(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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment