth, November 10, 2016, the similarities between what has occurred at the Shire of York and the Shire of Exmouth are unequivocal.

1. Both projects contained Royalty for Regions funding.

2. Shire Officers avoided being held accountable by not obtaining proper (or adequate)
    authorisation.

3. The tender process was not subject to objective scrutiny of due process, including a tender evaluation panel.

4. Shire Officers were in breach of statutory obligations regarding procurement that they must abide by.

5. These statutory obligations are well known.

6. Senior Shire Officers appeared to have a sense of entitlement leading to abuse of power
    including the use of corporate credit cards and travel expenses.

Given the above it should be apparent to the DLGC and the WACCC that the Shire of York’s
negative exposure to a breach of statutory obligations under Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 should finally be subject to proper examination and investigation including the calling of witnesses.

According to recent actions of the WACCC, what occurred in York is significant enough to warrant prosecution under corruption and crime legislation.

The matter has now been brought to your attention, and the attention of community and ratepayers, and should not be ignored.

David Taylor.

The Seven Deadly Sins of Corruption - John McKechnie QC - Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commissioner

  John McKechnie QC

The Seven Deadly Sins of Corruption

Corruption and Crime Commission of WA

SHIRE OF YORK DISCLAIMER FOR MINUTES AND AGENDAS

Date May 24, 2017
Hon David Templeman
Minister for Local Government
Dear Minister

Your Ref:                                    LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMERS.


Everyone appreciates that Local Government Areas should be under ‘Autonomous Jurisdiction’, as being responsible for their own affairs.

However this only works when the standards set for required governance, across the board, is supported by mandatory enforcement by law, including the application of appropriate penalties.

The current required standards and compliances set in the Local Government Act, 1995, are outdated, ineffectual and largely ignored.

As you have already publically stated, it is your intention to review this act as a government priority for which you will be held to account.

If you care to read several disclaimers published in the Agendas and Minutes of the Shire of York you will find the one dealing with Copyright Law to be inadequate, unprofessional and potentially misleading.

The other tends to reinforce a public perception that some councillors are insufficiently trained to hold this position of responsibility and some Local Government Officers are insufficiently educated and trained to hold down senior management positions.

This is not the problem of electors in the Local Government Areas, it is your problem as the Minister for Local Government.

York is not the only Local Government Area where such problems appear to exist. It is endemic and systemic in nearly 50 % of local government councils.

Yours sincerely
David Taylor

PLEASE READ- to the Shire of York Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Paul Martin  

                
                 SHIRE OF YORK DISCLAIMER FOR MINUTES AND AGENDAS

Why bother having agendas and council meetings when nothing said by either staff or councillors can be relied upon in any material way. Is it a question that has no answer?
DISCLAIMER

“Any plans or documents in agendas and minutes may be subject to copyright. The express permission of the copyright owner must be obtained before copying any copyright(ed) material”.

RESPONSE:-

Dear Mr. Martin. Not necessarily, and I think you may find the term is copyrighted material.

Copyright does not subsist in Western Australia except by the Australian Copyright Act 1968 which is not referred to in your disclaimer.

Without due reference to this Act (and arguably the section defining copyright ownership and breaches of such), this disclaimer could be considered not worth the paper it is printed on.

Addendums include that the foremost requirement for the subsistence of copyright is that the work must be original. That may be difficult to judge, especially by a Shire.

‘Express Permission’ has to be in writing.

To contact the copyright owner may be impossible and that a genuine attempt to contact may be sufficient. How would you know?

In certain circumstances the owner of the copyright of a work, is not the owner of the work. This in particular applies to architectural plans and drawings where the owner of these works may present this material as an application for Shire approval, without copyright approval, because he/she has purchased the right to do so.

Next- under the Australian Copyright Act 1968, all works held under copyright by this act are subject to public fair comment and review which is also not mentioned.

A bit of free advice- all you have to do is change the wording to:

’Under the terms of the Australian Copyright Act 1968, any plans in agendas and minutes may be subject to copyright. The policy of the Shire of York is that the express permission, in writing, of the copyright owner must be obtained prior to any plans or documents being published in these agendas and minutes.

(Maybe you should ask Ms. Susie Haslehurst her opinion on matters of copyright. As a former executive of a book publishing company she should be fully aware of the advisory standards expected under Australian Copyright Law.)

This would give some legitimacy to an otherwise banal, blanket disclaimer that may not be legally enforceable.

I would also clearly define who is the arbiter of what express permission is required, for what purpose, and is this an acceptable demand.

The big question is does the Shire of York consider that it is the copyright owner of published Minutes and Agendas and does it get express permission to publish Questions from the authors of these works within these publications?

One answer is no! - The Shire of York does not appear to seek the permission of the authors of Questions to publish them in its agendas and minutes.

Another piece of advice is get a Copyright Lawyer to do disclaimers as yours is not worth a knob of goat faeces.

