OPEN LETTER TO THE SHIRE OF YORK
Date June 30, 2017
David WallaceShire President
Paul MartinCEO
Shire of York
1 Joaquina Street
YORK WA 6302
Your Attention Please (please note attachment)
Having been advised, last year, of the lack of quality of the Shire of York website it was pleasing to see that you have since developed a much improved version that better presents York on the Internet- with your stated intention of undertaking ongoing refinement.
The five alternating promotional puffs are reasonably erudite, although currently slightly fanciful and exaggerated regarding references to business opportunity, a diverse and prosperous economy, tourism and events and effective local governance.
Unfortunately some may have to take a speed-reading course to fully digest their content at one time.
Also, unfortunately, the introduction to the website that reads “A place of Community and Lifestyle’ has the literal translation of ‘a place where people live together in a certain way’, which on face-value is without discernible meaning and of actual promotional advantage.
However it is pleasing to see that the Shire of York has identified website presentation and community consultation as a priority-with proper interactive communications an issue to be addressed sometime in the future, if it is considered affordable.
An 80% approval rating for the content of the monthly publication called ‘Voice of York’ is encouraging, although such acceptance depends upon what is written and published and when, where, how and by whom the survey was taken.
It certainly is a positive vehicle for the Shire to promote itself, but also answer important questions raised by the community that could include the following:-
1)Having created three business models for the YRCC, one a cooperative and two outsourced, and interacted with the sporting groups effected and the community, why does it still require the expense of another analytical review and report by SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd?
2) Will this report join at least three others that have already been commissioned dealing with the same financial problems and the same remodelling of core business?
3) Given your own statistics regarding opening hours and staff and staff management levels that project exorbitant, unacceptable financial loss by the Forrest Bar & Café- how will you actually attract interest from private individuals and/or businesses- as lessees- as defined in Outsource Model 1?
4) Given that Shire approval is paramount to obtaining any liquor licence in a Local Government Area, what good reason can the Shire give that a future application for a liquor licence for the Forrest Bar & Café could be rejected by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor?
Without being facetious, there are also two business models for the Shire of York Council to reflect upon.
1. The retention of the current Shire of York, Local Government Administration model at a cost of $5 million in rates income with the continuous financial impact of external contractors being required to provide costly business plans, reviews and reports without being able to fully enforce an appropriate regime of Key Performance Indicators on Shire senior management?
or
2. Enter into negotiation with a private company such as SGL Consulting Group Pty Ltd to oversee, direct and implement all the major business and administration functions required of a Local Government Shire Administration, excluding such amenities as front counter customer service- but removing all senior executive management except for a Chief-Executive-Officer whose role is retained as an intermediary between Council and contractor?
(The Shire has two Executive Managers- with this title having the international meaning of such employees having the authority to licence and certify and hire and terminate personnel, being close to absolute control. Such authority should be strictly the preserve of a CEO as it could, theoretically, undermine that position. It appears that within Local Government they make up titles for positions without understanding any potentially negative ramifications that these titles may convey.)
(Despite the current CEO claiming that he was adverse to using consultants and contractors, over the past 18 months consultants have been contracted to assist in Shire of York policy development, an in-depth road restoration and maintenance review and assisting in the decision-making process regarding the future of the YRCC.)
Using private industry expertise could be at a lesser annual financial cost than is required to support the current system with a total focus on positive performance being part of the contractual relationship as negotiated, and then enforced, by the membership of the Shire of York Council, in support of local community requirements.
Private enterprise companies such as SGL Consulting operate in a highly competitive marketplace and must perform their required duties to the highest standards or lose their client base. Its staff expertise covers all disciplines that senior local government managers may, or may not, be proficient in. These include planning, funding, sport, policy evaluation, promotion and marketing, community engagement, arts and culture and tourism.
This list of many and varied accomplishments and verifiable ability, arguably, cannot be matched by the current senior management employed by the Shire of York.
Obviously placing many of the Local Government Administration roles in the hands of private enterprise will make the DLGC, WALGA and other local government associations squeal like little pigs. Unfortunately being able to improve the quality of their work-related performance is not known to be part of the local government employee work-ethic.
This letter gives the Shire President the opportunity to use the ‘Voice of York’ to rebut the suggestion that senior staff at the Shire of York are underperforming by providing the examples of the outstanding quality of their performance, and assuring ratepayers that the tail does not wag the dog. Also to give reliable and informative answers to the other four specific questions raised. Not to do so-obviously raises concerns.
The issue of Shire Councils opting to use private enterprise to provide a positive local socio-economic future rather than public servants is a contentious one, but at least warrants some form of informed debate. It could be equated to both the positives and negatives of privatising a public utility such as Western Power, but with control retained in the hands of well-trained, rural Local Government Area Elected Councillors who should be financially reimbursed for their commitment-far more than they are.
On another matter regarding Outsourced Model 2, for the YRCC, ‘While this model reduces the burden on club volunteers, it does not address the desire for clubs to receive revenue’. This sentence is repeated but it is highly likely that the reader got the message the first time.
It is assumed that a number of people will be interested in your response -if any?
Kind regards
(The Shire has two Executive Managers- with this title having the international meaning of such employees having the authority to licence and certify and hire and terminate personnel, being close to absolute control. Such authority should be strictly the preserve of a CEO as it could, theoretically, undermine that position. It appears that within Local Government they make up titles for positions without understanding any potentially negative ramifications that these titles may convey.)
(Despite the current CEO claiming that he was adverse to using consultants and contractors, over the past 18 months consultants have been contracted to assist in Shire of York policy development, an in-depth road restoration and maintenance review and assisting in the decision-making process regarding the future of the YRCC.)
Using private industry expertise could be at a lesser annual financial cost than is required to support the current system with a total focus on positive performance being part of the contractual relationship as negotiated, and then enforced, by the membership of the Shire of York Council, in support of local community requirements.
Private enterprise companies such as SGL Consulting operate in a highly competitive marketplace and must perform their required duties to the highest standards or lose their client base. Its staff expertise covers all disciplines that senior local government managers may, or may not, be proficient in. These include planning, funding, sport, policy evaluation, promotion and marketing, community engagement, arts and culture and tourism.
This list of many and varied accomplishments and verifiable ability, arguably, cannot be matched by the current senior management employed by the Shire of York.
Obviously placing many of the Local Government Administration roles in the hands of private enterprise will make the DLGC, WALGA and other local government associations squeal like little pigs. Unfortunately being able to improve the quality of their work-related performance is not known to be part of the local government employee work-ethic.
This letter gives the Shire President the opportunity to use the ‘Voice of York’ to rebut the suggestion that senior staff at the Shire of York are underperforming by providing the examples of the outstanding quality of their performance, and assuring ratepayers that the tail does not wag the dog. Also to give reliable and informative answers to the other four specific questions raised. Not to do so-obviously raises concerns.
The issue of Shire Councils opting to use private enterprise to provide a positive local socio-economic future rather than public servants is a contentious one, but at least warrants some form of informed debate. It could be equated to both the positives and negatives of privatising a public utility such as Western Power, but with control retained in the hands of well-trained, rural Local Government Area Elected Councillors who should be financially reimbursed for their commitment-far more than they are.
On another matter regarding Outsourced Model 2, for the YRCC, ‘While this model reduces the burden on club volunteers, it does not address the desire for clubs to receive revenue’. This sentence is repeated but it is highly likely that the reader got the message the first time.
It is assumed that a number of people will be interested in your response -if any?
Kind regards
David Taylor.
Attachment
THE DEVIL WITHOUT THE DETAIL :- (a cheap and cheerful look at the 2017-18 budgetary annus horribilis.)
