Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH, WA 6005
CC Mr. Colin Murphy
Auditor General.
Your Ref: A REQUEST FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT ON THE YORK RECREATION & CONVENTION CENTRE’S FINANCIAL SITUATION.
In the 2014-2015 Financial Year the Shire of York Council (Council) approached Mr. Guy Lehmann of Muntz & Partners, York, with the intent to commission him to provide an in-depth, future business development plan for the York Recreation & Convention Centre (YRCC). The projected cost for his services was in the vicinity of $10,000.
The YRCC is thought to be a $7.8 million local community asset facility funded by Royalties for Regions, Local Government grants and municipal funding. To my knowledge no known appropriate cost estimates, including whole-of- life cost projections or any other reasonable financial evaluation was done for the overall expenditure on the project compared to its cost-benefit value to the local community it was supposedly built to serve.
It would appear that there were no key performance indicators attached to continuing outlay, nor were there efficiency, effectiveness and economy standards set for the completed facility and its future use, including affordable staffing levels and required maintenance- and any required compliance with the terms and conditions of its commercial Tavern Licence.
The granting of a commercial Tavern Licence to a Local Government agency, Council, has serious connotations regarding competitive neutrality. It placed a ratepayer funded licenced premises in direct competition with the private sector, conceivably assisting in the closure of four privately owned licenced establishments over the past three years.
This fiduciary duty of care for the YRCC should have been undertaken by the senior Local Government, Public Service Officers employed by Council to do so. The overall performance of said officers is an integral part of your jurisdiction- encompassing the Department of the Auditor General in financial risk management matters.
In the 2013-2014 Financial Year Council’s projected estimate of the gross revenue return from the YRCC compared to outgoings was exceedingly overstated. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of October 21, 2013, the budgeted amount of return from the YRCC was nominated as being $2,268.163 when the actual return was just $754,710.
In the private sector, such a colossal over estimation would see those responsible dismissed.
It could also be considered to be highly suspicious that such a definitive revenue forecast could be made and be presented on an official Council document without being queried at any future audit.
Council’s senior Local Government, Public Service Officers’ explanation for the massive discrepancy was that the figure quoted related to total recreation not just the YRCC. The obvious response to this would be- that as the YRCC was a purpose built facility to encompass most, if not all, recreational activities where did the massive shortfall of $1,513.453 in projected income come from?
To put this into perspective, based on the current population, every man, woman and child in the
Shire of York would have to contribute at least $600 each to accrue a return to the YRCC of $2.27 million in any given financial year- with the meaning of ‘total recreation’ the great unknown..
The second question should be- given the potential for such a discrepancy why was such an expensive project as the YRCC mooted, and then built, in the first place?
The designated Local Government, Public Service Officers acting on behalf of Council in this matter, in attendance on this date, was Mr. Ray Hooper, Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Tyhscha Cochrane, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Jacky Jurmann, Manager Planning Services and Mr. Gordon Tester, Manager – Environmental Health and Building Services. Mrs. Gail Maziuk, Projects and Senior
Finance Officer is not listed as having attended this meeting although she should have been there.
Only two of this administrative group remain as employees of Council, one being the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Tyhscha Cochrane. Although still employed, Mrs. Maziuk is no longer Projects and Senior Finance Officer and is no longer publically listed as being a senior staff member of Council.
Therefor the reason for Council wishing to contract an external expert in business, taxation and financial consulting to provide a business development management plan for the YRCC should be patently obvious.
On October 21, 2014, the then Chief Executive Officer, Michael Keeble, went on record, in writing, to say that the Guy Lehmann Report, ‘as being the business plan for the YRCC’, would be ready shortly.
This was a blatant untruth. At that time it is highly unlikely that Mr. Lehmann had commenced any tangible formal investigation into the future business direction of the YRCC. It has been alleged that required, relevant financial records were deliberately withheld from him, possibly by senior Local Government, Public Service Officers, who acted without due authority in preventing his access to this information. There may well be personal reasons for this suppression, including fear of future accountability and liability regarding past, possibly indictable offences caused through the financial mismanagement of the YRCC project as a whole.
At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on February 16, 2015, chaired by Commissioner James Best,
those in attendance were advised that Mr. Lehmann had resigned from his post because of “external pressure”. What this external pressure is should be of major concern and the subject of an external, independent investigation. External pressure, in certain circumstances, can be deemed as being ‘coercion’, a criminal offence.
At the same meeting, Mr. Best stated that Dominic Carbone and his firm Dominic Carbone and Associates would deliver the report on the YRCC as the replacement for Guy Lehmann.