DISCLAIMER

‘Any statement, comment or decision made by a Council meeting regarding any application for an approval, consent or licence, including a resolution of approval is not effective as an approval of  any application and must not be relied upon as such’.

RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Martin.

It is assumed any application for an approval, consent or licence appearing within an agenda at a Council meeting has been reviewed by the Shire of York staff member with appropriate jurisdiction prior to being presented on that agenda to council, otherwise it should not be there?

This suggests that neither, Shire of York staff, or councillors, can make properly informed decisions, in public, at a Council meeting, that can be relied upon in a court of law, or not give rise to choses-in-action by the applicant. (This could be considered unfair to some staff and councillors.)

In the past this has been confirmed by both the Department of Local Government and the Department of Consumer Affairs, in written opinion and comment, that neither, Shire Staff, or Shire Councillors could be relied upon as having the ability to provide proper, legally binding judgements, in public, at Council meetings because of such circumstances as lack of knowledge of statutes and laws and the potential for cronyism and Conflict-of-Interest breaches.

Nearly 50% of councils are known to be technically afflicted by these inabilities because nearly 50% of WA’s 139 Councils are considered to be below the required standards. Of these, 32 councils have council activity records that are so below average they are considered to be of moderate to high risk of committing (or have previously committed) a serious offence.  

Maybe you should try something like this:-

‘All material things raised at Council Meetings are for the purpose of fair public comment and review and discussion and resolution by Council. The confirmation of acceptance of each and every material thing to any third party will be in writing, on Shire of York letterhead, authorized and signed by the Chief-Executive-Officer’.

Local Government Areas should be seen to be run by professionals, not amateurs.

David Taylor.

NOSTRADAMUS YORK:

Predictions for the 2017-2018 Financial Year. 

“The State Government intends to ‘Review’ the Local Government Act 1995 ‘AS a Priority’ to ensure Local Government Areas provide good government, enhanced through greater openness, transparency and accountability”. This is a ‘FACT’ that the Shire of York should make itself aware of and what the local ramifications may be!

OVERVIEW
The Annual Inflation Rate should be the appropriate standard measurement for Local Government rate increases, otherwise as former Premier, Colin Barnett, inferred, increases above this amount show that a particular Local Government Area is seriously mismanaging its financial affairs in its use of rate income and government funding.

Based on current local rate returns, the Shire of York will have a 25% shortfall in revenue for the 2016-2017 Financial Year from its expected income as of June 30, 2017. This will be carried through to the new Financial Year. This is not inclusive of State and Commonwealth grant funding that is highly unlikely to be increased significantly and should not be heavily relied on.

The Shire admits that to meet its current mandatory, statutory community servicing and economic development obligations it requires a rate increase of 3.75% to 4.5% over the next 3 years, otherwise the extent and standard of service may be reduced. This is up to three times the current annual rate of inflation.

It appears the Shire will now adopt a 1.5 % increase in rates for the 2017-2018 Financial Year, exactly the same as Australia’s Annual Inflation Rate in 2016. This is because of community anger, not shire financial competence. 

The Shire has undertaken an overall expenditure of $187,000 to recoup old debts of $326,000. Its attempt to fully recover monies owed by Settlers House will fail because its lawyers, at great expense, have continuously advised it of such- for the past eight years.

According to Ms. Susie Haslehurst the Shire gets a monthly account from its Debt Collection Agency without (proper) detail. This is a shocking indictment of expenditure without substantial records being requested and kept at the Shire Offices- being the break-down of this expenditure. It suggests the same low standard of record keeping as has occurred with previous council administrations.

The Shire is continually failing to provide innovative platforms, including eventing that will accelerate tourism development and provide for future population and business growth.

Given the State Government’s intent, the Shire of York should be mindful of the following.

PREDICTIONS

a) The Shire will divest itself of its Tavern Licence for the Forrest Bar & Cafe thereby relieving itself of some cost burden, including but not entirely limited to, purchases of stock being food and beverages, utility costs and the provision of staff with its attendant salary and related on-costs.
 As owners of the property they will retain the costs of maintenance, insurance and debt repayment.

The major sporting clubs will be the lessee and responsible Licencee, under a suitable sporting club liquor licence and be accountable for stock purchases, utility costs, staffing and payment of rent.

b) The Shire of York will be subject to an official investigation over its expenditure (including cause and effects) on the York Recreation and Convention Centre, relating to its use of Royalties for Regions funding and the overall negative impact of the final 400% increase in total project cost has had on the Shire’s financial situation.

This will be as part of an extension of the investigation relating to the cost of Government expenditure on projects within the Metropolitan Area and some Royalties for Regions funded projects in Rural Regional and Remote areas.

c) Because of the York Recreation and Convention Centre the Shire of York will be listed as one of the 16 ‘High Risk’ Local Government Areas by the Department of Local Government for the 2017- 2018 Financial Year.

d) The Shires poor financial performance over the past 4 years, including exorbitant rate increases, will see its financial accounts for the 2014-to-2017 Financial Years forensically audited by the Department of the Auditor General.

e) The Shire of York’s record keeping will be monitored by the Department of Local Government to ensure compliance with recording standards required under the State Records Act, 2000.

f) The Shire of York will be engaged in legal proceedings in the 2017-2018 Financial Year.