In the Shire of York Council Meeting Agenda for June 26, 2017, there was an insight into how the Shire interprets its own importance within the community and how ratepayers rate in its humble opinion.
Psychologically- it appears slightly twisted with an assessment of what outcomes should be prioritized reflecting the same attitudes that date back to the early 21st Century regarding who and what comes first in York.
Its idea of imperative logic for strategic economic effects appear to be the Shire’s priorities come first on the list, then users, then the community, leaving ratepayers without a mention.
In its own words ‘The best outcome for the Shire,
users and the community’ is its philosophical priority list regarding the
biggest financial mistake it ever made, the YRCC Tavern-restaurant and
convention centre. So the best result reflects the optimum for the Shire which
is not necessarily the best for the ratepayer.
According to Shire records only 3.2 % of the population of York use the restaurant facility in any given week. (Whether they are actually all locals is unknown.) A similar, privately owned unsubsidized restaurant would not last a month based on that amount of regular clientele compared to opening hours and staffing levels.
The Shire claims the Forrest Bar & Café is open 23 days per month and apparently opens at least 36 hours per week, which equates to 144 hours per four week period, requiring 531staff working hours- or around 3.7 staff members on duty on any given day, five days a week- to cover the rush.
According to Shire records only 3.2 % of the population of York use the restaurant facility in any given week. (Whether they are actually all locals is unknown.) A similar, privately owned unsubsidized restaurant would not last a month based on that amount of regular clientele compared to opening hours and staffing levels.
The Shire claims the Forrest Bar & Café is open 23 days per month and apparently opens at least 36 hours per week, which equates to 144 hours per four week period, requiring 531staff working hours- or around 3.7 staff members on duty on any given day, five days a week- to cover the rush.
Taking this into account, all staff
costs, per annum, would be around $220,000 including a Catering Manager who
works to provide a restaurant dinner menu for just 6 hours per week for a total
of 113 customers, including children (with an additional 12 desserts and 7
sides). A totally unacceptable level of staff, and staffing costs, compared to financial
return.
After deducting all costs associated with running a restaurant, the profit margin would be zero to sub-zero liquidation. There is absolutely no positive financial returns or user numbers to ‘cook-the-books’ with no such thing as promotable ‘goodwill’.
The Shire would have to waive rent and just walk-away from the exorbitant running costs it has created for this, alleged, asset (nee lemon) if the facility is placed for tender to a private operator.
Obviously this should take one option for the future of the Forrest bar & Café out of the mix of continuing business plans, reviews, workshops and gab-fests that have been repeated ad nauseum at around $10,000 a pop.
After deducting all costs associated with running a restaurant, the profit margin would be zero to sub-zero liquidation. There is absolutely no positive financial returns or user numbers to ‘cook-the-books’ with no such thing as promotable ‘goodwill’.
The Shire would have to waive rent and just walk-away from the exorbitant running costs it has created for this, alleged, asset (nee lemon) if the facility is placed for tender to a private operator.
Obviously this should take one option for the future of the Forrest bar & Café out of the mix of continuing business plans, reviews, workshops and gab-fests that have been repeated ad nauseum at around $10,000 a pop.
The chances of obtaining expressions of interest and tenders from private
companies or individuals, given the costs of running this tavern and
restaurant, is next to nil, unless someone has a monumental profit margin
brain-fade. It could best be described an untenable tenancy designed to send
someone broke.
There is also the elephant-in-the-bar/cafe called competitive neutrality that will never go away while a Tavern Licence exists.
The Shire says that it cannot guarantee that another liquor licence will be issued by the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor for any re-invented bar and café management system. This is either an admission of guilt for its years of incompetent management or a threat that it should retain its Tavern Licence in its own self-interest-not of ratepayers.
The Shire is fully aware that the Imperial Hotel will re-open and requires a Tavern Licence and should understand that 5 tavern licences issued to a town with York’s population has not worked- and still will not work- given the current state of the tourism industry in WA and the state and government’s economic position.
