Shire of York

Shire of York

Saturday 14 March 2015

A TRAINING WRECK AND IT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.........

Why does it come as no surprise that a recent newspaper article reports Minister Tony Simpson saying (for him) the CCC report into local government procurement was a 'wake-up call'.

The report called for greater external intervention into council finances to combat 'systematic weaknesses' open to abuse by employees, suppliers and contractors. Simpson also stated that he backed the Commission's recent recommendation in Parliament which urged the extension of the Auditor General's role to cover WA's 140 councils. The specific weaknesses identified in the CCC Report had left Council's vulnerable to fraud, corruption and misconduct.

Of course we all know of York's significant past weaknesses (failings) but I'm not sure what is more worrying, that the CCC (who have been established for over 10 years) have only just identified and reported on this endemic problem or that Tony Simpson admits to being asleep for the duration! 

I'm now even more depressed than I was before, is it no wonder James Best admits to putting out fires with blood! For a brief moment I was starting to think I might invite him to dinner to share a Prozac Soufflé and a nice Chianti.

So what on earth is Colin Barnett doing about one of his identified weaknesses - Tony Simpson, a serial offender inflicted with narcolepsy and terminal idiotitis? As if it wasn't already bad enough having to admit the failure of the Regional Transition Group amalgamation process (which by the way was extremely costly for all ratepayers, contrary to what we were told of the source of funding); every time Barnett opens the door another skeleton falls out and it certainly isn't dancing. Simmo should have received a good kick up the backside for his continual cock-ups but somehow, I doubt he was sent away with much more than a flea in his ear.

As this has turned out to be one very sordid mess with the potential for big fall out, it is likely there has been a great deal more arse covering than kicking to prevent damage to some already very tarnished reputations. Colin Barnett will now have to be seen to openly back (defend) Tony Simpson regardless of whether or not he condones his past or current actions. The Premier has suffered from too many failures in recent years with many associates previously classed as honest stalwarts having now fallen by the wayside with some more local minions even incarcerated. So, one more whiff (or even seat sniff) of trouble from the remainder could see him ridiculed yet again. 

In the Show Cause Notice issued to the York Council in November 2014, Minister Simpson stated:                        
I hereby give the Shire notice of my intention to make an order under section 8.15C(2) of the Act:(a) to suspend Council; and
(b) to require all members of Council to undertake governance training in the responsibilities and functions of a council under the Act, such training to focus on the statutory compliance duties of local government and to be at a place, for a duration, and of a standard and kind determined by the Department's Director General.

How dare Director General, Ms Jennifer Matthews conveniently forget her own faults and those of her Department and pass judgement on our compliance and procedures specifically at this time. This is hypocrisy at its worst or is it just cognitive dissonance?
Personally I would rather be known in life as an honest sinner than a lying hypocrite.
I doubt any amount of training from the dysfunctional Department of Local Government could be of benefit to York but, here we are in the middle of March and the suspended Councillor's still await news of the proposed dates so, why the delay?

Be under no misconception, this is probably part of a master plan by Minister Simpson, Ms Matthews and her shoddy 'Department'. I'm not so sure they have (or ever had) any intention to provide training to our currently suspended Councillors or any intent to put them back in situ.

With the latest despicable actions from a maverick Councillor, I foresee a flurry of attempts from the 'powers that be' to further discredit and demean the remaining three (I hasten to add, well respected) Councillors.  Needless to say they will have an eye on the prize, that being to bump off Shire President Matthew Reid.

I do hope my thoughts are misspent but I will be watching in anticipation and I suspect will many of you.

Just as I think it can't get any worse I find another dastardly document, which further confirms that Tony Simpson is a bigger plonker than I originally assumed.

During the discussions of 2013, Minister Simpson identified needs for well-trained council members which was a desire shared by WALGA. Shamefully,  both parties were reviewing this desire in relation to financial incentives and not for the purpose of providing simple good governance to the communities.

While there has been opportunity to come down hard on Minister Simpson I can't help but give mention to the original instigator of our woes - Frilly Castrilli, I sure would like to shake him firmly by the throat.

So even though it all comes back to money, at least I now know this time the delays can't be blamed on the lack of funding!