David Taylor.

MURRAY’S NOT-AMUSING MUSINGS. In columnist, Paul Murray’s opinion, Lisa Scaffidi is ‘Guilty of doing one thing:a great job’.

The West Australian, Saturday May 13, 2017. https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/guilty-of-doing-a-great-job-ng-b88474204z

Paul Murray is a self-styled Perth ‘Shock-Jock’, a long serving Editor of The West Australian newspaper and a well -known columnist.

To put his publicly expressed admiration for Lisa Scaffidi and her greatness into perspective, Murray is a populist writer who knows full well how his journalistic bread is buttered.

In this case his controversially perverse presumptions include that his Lord Mayor has stirred up green-eyed monsters because she is guilty of being an effective and energetic Lord Mayoral appointee willing to travel extensively (for free) to promote Perth, albeit first class for both travel and accommodation. 

Unfortunately-those obviously jealous were the US Securities and Exchange Commission worried that Mrs. Scaffidi was party to a breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by BHP Billiton over her trip to Beijing- with the WA Corruption and Crime Commission envious too.

As an opinionated columnist, Mr Murray has to have a mind like a steel trap with a memory for facts, figures and faces dating back decades. However, he appears to have forgotten that Mrs. Scaffidi may have waived a $25,000, City of Perth, fee for BHP Billiton, just before strapping herself in luxury to fly to the China, Olympics.

Also that she called the non-declaration of hundreds of thousands of dollars of free travel a ‘technical failure’ after declaring the gift to her, as Lord Mayor, of a $20 goblet.

Mrs. Scaffidi probably declared this cheap object d’art because she was a senior member of the State Administrative Tribunal and knew she was obliged to do this. It is a pity she forgot to mention all those much more expensive gifts.

Mr. Murray has a problem with the word ‘gifts’. He claims that the constant referencing of benevolent external contribution to costs as ‘gifts’ by those he works for, the media, has been particularly damaging by fuelling a misleading perception.

Hang on Paul! What other word would you like to use- donation-handout-favour-benefaction or maybe gratuity, sweetener and sinecure sound better?

Mr. Murray blames a politically motivated Machiavellian conspiracy that wants poor Mrs.Scaffidi removed from office even though she owes no political allegiance?

Murray has apparently forgotten that his Goddess has been a well-known member of The 500 Club, an organization of right-wing, rich individuals dedicated to striving for conservative political leadership in WA and Australia. It could otherwise be called the ‘Tony Abbott’ fan-club.

But his biggest load of bullshit is that travel prohibitions that Scaffidi has transgressed have come under widespread attack by strangling the proper workings of local government. Widespread attack in this case means the WA Local Government Association, a systemic Local Government leech.

Murray has little idea that by suggesting massive gifts to Local Government Officials are appropriate, he is potentially dooming ratepayers across the state to widespread Local Government corruption.

Murray caters to the 2 million population of Perth- compounded by filial leanings towards the upper end of town. Even though only about 2.5 % of the population buy ‘The West’ to read it these days, unlike the 1.4 million a week when he was, Editor, nearly two decades ago.

He arguably courts controversy for his ego’s sake, mostly contentious, sometimes ill-considered, ill-conceived and in this case poorly researched, and promoting unacceptable practices.

Although an extremely intelligent man, Murray’s long term relationship with- and understanding of- rural and regional WA is that it produces a decent Chardonnay and Cabernet, it is where some of his breakfast muesli comes from and can produce a top class filet steak.

The fact that Rural, Regional and Remote WA ‘is’ the state’s economy and Perth is an expensive consumerist nightmare is of little interest to the metropolitan area elitists, such as Mr. Murray.

It would appear that he could not care less that his ‘white knight’ defence of Mrs. Scafiddi’s conduct, promotes and perpetuates the lack of probity, morality, ethics and accountability that is infiltrated Local Government in this state over most of the last decade.

He could not care less that 32 Local Government Areas are considered to be at administrative high-to-median risk of malfeasance and that 50 % of councils fall well below the standards of compliance
with the Local Government Act 1998. And that some rural rates have gone through the roof because of incompetent local government excesses.

He does not appear to know that the State Administrative Tribunal is mainly an inept pussy or know that Jennifer Mathews has been removed from her position as Director General of the Department of Local Government because of her failure to ensure quality local government governance, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas which would include ‘Prohibited Gifts’.

And like his friend, Mrs Scaffidi, Mr. Murray would not venture forth to York unless it had five star
accommodation and similar restaurant facilities. In Mrs Scafiddi’s case- for free.

