FIRSTLY-The emergence of populist websites, including social media sites has
given rise to an ugly phenomenon- the Internet Troll- who take public criticism
of others to a whole new low-rent, personal level using the cloak of anonymity.
Those with a perfectly legitimate criticism of someone’s performance in their position as a politician or as any part of the fabric of a governing body, including a Shire Council, has the right to have their honest opinions heard if they are prepared to use their name. If not- they should waive that right.
It is understood that in the goldfish bowl that is a small regional town many are reluctant to use their name with a published comment-
BUT:-
An anonymous troll makes it much easier for a Shire Council to deflect and survive legitimate adverse criticism because the majority of the community who read it will identify with those that have their personal character impugned for no good reason through just attacking the player not the ball.
It also gives councils and individual councillors the excuse to threaten legal action against these sites trolls use even though the chances of this being successful, or even happening, is next to zero. (Ratepayer funds should not be used to support an individual councillors, or employees, legal case over personal, probably undue criticism of them.)
Conversely, proposals within the re-writing of the Local Government Act 1995 should put all councillors on notice that inappropriate behavior likely to bring a council into disrepute will not be tolerated. Instead of just a ‘slap-on-the-wrist’ censure from the Department of Local Government’s Standards Panel, individual councillors can and will be sacked.
Social media, despite its faults, has been a catalyst for positive change particularly for Rural, Regional and Remote Shire Councils. At least seven Shire Chief Executive Officers have resigned, been terminated or arrested through public pressure on local social media sites or other on-line platforms which have developed over the past five years.
The infractions have included fraud, stealing, or the inappropriate hiring of staff- being a blatant Conflict of Interest.
So where does York itself sit at this present time?
It is certainly not on the radar to become a future satellite city of Perth. That is Waroona. In many ways this is probably a good thing as York should attempt to regain its unique status and identity, not become a suburb.
And the council and administration? It may well have problems with external authorities with questions to answer over road maintenance and funding including legislative compliance and internal controls of such important matters as financial risk management? Also what, when, where, how and why things happened that are currently the subject of continuing criminal proceedings in a Perth courtroom?
It is difficult to analyze exactly where any future issues of responsibility for possible malfeasance lie, but there is an argument to suggest it is both the Shire of York administration and the Shire of York council. If there is lack of compliance by the administration, the Council should be in the position to know and act accordingly.
Ignorance may be bliss, but not when you have been elected to council by ratepayers and given the community trust to ensure the massive rates being levied are actually spent wisely, in the community’s best interest. (If you ought to know-then you should know.)
Now $590 million questions why?
Another question is how proactive both the current council and administration have been in seeking and successfully obtaining funding for York’s continuing economic and social welfare? This includes- but is not limited to- revitalization of river systems, flood mitigation, town revitalization projects, economic growth and required skills training.
As examples it appears that the Shire of Northam has received $8,628,211.97 for projects such as Avon River Revitalization and Riverfront Development as well as $1,079,801.33 for Drainage.
The Shire of Merredin has total drawdowns for local projects of $13,209,976.12 as of May 31, 2018 if the dots are in the right spots.
The Shire of Narrogin has $6,305,049.23 for a heavy haulage bypass and a cottage homes project. And the Shire of Morawa has $3,400,000 to spend on a Town Revitalization program.
This review of Rural, Regional and Remote stimulus packages appear on a Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) document, including drawdowns and related interest payments on Royalties for Regions programs, released by the Nationals WA to Shire Chief Executive Officers in one of its electorates.
Including payments to Super Towns and Royalties for Regions projects the total sum appears to be around $590 million.
The recipients range from the Shire of Ashburton to the Shire of Williams.
Two of the main centres in the Central Wheatbelt Electorate have received the princely sum of $22,915, 988.42. The third, according to the TCA, has not received one cent.
There is no ‘Y’ or ‘Z’ amongst this alphabetical order of shire’s flush with cash for acquisitions.
The documents appear to show, that recently at least- YORK HAS GOT ZILCH!