WESTERN AUSTRALIA SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES ACT 1975
DETERMINATION OF THE SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES TRIBUNAL
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBERS Pursuant to Sections 7(B)   

June 2014 - Training for elected council members
As part of the Tribunal’s 2013 inquiry, the Minister for Local Government requested that consideration be given to the possibility of providing incentives for elected council members who participate in training programs in an effort to increase the capacity of local governments to successfully deliver services to the community.
29.  Advice received from the DLGC is that $1.52m of funding ($260,000 in 2013-14) has been received as part of the Royalties for Region program to enable the delivery of training to elected council members of non-metropolitan local governments. The proposed training project will support country local governments to improve governance and decision-making and upon completion, provide a pathway into the Elected Member stream of the Diploma of Local Government provided by WALGA. The skill set for local government elected council members is set out in the LGA04 Local Government Training Package of the Australian Qualifications Framework.
30.  The DLGC has informed the Tribunal that training will be offered in the first instance via two pilot programs to a limited number of elected council members in central regional locations by 30 June 2014.
31.  Given that this determination will be issued prior to the DLGC completing its evaluation of the pilot programs, the Tribunal considered that it was not appropriate to provide incentives or rewards for completion of training as part of this determination.
32.  The Tribunal will monitor the situation with a view to developing a means of rewarding training as part of the framework of fees, expenses and allowances in the next determination or sooner if the opportunity arises.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES ACT 1975

DETERMINATION OF THE SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES TRIBUNAL

ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBERS Pursuant to Sections 7(B)

June 2013 - Training for elected council members
68.   The Hon Tony Simpson, Minister for Local Government, and his predecessor asked the Tribunal to examine the issue of providing incentives for councils to be trained. The aim was to increase the capacity of council members both collectively and individually to acquit their responsibilities with a high degree of professionalism and acumen. This is an important element of the State Government’s reform initiative to increase the capacity of local governments to undertake their critical role in the governance and delivery of services to the community.
69.   The desire for well-trained council members was shared by WALGA and all those in the local government sector with whom the Tribunal consulted during the course of its inquiry. Some observations regarding the need for training and some of the barriers to accessing training have been discussed above.
70.   There are currently gaps in the availability, scope and recognition of training packages for council members. The Tribunal considered that at this point it was not possible to provide incentives or rewards for completion of training in the absence of widely accessible and nationally recognised training packages. The Department of Local Government is currently exploring options with training providers for the delivery of council member training within the Australian Qualifications Framework including options for online training.

71.   The Tribunal will continue to monitor the situation with a view to developing a means of rewarding training as part of the framework of fees, expenses and allowances in the next determination or sooner if the opportunity arises.


Simpson & due diligence in the same sentence 

20 comments:

  1. Blogmaster I have a letter from Colin Barnett stating he believes Minister Simpson showed due diligence in the suspension and that Simpson has his full support. I will email you the letter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

      Delete
    2. The letter from Barnett proves he is too scared to investigate one of his own departments, in case it reflects on him as Premier.

      The term due diligence is a typical Public Service side step - Ray Hooper used it frequently.

      Delete
  2. Keeping my Feet on the Ground15 March 2015 at 04:06

    Goodness! So what has happened to York is all part of a "let's train them" plot in existence since 2013? Somehow York fell into the invisible trapdoor of a hidden agenda by the DLGC to get kudos for some kind of special (in the DLGC's hopes accredited) training program for (in their eyes) country bumpkin councillors, then? And failing an accredited program, and failing the right as yet to offer bribes (sorry, 'incentives') for taking part in said program, they found some other excuse?

    Wonder who make up the Tribunal, and what do they consider to be the situation they were said to have an intent to monitor?

    The whole thing bears a lot of thinking about. The trap always lies in the information that has been kept from those that most need to know it in order to know how to find their way. It keeps them subjected to those who relish power and control, and that is exactly what happened — and certain councillors made it so much more easy for the DLGC to lay this particular trap.

    And the projected training has still been withheld? What are the DLGC up to?

    And to whom do we owe the revelations of the above article? We don't know whom to thank. Thank you, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you re-read the post it was a Salary & Wages Tribunal determination and why would it make a difference who it is made up by? Apart from the last two lines of your comment (and I don't think it can be just me) it reads as nonsense, what exactly are you talking about?

      Delete
  3. This latest excerpt from the Tribunal is proof of another case of bureaucratic lip service from Minister Simpson. Get it on record that he gives a care and that's where it ends then, if he is questioned about it by someone who does care, he can comfortably say "well I tried"...pathetic!



    ReplyDelete
  4. Premier Barnett is a very clever politician. He knows how to distance himself from a possible source of embarrassment. But in the letter reproduced above, he hasn't quite pulled it off.