I have known Paul Murray for forty years and worked closely with him when he was Editor of
The West Australian. I have a deep admiration for Mr. Murray and his past works. Unfortunately
this effort is an absolute shocker, where Mr. Murray ‘knows not what hedoes’.

David Taylor

HONESTLY DISHONEST –

Lisa Scaffidi, the Local Government Act and what they spell out for York and the Wheatbelt.

Ensconced on her throne, covered in mayoral bling looking like it came straight from Tiffany’s Jewellers, New York, coiffure reminding  many of ‘Miss Piggy’s’ haircut in ‘The Muppet Show’, she exudes confidence and oozes a presumed degree of arrogance within and without her council chambers.

She had no problem in telling a harsh media critic that his breath stank, and everyone that she will not resign.

Despite the Government and now the Opposition both baying for self-sacrificial blood, the Lord Mayor of Perth, Lisa Scaffidi, says she ain’t goin’ anywhere, which could have some seriously adverse effects for Local Government in WA.

The route pattern of the list of free flights she has taken looks like the regular, yearly overseas flight paths of Qantas, and her 45 State Administrative Tribunal charges and being found guilty by the WACCC, is a sizable record a hardened criminal might be proud of. She knew what she was doing was wrong as she had sat and held a senior position on that same SAT.

Mrs Scaffidi excuse is the claim she has been out and about touting Perth’s charms to the world at the expense of big business and at no cost to the City of Perth and its community -other than to its integrity, dignity and her disclosure obligations.

Has her efforts been worthwhile? That is a matter of opinion and perception with 90 % of a public survey now saying, no-she has to go.

Has Mrs Scaffidi ensured Perth is considered as a world-class city? That is also debatable. But- the current reality is untenanted offices, closed restaurants and shops, failed events and a major slump in tourism.

Sounds a lot like York- on a grander scale!

The claim by the former State Government that Elizabeth Quay had more visitors than Rome’s Colosseum was an extreme flight of farcical political fancy. What it did was include a daily count of the public and office workers walking passed the place with no intention of viewing it or using its facilities. It is stark testimony of what politicians and public officials will do to retain office.

So what has allowed Dacre Alcock, Bill Price, Ray Hooper and so many others, both councillors and local government officers to emerge, and then get away with murdering probity and ensuring the demise of local community trust in rural and regional councils in particular?

It is The Local Government Act 1998, and its interpretation by the Department of Local Government that makes it just an act, a sham, a toothless tiger.

The last State Government, over two terms in office, was unwilling to interfere in the running of local government, by failing locals, for fear of being accused of encroaching on and undermining the independence of communities in administering their own affairs- and upsetting the Nationals partnership.

This has allowed for nepotism, cronyism, little accountability, local government corruption and criminal activity to balloon over the past nine years.

The Nationals have had ministers representing rural areas such as the Central Wheatbelt all through this time. They were extremely reluctant to be involved and have their Shire Councils’ inadequacies, exposed, blamed and shamed because it would not be to their political advantage.

Yet the Shire of Toodyay has taken a Chief-Executive-Officer to court for misuse of council funds, the Shire of Dowerin’s CEO is in jail for stealing, York’s Council was suspended, with allegations against its former CEO allegedly investigated by the WACCC and the Major Fraud Squad for credit card chicanery, Mukinbudin accepted this CEO who was the cause of the contentious Fitz-Gerald Report and Mt Marshalls’ CEO left -abusing his council colleagues on Face Book. The list goes on.

All tawdry, all should have never happened if the Local Government Act 1998, had clearly defined penalties for explicitly described acts that are unacceptable in the court of public opinion, in the public interest, the interests of the majority of ratepayers or are just downright wrong.

Any claim of ignorance by councillors and shire staff of their obligations under the LGA 1998, should be accepted as in a criminal court- ‘so sad-too bad’.

In Lisa Scaffidi’s case she has been found guilty of accepting ‘prohibited gifts’. Prohibited cannot be misinterpreted, it means forbidden and banned and is therefore totally unacceptable behaviour.

It has now come to the stage within Shire Councils that any Conflict of Interest, including cronyism should have penalties from severe fines to removal from office. Lax or lack of administrative accountability should not be tolerated with heavy penalties including dismissal of individuals, both councillors and administrators.

Every Shire Council should undergo a rigorous mandatory third-party performance review and financial audit, annually, with any attempt at deception or non-disclosure greeted by heavy fines and dismissals.

Every Asset Register should be up to date and all shire record keeping should meet all standards set under the State Records Act, 2005. No acceptable excuses- just open condemnation and severe penalties for non-compliance.

All Local Government Area statutes, by-laws and principals should be state-wide and standardized. The principle that Principles can be turned into just Guidelines is absolute bullshit.

If their key elements are to be changed to suit individuals, rather than the whole communities interest, than the council vote must be an absolute majority with no dissenter’s and no abstentions.

Shire President, David Wallace and CEO, Paul Martin, have been advised of what may happen in the future.