There is also the elephant-in-the-bar/cafe called competitive neutrality that will never go away while a Tavern Licence exists.
The Shire says that it cannot guarantee that another liquor licence will be issued by the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor for any re-invented bar and café management system. This is either an admission of guilt for its years of incompetent management or a threat that it should retain its Tavern Licence in its own self-interest-not of ratepayers.
The Shire is fully aware that the Imperial Hotel will re-open and requires a Tavern Licence and should understand that 5 tavern licences issued to a town with York’s population has not worked- and still will not work- given the current state of the tourism industry in WA and the state and government’s economic position.
On the matter of suing someone- as of
July 1, 2017, major changes will begin to take effect within the Public Sector
Commission.
Obviously the Shire is looking to the Public Sector Commissioner to investigate improper actions taken by the Commissioner for York, James Best, in the purchase of a property now that both the Minister of the DLGC at that time, Tony Simpson, and his DLGC executive cohort, Jennifer Matthews, have departed.
Brad Jolly is still there, but how long he remains as Chair of the Local Government Standards Panel may hinge on the outcome of Perth Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi’s appeal to the Supreme Court against her conviction for misuse of entitlements and gifts. (Jolly’s probity mentoring skills are highly questionable.)
How successful the Shire will be in its pursuit of justice is debatable. But it should add the WA State Treasury to its list of targets as it provided a loan for an extremely questionable purpose without proper duty-of-care.
Yet, given the circumstances, the Shire should pursue this matter in the best interest of its ratepayers, not itself.
It will be attempting to denigrate the abilities of state government departments, senior executives and a Minister of the Crown in an effort to obtain compensation. This has been highly unsuccessful in the past and the Shire should have pre-ordained what it considers to be an acceptable outcome- for all ratepayers- not the Shire.
It has an unenviable record of ignoring expensive legal advice or accepting advice that is sub-
standard.
Obviously the Shire is looking to the Public Sector Commissioner to investigate improper actions taken by the Commissioner for York, James Best, in the purchase of a property now that both the Minister of the DLGC at that time, Tony Simpson, and his DLGC executive cohort, Jennifer Matthews, have departed.
Brad Jolly is still there, but how long he remains as Chair of the Local Government Standards Panel may hinge on the outcome of Perth Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi’s appeal to the Supreme Court against her conviction for misuse of entitlements and gifts. (Jolly’s probity mentoring skills are highly questionable.)
How successful the Shire will be in its pursuit of justice is debatable. But it should add the WA State Treasury to its list of targets as it provided a loan for an extremely questionable purpose without proper duty-of-care.
Yet, given the circumstances, the Shire should pursue this matter in the best interest of its ratepayers, not itself.
It will be attempting to denigrate the abilities of state government departments, senior executives and a Minister of the Crown in an effort to obtain compensation. This has been highly unsuccessful in the past and the Shire should have pre-ordained what it considers to be an acceptable outcome- for all ratepayers- not the Shire.
It has an unenviable record of ignoring expensive legal advice or accepting advice that is sub-
standard.
On a number of occasions it has engaged in
deliberately vexatious litigation, with no hope of success.
It has even taken an unwinnable case to the WA Supreme Court- then lied about it to concerned ratepayers.
As of May, 2017, uncollected Shire rates stood at $1.127,712 with 46% of rates payable still outstanding.
The sundry debt remains about the same at $356.124.00
What it is costing ratepayers to take punitive action against these sundry debtors for debt recovery- probably well exceeds an acceptable level of expenditure to any likely return.
No wonder the Shire was desperate to have its 2017-2018 Draft Budget accepted by Council.
The alternative was serious risks to cash-flow (including staff wages), delays in essential works and services, a major downgrade in its financial reputation (to C-minus) and non-compliance with the Local Government Act 1995.