    Notice his use of the phrase 'I am aware' In the statement 'I am aware of the situation in the Shire of York'. He isn't saying 'I know about the situation...' 'I am aware' is comfortably vague, betokening something much less than actual knowledge and more akin to a fleeting familiarity, like information picked up in passing from a friend, or from a brief news item on the telly.

    He says he can state that 'the decision to temporarily suspend the elected members of the Shire of York was not taken lightly'. No, it probably wasn't, but it wasn't taken honestly either. We got from the Minister a 'show cause notice' that made serious allegations against Shire President Reid. So we showed cause, and the DLGC has acknowledged that it can't substantiate the most serious charges made against Cr Reid, but never mind, peasants, says David Morris, we're going to suspend him and the other clowns anyway.

    In essence, the battle is ideological. Cr Reed believes in open, honest and accountable local government. The DLGC seems to believe in maintaining the ramshackle edifice of secrecy, deceit and corruption that hangs like a bad smell over local government in WA, particularly in rural areas. Mr Barnett himself raised this problem only a couple of weeks ago, to the considerable annoyance of Troy Pickard, president of WALGA.

    Mr Barnett says he is aware that before the decision was made 'the full facts and circumstances were explored and appropriate advice taken'. No he isn't, because what he says happened, didn't. The Shire's response to the notice was long, detailed, documented and prepared by experts. The Minister's advisers would have given it only the most cursory examination over the Christmas break. The Minister himself didn't read it, and might not have understood it if he had. Instead, he relied on the advice of David Morris as set out in the briefing note to which, thanks to FOI, we are all now privy.

    Mr Barnett claims to be satisfied that Minister Simpson 'has exercised due diligence in this matter'. Well, Premier, you shouldn't be. Due diligence would have required the minister to actually read the Shire's response for himself and not just to accept Mr Morris's opinions as anything other than fraudulent codswallop based largely on the whinges of disaffected councillors and a couple of superannuated CEOs, one of whom had departed from his position in disgrace.

    Sorry, Premier, you haven't clarified anything. You may be aware of many things, but you know nothing of what has really happened in York.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Making Logical Connections16 March 2015 at 06:19

    To Anonymous15 March 2015 at 17:00: Read the exerpts from "June 2014 - Training for elected council members" and "June 2014 - Training for elected council members" and the connections to what has happened to York and our Councillors should be obvious. What are you trying to deny on behalf of the DLGC?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wakey wakey people. I'll be very surprised if Mathew comes back. Believe me, they (the Department) don't want him there. Matthew's approach to Local Government is too new, too fresh and too radical, transparency and accountability are words which the Department use all too frequently, but in reality the Department is petrified of Mathew Reid exposing the truth. It's not only credit card and rent subsidies, its other matters, like cashing in accrued leave, in particular, certain officers authorising their own payments, for example; signing the forms as the claimant and the authorising officer without the safe guard checks being done. So get used to it people, and don't ask silly questions about coming out and revealing all, it's not going to happen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insider, I fear you may be correct. If that is to be the proposed outcome, it will be interesting to see how many of the York community actually step forward and start to ask questions at public question time to get the answers 'on record'. There are matters exposed on the this blog that require serious questions to be asked. The information has been handed to the community 'on a plate' so do something with it!

      I would give one recent example:: the contract and contractual rights of the former CEO, dates are important, as are the dates of relevant decision (refer to resolutions) how, when, by whom and for what purpose?

      The facts: Cr Pat Hooper (Shire President) and Brian Lawrance (the Deputy Shire President) signed the contract extension for CEO Ray Hooper on 12 August 2008. That contract was not formally discussed or voted upon until the meeting of Council in 16 February 2009 whereupon the resolution (150209) was made.

      Evidence to support the claim has been provided to identify when it happened, by whom it was approved so the unanswered questions are how and for what purpose ?

      If the decision did emanate from a 'secret meeting' (which is likely) there are implication of breaches of the Local Government Act. Regardless of the 'that was then' and 'this is now' attitude of many, this is very relevant and unlawful. This matter not only questions the integrity of the persons involved in the renewal of this contract but also the agency as a whole casting doubt on the entire decision making processes of the Shire of York Council for many years.

      I would go as far as to allege that you have a former CEO (Ray Hooper) who has possibly breached his contract of employment and who has been unjustly enriched by reason of his conduct whilst in the employ of the Shire of York. He may also have breached his statutory duties under Commonwealth Corporate Law.