Already the main metropolitan print press has launched an unprecedented attack on what they have called ‘Bush Shires mired in Corruption’ which is an extremely derogatory and blunt assessment.

No-one has made a defensive public statement saying that it is not entirely true, including Local Member, Mia Davies.

As the Nationals Leader sitting on the Opposition benches she will have no power to assist her electorate. That is not negatively politicizing her role- it is the political game of winners and losers.

There are relatively few Labor voters in the Wheatbelt and the ‘Famers Union” is not an affiliated union member of the Labor Party.

There are two million people in Perth, and columnists’ in the Press, who dislike Royalties for Regions believing that it has been a total waste of $5 billion. That was even in the boom times, so just imagine how they feel now, when Perth and WA has become the poorest State in Australia.

The Avon Valley will not get its Super Town, Northam, and the Wheatbelt can look forward to a total lack of empathy by most of the WA public.

What will happen in the future? The DLG will stringently oversee all governance compliance in Local Government Areas, the WACCC will toughen-up on any perceived corruption, while the Auditor General will go through annual financial reports like a dose of salts.

There is an extreme likelihood that the Local Government Act, 1998 will be amended to prevent any form of ‘corruption’ in Local Government Areas and specify much harsher penalties for any form of corrupt act.

So whose fault is this potential Wheatbelt Shire turmoil? Obviously the DLG- and the Local Government Act, 1998.

However in York’s case its problems are of its own making. The CEO in the dark days was no fool and the Shire Presidents of that time not so stupid that they did not know right from wrong, legally ethically, morally, commercially and what their Local Government Area obligations were!

They chose to ignore it all as there were no penalties to suit the crime.

David Taylor.

SHIRE OF YORK - BUDGET FINANCIAL YEAR 2017-2018 - QUESTIONNAIRE + Answers

To David Wallace and Paul Martin- May 5, 2017

Question 1: The York community is waiting excitedly for this budget, feeling that its focus, visioning, ideation and action will spell out a new era for the town, providing major incentives for substantial population and business growth, positive financial multiplication and ever expanding debt reduction. All this without the hardship created for ratepayers through another rate increase well above the Consumer Price Index rate of inflation. Would this be a fair assessment?

Shires answer: - Yes, definitely. Despite the fact that recent ‘Events’ held in Perth have failed miserably, creating a $3 million loss, with venture partners having to sell their own homes, we believe events are York’s future, because there is absolutely nothing else to do. To this end we have dug-up, sorry resurrected, the York Jazz Festival as part of the Perth International Jazz Festival using the same events modelling that failed so miserably last time. Our investment of $23,500 will largely promote two selected commercial venues with the community enjoying the music and atmosphere on a local community pays-for-everything basis, other than 4, one hour freebies. The number of jazz enthusiasts that will venture forth to York on any given day is debatable as they can see it all at home. Whether the Headliners from the Perth Festival will venture to York is another matter. However we believe it is worth a punt with your money. Of course tourists will have to pay too, and maybe it would be advisable for them to bring their own picnic baskets, and sleeping bags. Regarding population and business growth, bigger financial returns and less losses, that is something we can all look forward to in five-to-ten years time if we are lucky. It is also about time you stopped whinging and whining about whopping rate increases. Get used to it.

Question 2: Would it be fair to say that since July 1, 2013, local domestic (GRV) and commercial rate levies have gone up by as much as 20% As an example turning $1,000 owed, not into $1,200, but  $1,250 through the compounding effect of several excessive rate rises in this time?


Shires answer: - No- that is totally unfair. Most of your rates are used to retain specialist, professional staff at a salary level that we are accustomed to while you are not. These salaries and salary packages will ensure that York may be a better place to live at some stage. Remember there is always a ‘Silver Lining’- in our case a gold one. Compared with former DLGC ‘Head Honcho’, Jennifer Mathews’ annual salary of $289,000, your CEO is a relative pauper, being paid at least $40,000 less. Semi-derelict buildings layered with Pidgeon poo and filled with mouse and rat scat adds to the historic ambience of the town. Empty shops makes the main street look a lot like a scruffy, but lovely, little old lady with missing teeth. We even miss the old car bodies and rotting tyres at that quaint asbestos garage which provided that exciting risk element when you walked past. It is lucky your Shire knows how attractive the simple nuances of dilapidation are.

Question 3: Over the same time frame what has been the annual percentage increase for local Undeveloped Land (UV)?


Shires answer: - No comment. You are inferring our farming community may not be pulling its weight- which unfair as they are the only reason York exists, sort-of!

Question 4: Is the opening of the York Recreation and Convention Centre, in particular the Forrest (Tavern) Bar& Café and its attendant convention centre, its initial building and development costs, maintenance and all other associated expenditure including wages and the use of grant funding from other projects- for this project- the main reason for the recent out-of-control rates spiral?

