AN INTERESTING CONFLICT-

Regarding the Code of Conduct within the Public Service relating to Conflict of Interest determinations by Shire Chief Executive Officers.

According to numerous sources, York, has a multi-talented person who runs a tourism business, is a Shire of York employee engaged in project creation and promotion, is allegedly sometimes employed by the York Business Association and is the Chairperson of York Arts &Events.

In some ways this is highly commendable- but maybe highly untenable.

Apparently it has raised public concerns regarding ‘feathering a nest’ and of course the ever present Conflict of Interest. It has caused the alleged nest featherer to cry foul and claim it is a blatant attack on the persons character and on the community in general to the potential detriment of local participation in volunteering.

Unfortunately, there is an argument to suggest that this person may have been actually placed in a potentially invidious position by the Public Officer responsible, the Shire of York Chief-Executive-Officer, Paul Martin.

Conflict of Interest is a matter of both transparency and perception. So if the vast majority are not adequately informed and perceive that these matters, in their opinion, are a conflict of interest then there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Mr Martin is on record as saying the person was considered, by a panel, to be the best candidate to promote the York Recreation and Convention Centre that includes the highly contentious Forrest Bar and Café. The membership of this panel and their abilities to evaluate the qualities  of a prospective employee are not known by most and therefore this process currently lacks transparency.

Mr Martin claims he and one other discussed the persons involvement in potentially conflicting activities apparently considered extraneous by him under the Shire’s Code of Conduct.

Mr Martin insists that, in his opinion, the YRCC Project Officer’s role is part time, narrowly focussed and will not impact on York Arts & Events. 

Narrow focus is an unusual term to use when arguably the position of Project Manager is to ensure these premises increase their viability and sustainability including the improved public usage of a currently largely unsustainable asset. This existentially must include the introduction of new, promotable events, or why bother to have such a position at all?  You cannot forget all the new staff advertised for- who need to be paid.

To place himself in a position where he believes he will not be accused of making a fundamental errors of judgement, Mr. Martin may have tried to cover all bases by claiming both parties have agreed to actively manage any real or perceived conflict of interests.

The only way to accurately define what this means is that Mr. Martin suspects that his decision has the potential for what is a real conflict of interest .


In the latest agenda item SY104-08/18 – York Arts & Events – Request to Use Mount Brown,

clearly states:-

“DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: Impartiality – YRCC Project Officer

is the Chairperson of York Arts & Events. This Officer has not been involved in the preparation of this report.”

Although it was this person who lodged the original application with the Shire on behalf of York Arts and Events, according to the item withdrawn from the July 2018, Ordinary Council Meeting. 

This suggests that the YRCC Project Officer and the Chairperson of the York Arts & Events, who are one and the same, and there is a real Conflict of Interest.

There is a pamphlet titled ‘Conflicts of Interest Guidelines for the Western Australian Public Sector’ co-chaired by Justice John McKechnie QC, the head of the Corruption and Crime Commission.

It is there to guide the decision making processes of senior public sector employees, including Local Government Chief Executive Officers, particularly when making local employment choices in a small community.

So did Mr. Martin read it and follow the rules prior to making the decision?

They are:-

PERCEPTION:- is highly important- so did he assure himself that his involvement in the decision making process would not be viewed as a negative decision by the majority of ratepayers?

PROPORTIONALISM:- did he adequately investigate whether his involvement would appear fair and reasonable in all circumstances to the majority of ratepayers?

PRESENCE OF MIND:- did he ever consider his official involvement would be questioned publicly by ratepayers?

PROMISES:- did he make any promises or commitments in relation to this matter of which ratepayers are not aware?

In the end- your guess is as good as mine!

David Taylor.