      Based only on evidence provided, I would also allege that Cr Par Hooper and Cr Brian Lawrance breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Shire and statutory duties as elected Councillors (under the Local Government Act and Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations.
      If other elected members were party to an unlawful decision making process, they are also implicated as complicit.

      If you have a community which continues along the path of apathy (as is clearly obvious) it will end with disappointment and a continuation of everything the town has already suffered in the past. Therefore do not be surprised if the rest of the big wide world simply says "you all deserve what you get".

      There is the option for any person or group of persons (to include a citizens demand of Council funding) to make these people accountable to the community by taking them to task in Supreme Court.

      In the meanwhile, what York really needs is less people talking and more people acting - be brave, don't give up, head them off at the pass and good luck!

      Delete
    2. The date you mention, 12 August 2008, is remembered not only for the renewal of Ray's contract; it was also the date of Ray Hooper's infamous 'Yellow Memo'. Food for thought, perhaps? Were councillors aware of the memo before CEO Hooper pinned it up on a public noticeboard for all to see? Or did they subsequently pat him on the back for having done so?

      Delete
    3. This must be the same 'yellow memo' which is now the subject of a Freedom of Information application. Yes, a public document which at the time CEO Hooper insisted was made public to the extent it was displayed on notice boards through the town. He even wrote to one of the people he defamed in the memo to emphasise the fact the document was a public one, can't get much clearer than that!

      Delete
  7. No, don't get used to it. That's a counsel of despair. Fight it every inch of the way. What you've described is nothing less than financial corruption. It should be stamped out. Ecrasez l'infame, as Voltaire used to say.

    Does anyone on staff have children enrolled with Danceflight or a relative or close friend with children so enrolled? If not, why was N/A inserted in the space for applicant's name for this item in the financial section of the recent briefing paper?

    Not long ago, in a publication on this site, I raised issues relating to possible breaches of Section 5.40 of the Local Government Act. Have those issues been investigated? I must have struck a nerve, because it appears that somebody (not a member of staff) has (I hope with tongue in cheek!) threatened to shoot me for raising one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is Denese Smythe suddenly a victim of Councils suspension? York is in total disarray due to the actions and inactions of Councillors. Some Councillors believe that because they do not belong to the 'dark side', then they are devoid of blame. The Councillors directly responsible for this mess are: Boyle, Hooper, Scott, Lawrence, Duperouzel and Smythe.
    Quite often, inaction is worse than action, it can be seen as tacit approval by a person who does not possess the strength of character to carry out their fiduciary duties.
    No amount of training will make the slightest difference if the person is delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It also seems that Councillors are also devoid of memory.
    For the election of 2013, we had a superb list of brave new candidates who put their names forward intent on making changes for and on behalf of the York community. Had ALL the selfish existing Councillors considered everyone but themselves instead of promoting friends and allies for their own benefit, we would not be where we are today.

    Frankly, the Councils installed up until 2013 were predominantly a bunch of self absorbed fools more consumed with 'what they looked like'.

    The actions of past Councillors and the processes were ongoing and denial doesn't wash with me, I accept no excuses from any of them - just because they may have voted against something on occasion doesn't mean they couldn't have opened their mouths to state why, object to a decision or ask questions. That would at least have instilled some confidence to indicate that they had half a brain.

    Unfortunately far too many egos got in the way - let's hope the next election is far more mature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose if you had to trace a fault line it would have to end up with the Department of Local Government. They Knew there were some fairly significant issues with the Council, especially in the latter years. I am absolutely convinced the Department turned a blind eye because of the proposed amalgamation, an inaction which will haunt them.

      Delete
    2. All those people who re-ellected Boyle and Hooper for a second term must shoulder some of the blame for where we are.
      Had Boyle and Hooper's supporters bothered to attend Council meetings in their first term, they would have seen first hand the appalling behaviour these two displayed. It was embarrassing to watch them.
      Tony Boyle was publicly censured by the Standards Panel for a very good reason! His behaviour was reprehensible.
      And yes, the fault goes directly back to the DLG because they knew exactly what was happening here and how poorly we were being represented.
      If there was ever a case for a Show Cause Notice it was during the Presidency of both Boyle and Hooper.


      Delete
    3. Well, in the early days, Boyle was seen to fall asleep in a Council Meeting at least once; and when he was President there were times when he didn't seem to follow a question or something else that was said. And as for using peoples' names properly!! There are some simple basics he needs to learn (not that he will be in the role anymore).

      Delete
  10. Interesting that Mark McGowan couldn't give a toss.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First Training day: April 1, I believe. One wonders who thought of that one.

    ReplyDelete