Shires answer: - How would we know! All the documented information has disappeared, been shredded or was never done in the first place. You will have to ask Ray Hooper, Tyhscha Cochrane, Jacky (Jacqui) Jurmann and Gordon Tester if you can find them, two at a shire near you. You may have more luck with Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle and, Mark Duperouzel. Also we are way too busy trying to finance farm roads to sweat about the ‘small stuff’.

Question 5: The Forrest Bar & Café is owned and licensed as a ‘Tavern’ under the terms and conditions of the Liquor Control Act, 1988 by the Shire of York meaning that ratepayers are both customers, consumers and financers of a commercial business that has not met the mandatory opening hours and substantial food services required by this licence, and has knowingly and deliberately traded as being technically insolvent for a period of four years. Thereby placing its local competitors and ratepayers at financial risk. Is this a fact?


Shires answer: There is absolutely nothing wrong with everybody owing $5,000 on a local government business property and still having to pay for a beer and a limp lettuce sandwich, in Glad Wrap, or a semi-gourmet meal that you subsidize whether you are eating it or not. Just because its yours, and sending York bankrupt, does not mean you can climb over the counter and help yourselves. Taverns are a risky business- and so are convention centres. Hindsight is a wonderful thing with 20/20 visioning.

Question 6: Representatives of the Shire of York have visited other sport and recreation centres throughout the Wheatbelt to provide it positive guidance for the future of the York Recreation and Convention Centre. The financial failure of this project relates only to the Tavern Licensed bar, restaurant and convention centre that the other sports facilities visited arguably do not have. Given this, what was the purpose of these visits?


Shires answer: - A free trip, lots of fresh country air, coffees, teas and cakes- and a chat.



Question 7: The Government of Western Australia Corruption and Crime Commission’s report of April 2017, titled ‘Overview of Serious Misconduct’ concludes that the primary source of allegations of this misconduct includes an increased social media presence. This suggests that this agency uses social media sites such as ‘The Shire of York’s Unofficial- Official site and the ‘Real Voice of York’ site as a misconduct information resource. Is the Shire of York fully aware of this?


Shires answer: - What scurrilous, lying, malevolent social media sites full of fake news, and what sort of serious misconduct?


Question 8: The Department of Local Government now has sixteen (16) rural and regional shire councils listed as being in a ‘High-Risk’ category. What do you think this means and have you been directly informed, or made aware of the  Shire of York being on this list?  


Shires answer: - If we are ‘you voted for us and we gave you the new hired help’!



Question 9: The Department of Local Government now has a further sixteen (16) rural and regional shire councils listed as being in a ‘Median to High Risk’ category. What do you think this means and have you been directly informed, or made aware of the Shire of York being on this list?


Shires answer:- Ditto.


Question 10: Is the Shire of York now aware that the days of municipal and grant funding expenditure largess is over? The Office of the Auditor General, the Department of Local Government and the Government of Western Australia Corruption and Crime Commission will be targeting  inadequate governance and ignorance of local government procedures, rules and regulations, lack of adherence to local government policy, unqualified, inexperienced and unmonitored administration staff failing in their duties and councillors ill-equipped to oversee its administration staff and its activities?


Shires answer: - What goes on, behind closed doors, at your Shire of York Council Offices, 1 Joaquina Street, York WA 6302 is really none of your business.



Question 11: The former Chief-Executive-Officer, Bill Price, of the Shire of Exmouth may be charged with a criminal offence for spending a substantial amount of municipal funds without due authority and proper authorization. The former Commissioner of the Shire of York, James Best, allegedly spent a substantial amount of municipal funds on an additional employment salary and on the purchase of a private property by allegedly claiming he had due authority and proper authorization, being himself. Has the Shire of York sought legal advice regarding the validity of Mr. Best’s claim?


Shires answer: - This all happened so long ago and we are sick and tired of being reminded of teensy mistakes. If we did we would have all our former senior staff in court along with most councillors. Lawyers cost around $500 per hour, and any part thereof and we have enough legal issues, thank-you-very-much.
What your Shire is doing for you is providing you with a glass half-full, not half-empty. You should all be less pessimistic and very, very grateful.

There is a good chance that no-one from the Shire of York will make any comment on or provide an appropriate answer to these questions, meaning that it has no intent to meet its obligation of public transparency.

This will allow the community and its ratepayers the chance to assess the questions, make their own judgments and deduce what the answers should be. Then contact the Shire and an appropriate authority if the questions raised could be considered to be serious misconduct.

Also demand to know from the Shire whether the Shire of York is listed as one of the 32 high to median risk shires and- if so-why?

David Taylor.

CCC shines spotlight on local government corruption - and structural weaknesses

The Report on Matters of Serious Misconduct in the Shire of Exmouth focuses on the Commission’s investigation into three aspects of Shire governance – the actions of the Shire CEO who ‘was a law unto himself’, the conduct of a Shire employee who benefited from his friendship with the CEO, and a million-dollar contract that has exposed the ratepayers of Exmouth to significant financial risk.