Once again questions are raised that are highly unlikely to receive a proper response.
David Taylor.
Those with a perfectly legitimate criticism of someone’s performance in their position as a politician or as any part of the fabric of a governing body, including a Shire Council, has the right to have their honest opinions heard if they are prepared to use their name. If not- they should waive that right.
It is understood that in the goldfish bowl that is a small regional town many are reluctant to use their name with a published comment-
BUT:-
An anonymous troll makes it much easier for a Shire Council to deflect and survive legitimate adverse criticism because the majority of the community who read it will identify with those that have their personal character impugned for no good reason through just attacking the player not the ball.
It also gives councils and individual councillors the excuse to threaten legal action against these sites trolls use even though the chances of this being successful, or even happening, is next to zero. (Ratepayer funds should not be used to support an individual councillors, or employees, legal case over personal, probably undue criticism of them.)
Conversely, proposals within the re-writing of the Local Government Act 1995 should put all councillors on notice that inappropriate behavior likely to bring a council into disrepute will not be tolerated. Instead of just a ‘slap-on-the-wrist’ censure from the Department of Local Government’s Standards Panel, individual councillors can and will be sacked.
Social media, despite its faults, has been a catalyst for positive change particularly for Rural, Regional and Remote Shire Councils. At least seven Shire Chief Executive Officers have resigned, been terminated or arrested through public pressure on local social media sites or other on-line platforms which have developed over the past five years.
The infractions have included fraud, stealing, or the inappropriate hiring of staff- being a blatant Conflict of Interest.
So where does York itself sit at this present time?
It is certainly not on the radar to become a future satellite city of Perth. That is Waroona. In many ways this is probably a good thing as York should attempt to regain its unique status and identity, not become a suburb.
And the council and administration? It may well have problems with external authorities with questions to answer over road maintenance and funding including legislative compliance and internal controls of such important matters as financial risk management? Also what, when, where, how and why things happened that are currently the subject of continuing criminal proceedings in a Perth courtroom?
It is difficult to analyze exactly where any future issues of responsibility for possible malfeasance lie, but there is an argument to suggest it is both the Shire of York administration and the Shire of York council. If there is lack of compliance by the administration, the Council should be in the position to know and act accordingly.
Ignorance may be bliss, but not when you have been elected to council by ratepayers and given the community trust to ensure the massive rates being levied are actually spent wisely, in the community’s best interest. (If you ought to know-then you should know.)
Now $590 million questions why?
Another question is how proactive both the current council and administration have been in seeking and successfully obtaining funding for York’s continuing economic and social welfare? This includes- but is not limited to- revitalization of river systems, flood mitigation, town revitalization projects, economic growth and required skills training.
As examples it appears that the Shire of Northam has received $8,628,211.97 for projects such as Avon River Revitalization and Riverfront Development as well as $1,079,801.33 for Drainage.
The Shire of Merredin has total drawdowns for local projects of $13,209,976.12 as of May 31, 2018 if the dots are in the right spots.
The Shire of Narrogin has $6,305,049.23 for a heavy haulage bypass and a cottage homes project. And the Shire of Morawa has $3,400,000 to spend on a Town Revitalization program.
This review of Rural, Regional and Remote stimulus packages appear on a Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) document, including drawdowns and related interest payments on Royalties for Regions programs, released by the Nationals WA to Shire Chief Executive Officers in one of its electorates.
Including payments to Super Towns and Royalties for Regions projects the total sum appears to be around $590 million.
The recipients range from the Shire of Ashburton to the Shire of Williams.
Two of the main centres in the Central Wheatbelt Electorate have received the princely sum of $22,915, 988.42. The third, according to the TCA, has not received one cent.
There is no ‘Y’ or ‘Z’ amongst this alphabetical order of shire’s flush with cash for acquisitions.
The documents appear to show, that recently at least- YORK HAS GOT ZILCH!
Once again questions are raised that are highly unlikely to receive a proper response.
David Taylor.
No comments:
Post a Comment