There is no room in the budget for a Youth Officer other than placing this role under the umbrella of the Community & Economic Development Officer who has no expertise in this position. This is the type of solution that the Shire of York still uses much too often.
It has created a reasonable website that ratepayers should be pleased with- but the expertise required in providing interactive platforms for community communications such as ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ has not been budgeted for.
To allow untrained staff to answer questions from the community would not be a good idea. It would require publishing waivers, disclaimers and legal indemnification similar to those used in Minutes and Agendas. (The downside is that York social-media sites will have to continue to closely monitor and report on the actions of the Shire of York for the foreseeable future.)
The overall message in the minutes of the Meeting of June 26, 2017 is how much the highly paid Senior Management Staff of the Shire of York rely on external resources for them to do their job.
There is a continuous expensive plethora of contracted reports, reviews and business plans, all on the same subject, that in any other industry would be considered unacceptable.
It is time these managers, personally managed York’s affairs.
Dear Mr. Martin
Your Ref: - “A place of community and lifestyle” used with the Shire’s web address.
Could you please explain to the ratepayers what this possibly symbolic, emotive mantra actually means, being ‘what sort of community’ and ‘what kind of lifestyle’.
It could be argued that it does not actually mean anything as there are many and varied types of communities and many different lifestyles.
“Community definition” basically means a group of people living in the same place and the ‘Lifestyle-meaning’-the way in which a person lives. Nothing particularly exciting about that-is there?
As the on-line doorstep to York’s attractions that appears to be seriously open to individual interpretation and possibly humorously derogative comments, maybe it should be changed or amended to better reflect what York has to offer.
Just a thought.
Kind regards
It has even taken an unwinnable case to the WA Supreme Court- then lied about it to concerned ratepayers.
As of May, 2017, uncollected Shire rates stood at $1.127,712 with 46% of rates payable still outstanding.
The sundry debt remains about the same at $356.124.00
What it is costing ratepayers to take punitive action against these sundry debtors for debt recovery- probably well exceeds an acceptable level of expenditure to any likely return.
No wonder the Shire was desperate to have its 2017-2018 Draft Budget accepted by Council.
The alternative was serious risks to cash-flow (including staff wages), delays in essential works and services, a major downgrade in its financial reputation (to C-minus) and non-compliance with the Local Government Act 1995.
There is no room in the budget for a Youth Officer other than placing this role under the umbrella of the Community & Economic Development Officer who has no expertise in this position. This is the type of solution that the Shire of York still uses much too often.
It has created a reasonable website that ratepayers should be pleased with- but the expertise required in providing interactive platforms for community communications such as ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ has not been budgeted for.
To allow untrained staff to answer questions from the community would not be a good idea. It would require publishing waivers, disclaimers and legal indemnification similar to those used in Minutes and Agendas. (The downside is that York social-media sites will have to continue to closely monitor and report on the actions of the Shire of York for the foreseeable future.)
The overall message in the minutes of the Meeting of June 26, 2017 is how much the highly paid Senior Management Staff of the Shire of York rely on external resources for them to do their job.
There is a continuous expensive plethora of contracted reports, reviews and business plans, all on the same subject, that in any other industry would be considered unacceptable.
It is time these managers, personally managed York’s affairs.
Dear Mr. Martin
Your Ref: - “A place of community and lifestyle” used with the Shire’s web address.
Could you please explain to the ratepayers what this possibly symbolic, emotive mantra actually means, being ‘what sort of community’ and ‘what kind of lifestyle’.
It could be argued that it does not actually mean anything as there are many and varied types of communities and many different lifestyles.
“Community definition” basically means a group of people living in the same place and the ‘Lifestyle-meaning’-the way in which a person lives. Nothing particularly exciting about that-is there?
As the on-line doorstep to York’s attractions that appears to be seriously open to individual interpretation and possibly humorously derogative comments, maybe it should be changed or amended to better reflect what York has to offer.
Just a thought.
Kind regards
David Taylor.