The report into activities at Exmouth underlines disturbing features that have proved common to other local government authorities and are areas worthy of assessment and focus by all local governments. They include:

- inadequate governance, whether due to placing friendship above probity, ignorance of robust procedures or some other reason;

- a culture of entitlement;

- lack of adherence to local government policy and inadequate oversight;

- authority and responsibility for very significant procurement and contract management resting with administrators who are not necessarily appropriately qualified, experienced or monitored;

- councillors who are ill-equipped  to oversight complex and often high-stakes activities, particularly in the area of procurement and contract management;

- confusion as to the extent to which a councillor can make enquiries of administrative staff; and

- difficulty and conflicts arising for people who are aware of potentially corrupt activity, but reticent to speak up.

 ?

IMMINENT DANGER ALERT FOR THE SHIRE OF YORK: - NEW GOVERNMENT-NEW BROOM!

It often happens in the first few months in office. New governments’ look for politically damaging festering sores then get ready to perform corrective surgery. If it causes a political or public stink, then they have time to allow for the odour to disappear and the scars to heal before the next election.

One traditional media outlet politely calls one major problem ‘Bush Shires Mired in Corruption’.

For nearly four years public voices such as York’s two social media sites have continuously raised contentious issues about the performance of the Shire of York, the Department of Local Government and related serious problems.

There are those that scoff about their readership and potency. This site has had close to 360,000 hits over a three-and-a-half-year period and is trolled by the staff of every Government Minister when the concerns raised involve his or her portfolio.

The behind-the scenes impact of these sites, and others, is substantial, even if they cannot be directly measured against positive social and political changes at the time. Although the wheels turn slowly, the supposed intangibles are actually tangible.

Barry Sargeant, the Director General of the Department of Liquor Licencing, was a prime target of this site since he provided a Tavern Licence to the Shire of York. The then government was aware of what he had done and it could be considered unconscionable, but much of it was approved by a former Minister for Racing, Gaming and Liquor and Sport and Recreation, Terry Waldron.

A new government saw in the end for Sargeant, and Waldron, who went to the back benches, retired from politics at the last election.

Now there will be a re-work of local government policy to improve standards and transparency, particularly in the case of rural and regional Shire Councils. That was a demand which is now a fact.

It should include a serious toughening up of the requirements for compliance in all areas of local government governance that would mean changes to the last centuries’ Local Government Act 1998, which is now nearly two decades old and does not appear to measure up.

The Director General of the Department of Local Government & Communities, Jennifer Mathews is on the fat-cat bureaucrat departure list. The Prince of Probity, Brad Jolly, should join her.

They bear the overall responsibility for the surge in complaints of serious misconduct and serious lack of proper governance and probity in councils outside the Metropolitan Area.

Also- it has now been established that many councils have little knowledge of what they are supposed to do, and do not have the skills to manage budgets as small as $2 to $3 million.

A big game changer will be the Auditor General being let loose on local government to provide oversight on financial  auditing procedures , something that the previous government promised to do, but did not get around to.

Now you can forget the $25,000, per annum, spend of a local government corporate credit card by a Chief-Executive-Officer on himself and a few mates.

And there will be no more wrist-slapping with a feather duster for major local government miscreants. It could well be criminal charges, court time and possible jail time. Hefty fines, dismissal and being banned from public office will be other options.

So besides the new government, what was the straw that finally broke the camels’ back?

No it was not York, Dowerin, Toodyay and others, it is the Shire of Exmouth.

However- there are identifiable similarities to York.

1. A Royalties for Regions community project that has failed miserably and caused financial

damage to ratepayers as the facility remains empty. (The difference is that Exmouth’s effort cost $1.1 million while York’s is a staggering $15 plus million.)

2. A Chief-Executive-Officer signed the project contract knowing he had no authority to do so. (The difference is the whole Shire of York Council supported its Chief-Executive-Officer in signing the project contract without any proper financial due diligence for the scheme ever being done)

   
3. The Council gave the Chief-Executive-Officer a generous increase in leave entitlements including paying for travel to a conference on the Gold Coast even though he was already being investigated by the WACCC. (The difference is that the Shire of York Council always gave its Chief-Executive-Officer enormous travel entitlements to go where-ever he wished, hiding his gigantic personal expenses from ratepayers who were demanding an investigation into his corporate credit card usage.)

4. The Chief-Executive-Officer provided a staff member with a dubious rental arrangement as a tax avoidance scam. (The difference is the Shire of York provided its Chief-Executive-Officer with and extremely generous and dubious rental arrangement for reasons it refused to divulge to ratepayers.)

It is all too familiar but the Exmouth saga is recent, the Shire of York’s fiasco four and more years ago.

However the Minister for Local Government, the Attorney General and the Minister for Tourism and Racing Gaming and Liquor have all been made aware of the cause and effects of the Shire of York’s foray into pub ownership.

Next to be contacted will be the Minister overseeing the Department of Commerce/ Consumer Protection.

It is an interesting analogy that in the case of the Forrest Bar & Café the consumer is also the financier of a business that under normal, commercial circumstances could be forced into receivership. The legal ramifications of this have yet to be discussed with the appropriate authority.

No-one is out to malevolently damage the Shire of York and its reputation. Its reputation is entirely in its own hands.

Yes the Shire of York’s past and current actions may be investigated and other matters re-investigated, as new State Government Ministers decide how they wish to proceed and whether they feel it is part of the “Bush Councils Mire of Corruption”.

What the Shire of York should do is tread very carefully, albeit rather quickly to fairly, equitably and legally resolve the contentious issue of its ownership of a Tavern Licence and meet its obligations to the whole York community.

It should know, and does know, that it has no business to own, and should never have been granted, the  Tavern Liquor Licence that has caused the biggest community capital works failure in the towns history and continuing extreme financial pain for ratepayers.

As a matter of interest the name of the Chief-Executive-Officer for the Shire of Exmouth is Bill Price. He is about to pay a large one.

David Taylor.

REMOVAL OF JENNIFER MATHEWS & BRAD JOLLY

DATE May 2, 2017
Hon David Templeman
Minister for Local government

Dear Minister

Over the past eight years the Department of Local Government (DLGC), one of its Ministers and its senior executives have been nothing but complete failures.

I would defy anybody to deny this. Even the former Premier, Colin Barnett’s past public comments have suggested this as fact.

Ms. Mathews, as Director General, has overseen a department that was ( and is) of little value to your Government, Local Government, communities, ratepayers- and a waste of taxpayer funds.

The reality is that it has done nothing to improve the standards of administrative responsibility, probity, community communication, public transparency, overall good governance, financial and State Records Act, 2005 compliance and a duty-of-care to ratepayers within the Local Government Sector.

Worst of all it has continued to deny it has any reason, responsibility and power to do so because it would be interfering in a democratic process and system.

Actually some WA academics philosophise that this process and system is not democratic. They claim that anyone on the Electoral Roll in any  given local government electorate should have the right to vote in a Local Government Election . Otherwise members of a community, who are not ratepayers, are disenfranchised.

It is an issue that has been raised from time-to-time within the hallowed halls of the University of Western Australia by Professors’ whose academic expertise is aligned to analysing the level and quality of government in the community compared to other countries. Your government was made aware of this idea when Geoff Gallop was Premier.

Whether it would improve the representation and system of Local Government in WA is debatable.

In Local Government some Council Members lack of required knowledge is bordering on criminal ineptitude and very little has been done to change this.

It is pitiful when you hear that one rural Councillor’s response to why he was a good and effective councillor was that he had (personally) ‘never been broke’. That was after he had be told that $600,000 had been stolen, very easily, from his Shire- by its Chief-Executive-Officer.

It has also been noted in the media that Senior Shire Officers whose capabilities have been questioned by ratepayers or the WA Corruption & Crime Commission disappear, to reappear somewhere else, usually in a Rural, Regional or Remote Local government Area, in a similar position of responsibility. 

Overall when ever the DLG has been finally  forced to act, any actions and decisions it has taken has been reactive negativity, not proactive rationalization, to the detriment of both council and ratepayers.

It has now been suggested that Ms. Mathews will be removed from her Director Generals position.

I believe she has made her position untenable and the whole department should now come under intense scrutiny and review by appropriate external authorities.

The position of Mr. Brad Jolly, the Executive Director Sector Regulations and Support, the

Brad Jolly

Department of Local Government and Communities should also be considered to be untenable. His support of, and insistence for, probity within the Local Government Sector has been, at best, farcical.

One example was Mr. Jolly’s lack of action after assisting in hiring a Mr. James Best as Commissioner of the Shire of York when its Council was suspended without adequate reason.

Mr. Best hired himself in an additional employment capacity, without due authority, and, similarly purchased a private property on behalf of the Shire. The direct, non-recoupable debt to the Shire of York is in the vicinity of $700,000.

Mr. Jolly is also the Presiding Member ( and the representative of the Department of Local Government) on the Local Government Standards Panel- charged with enforcing the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007, regarding behavioural matters within the Local Government Sector.

At one stage his Deputy Local Government Member was none other than the Lord Mayor of Perth, Lisa Scaffidi, now accused of serious breaches of behavioural matters including the acceptance of numerous expensive gifts of flights and accommodation provided to her by various third-parties.

How such a high profile Local Government Councillor claims to have failed to recognize she was continuously in breach of Local Government Rules after having sat on the Local Government Standards Panel, chaired by Mr. Jolly, is both unexplainable and unacceptable.

Why Mr. Jolly, as the Presiding Member of the standards panel did not ensure that Mrs. Scaffidi was fully conversant with the requirements regarding behavioural matters is also unexplainable and unacceptable.

In normal circumstances the buck stops with Mr. Jolly and he should be removed from both his official capacities.

I hope that I can receive a response to me from your department regarding these matters in due course.

Yours sincerely

David Taylor.