The fact that Mr. Lehmann resigned from the post, obviously given to him shortly after the departure of Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper, on April 15, 2014, suggests that for an inordinate and inexplicable length of time he may have been prevented from exercising the terms of his contract of employment. Therefore there may be the potential for him to seek legal redress from Council for its lack of proper support. This could involve financial recompense above and beyond any payment for the services he was prevented from providing.
Mr. Best’s determination to hire, Dominic Carbone, is fundamentally flawed.
Mr. Carbone could be considered a failed Chief Executive Officer from the twice sacked City of Canning Council. This Council refused to renew his contract because of an alleged financial erratum.
His website, Dominic Carbone & Associates, states he is an Accountant and Auditor with no specified qualification in accountancy or degrees in business management and/or business planning.
Mr. Carbone is a close associate of former York Council Chief Executive Officer, Ray Hooper. Mr. Hooper is a senior Local Government, Public Service Officer who arguably failed in his Fiduciary Duty of Care to adequately ensure the financial viability and sustainability of the YRCC.
It is a logical matter of principle that a failed senior Local Government, Public Service Officer, Dominic Carbone, should not be given the responsibility of undertaking a financial management report of any kind which involves the activities of another failed senior Local Government, Public Service Officer, and a close associate. This person, Ray Hooper, is, allegedly, currently being investigated by the WA Corruption & Crime Commission.
Mr. Best states that Dominic Carbone has a detailed understanding of the YRCC. The question is why? It suggests is that Mr. Carbone’s comprehensive knowledge of the YRCC is because of his financial advice involvement in the initial research, development, final approval and construction of the YRCC, dating back to 2007. Any failures in Fiduciary Duty of Care could therefore reflect on Mr. Carbone.
Mr. Best’s assessment that Mr. Carbone has credibility in business planning is also a matter of some conjecture.
Along with Mr. Hooper, Mr. Carbone played a major role in the development of the South East Avon Voluntary Regional Organization of Councils (SEAVROC) which became the South East Avon Regional Transition Group (SEARTG).
Mr. Best may not remember but Mr. Carbone was the Executive Officer of SEARTG when it was involuntary closed down by the Minister for Local Government and Communities (DLGC).
However, in the minutes of the SEARTG final meeting of July 8, 2014 it was suggested that SEARTG had underestimated the reduction in funding provided by government. It could be assumed that as Executive Officer, Mr. Carbone, bore some responsibility for SEARTG‘s financial affairs and any deficiencies in such.
An official email regarding the GUY LEHMANN REPORT/YRCC dated March 4, 2015, from James Best, suggests he may now have withdrawn his publically stated support for Mr. Dominic Carbone and it is his intention to personally review the report and possibly complete it.
Mr. Best suggests that the report had gaps, inferring that Mr. Lehmann may have failed to fully comply with the directions given to him by Council. Due to the high probability of duplicitous actions being taken by Local Government, Public Service Officers to prevent Mr. Lehmann’s access to financial information required to make any proper business analysis, it could be considered to be a pejorative inference by Mr. Best.
Mr. Best also states that there would be a change to the liquor licencing structure inferring that the original Tavern Licence application was not justified and now found to be totally inappropriate for the amount of viable commercial usage the tavern and the attached convention centre could conceivably receive.
Mr. Best refers to the finalization of a Competitive Neutrality Plan. This is probably because, in the past, the YRCC management has openly touted for increased business by establishing such commercial enterprises as a coffee club in direct competition with local café proprietors. This is in contravention of an official agreement signed by the senior Local Government, Public Service Officer at the time of application for a Tavern Licence, Councils’ Chief Executive Officer Mr. Ray Hooper, stating the YRCC would not attempt to attract business away from local, privately-owned, commercial enterprises.
On two occasions during the licence application process, Mr. Hooper was advised, in writing, by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (DRGL) that Councils application may be rejected because its community interest assessment was at first virtually non-existent, then un-substantive, incongruous and flawed. With hindsight, Mr. Hooper’s commitment to competitive neutrality and community interest could be considered questionable.
You would be aware of the media reports suggesting that the Premier, Colin Barnett, has serious concerns regarding the probity of Local Government including its lack of accountability, statutory compliance and the numerous suggestions of misappropriation of municipal funds.
You would also be aware that the Minister for Local Government and Communities, Tony Simpson, has admitted there are endemic and systemic weaknesses relating to basic compliance in Local Government financial management. He has called on the Auditor General to expand his role to prevent the prevalence of fraudulent misappropriation of funds and corruption, both being potentially criminal offences.
The Auditor General already has the statutory authority to investigate the fiduciary performance of Local Government, Public Services Officers.
At the York Annual Electors Meeting of February 25, 2015 electors voted not to adopt –That the 2013/14 Annual Budget for the Shire of York is received. That the Shire of York’s Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 2014, as presented, be received and That the Shire of York’s Independent Auditors Report, for the year ended June 30, 2014 be received. This is not a resounding endorsement of the abilities of those hired by Council to provide financial management services and guidance.
In addition, Council’s senior Local Government, Public Service Officers have, in the past, refused to release financial information documents referring to YRCC to a member of the public claiming that the public already had access to such information. This gives credence to the allegation that the same officers, and others, may have attempted to withhold information from Guy Lehmann.
The Freedom of Information Commissioner’s response was that not all of the requested documents are publically available. His summation therefore was that the agency (Council) was required to deal with the request for these documents. The judgement can be found in Walters and the Shire of York (2014) WAICmr 24 of December 22, 2014.
The Auditor General is quoted as being a totally independent arbiter of the performance of Local Government, Public Service Officers in their financial duties to the State and by inference, the community at large- and each individual community in particular.
I now call on the Auditor General, Mr. Colin Murphy and his staff to undertake their prescribed duty and investigate all financial matters concerning the YRCC in relation to the fiduciary performance of individual Local Public Service Officers of York Council dating back to 2007.
Given that Mr. Murphy has been requested to assist in the assuring the much needed compliance by Local Government Council’s regarding financial management issues I would hope that it is placed on public record what measures he will exercise to ensure such compliance.
Yours sincerely
David Taylor.
York Ratepayer.
Bravo. Well done. Obviously Commissioner Best and all the relevant responsible local government officers and elected members will openly welcome the Auditor Generals audit of this matter due to their commitment to open accountable government and probity. Also, such an audit would prove that all was proper and correct and there is nothing wrong or need for concealment. So their public support will be welcome news (but please do not hold your breath).
ReplyDeleteA real win for open and accountable government. Our Mr Jolly, the self proclaimed guru on probity, and his team will get right behind this request of course.
The community of York feels that it has been badly let down by responsible agencies including its previous council, CEO and the DLGC, yet these agencies, particularly the DLGC are dead keen to conceal the past. Rather than exorbitant charges for FOI it should be willingly releasing these documents to prove once and for all that there is nothing wrong. Its reluctance to actually be open and accountable speaks volume for the truth of the matter, and as we have already seen from the limited information released so far.
The Director General Matthews is responsible. At best (no pun) she has not appreciated what has been going on, but that does not absolve her of that responsibility. The failure to step in and take action now speaks volumes of her position. She may be hanging in there now but all will be exposed in time.
Apart from the DLGC, the responsible State agencies are the CCC, the Auditor General, the FOI Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the Public Service Commissioner. All of these agencies need to be fully informed of the issues at York so that they can never deny being not aware. The CEO's and responsible public service functionaries in these positions all guard their reputations closely and will weigh up the degree they can ignore what has happened and when they will need to step in for self interest. It will not happen overnight, but they need to be officially informed to deny the excuse of not knowing.
The final protection is Parliament itself, but with MIA (Missing in Action) Davies avoiding representing the York community the vital local link is missing.
Take notice Professed Plum, occasionally address you literal masterpieces to an agency, by doing so we can look forward to a response, or as is usually the case, no response!
ReplyDeleteExcellent work David.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you would have spent a considerable amount of time collating the information and assembling it to put together your letter, I am concerned that both the Public Sector Commissioner and the Auditor General will not want to be involved, and as has previously happened will simply refer you to the Department of Local Government and we all know what happens then.
ReplyDeleteYou were right to point out the compliance issues concerning the wreck centre. One particular bone of contention was that at the same time the Shire of York was pursuing a local business for alleged non-compliance regarding provision of car parking, the wreck centre was in fact non-compliant with the provisions for disabled parking and access.
CEO Keeble was alerted to this and hurriedly had ad-hoc disable parking installed in order to comply with both building legislation and disability discrimination legislation, double standards come to mind. Incidentally, the two qualified 'building inspectors' involved with the project, are no longer employed with the Shire of York.
Competitive Neutrally, now there's are contranym if ever there was one. According to the Department of Local Government, Competitive Neutrally doesn't cut in until the business in netting $200K per annum, doesn't matter that its losing money hand over fist. At least, if the wreck centre was netting $200K, then it wouldn't be losing quite as much per annum.
To the best of anyone's knowledge, the wreck centre costs between $30,000-$40,000 per month to operate, so regardless of how many Parmigiana's its cook can knock out over a weekend, it's never going to pay its way.
From conception to completion, the ratepayers have been economically sodomised by a handful of offenders. Those offenders have blatantly ignored the economic wellbeing of existing businesses, as well as allowing the deterioration of infrastructure to fund what has turned out to be a monument to white elephants.
Keeble had no idea what he was getting into, there was no way Maziuk or Cochrane under the watchful eye of their departed mentor, were going to allow an independent to audit the wreck centre, imagine the ramifications of an honest independent audit. Which is exactly why Best and Simpson have brought in Carbone the 'fixer'. He will of course carry out a comprehensive independent audit, the gist of which we can all guess what the outcome will be.
The Ombudsman's Office role is to investigate complaints about government agencies.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the York community and this blog provides ample proof that the responsible department has failed to properly deal with numerous complaints and allegations in the past - plainly failing to do its statutory job. To add salt to the wounds it then carries out a flawed process to justify suspending the council.
I believe that warrants two separate complaints to the Ombudsman about the DLG - firstly the failure to deal with the numerous previous complaints, and secondly the flawed Show Cause Notice process.
As an outsider I cannot do that for you. But you have little to lose and plenty to gain from making a complaint. It also ensures that the responsible authorities can never claim they did not know.
Don't be silly, Chris Field (Ombudsman) is in bed with Jennifer Mathews (Director General),so to speak, the Ombudsman is a toothless tiger, even if it investigated, it has no power to do anything other than make a recommendation.
DeleteSome years ago in York (about 16-17 years ago), someone I knew threatened to go to the Ombudsman over a fee the Shire wanted to charge them, without prior warning. The threat itself was enough to stop the threatened fee. But that was a different administration to the one we had over the last 10-12 years, and at the time it was hot on the heels of someone having gone to the Ombudsman and a result that had something to do with the council being disbanded, I believe. So is it simply the character or connections of the particular Ombudsman at the time? Or is it simply that Ombudsmen have become almost redundant these days and other authorities have taken precedence?
DeleteAside from that, David T, you have finally put this case together with a set of arguments that could reasonably spark a forensic audit. Wouldn't it be nice.
Thanks, the mind boggles with that association. But my suggestion still holds on the basis these people have statutory responsibilities.
DeleteMatthews has already failed and is fighting off disclosure.
Field would need to ensure his own image is protected. He has to deal with a complaint, deciding to not investigate is one sure way to damn him in future. An investigation that clears the DLGC would also be only ok - until this whole saga is exposed. And it will be exposed but that may take some time yet I'm afraid, but then it could implode quickly.
Best of luck.
I hope Dominic Carbone has more luck getting the information from the administration than Guy Leeman.
ReplyDeleteI have a petition (see attached) which I would like to bring to the attention of all who are interested so they can add their signatures to this endeavour to escalate the inquiry to Parliamentary level. The dilemma is we need the petitions returned to me if anyone would like a copy of their own to assist us in amassing signatures. I will then pass the petition pages to the person who is passing them on to the Legislative Council. Can you think of a way to present this on the blog in order to inform those who would like to sign?
ReplyDeleteThe petition is available – both for signing and for copies to take away for signatures – at Settlers’ Gift Shop, 123 Avon Tce, YORK 6302.
With gratitude for your assistance,
Jane Elise Ferro
Excellent work, David, let's hope the fish are biting.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to ask a few questions arising from your letter.
1. Does Dominic Carbone have any tertiary or professional qualifications in business or as an accountant or auditor? None are listed on his website. The relevant WALGA site merely mentions his 38 years of experience in local government, which some of us might regard more as a disqualification.
2. I believe Mr Best has said that Mr Carbone has 'extensive business experience'. What business might that be? With the adoption of corporate models of governance, every public institution regards itself as a business nowadays. The DLGC yammers on about 'business functions'. What nonsense. I worked for a few years in a TAFE college. One of the 'directors' used to excuse himself from meetings with the words 'Gotta go, I've got a business to run.' Again, what nonsense. If TAFE colleges were really businesses most would have gone into administration long ago. Likewise, I suspect, with most government departments. It all started in the 1980s, when the cockier departmental jobsworths wanted to look and sound like millionaire captains of industry. Nothing much has changed since then, except for the worse.
So, what does your friend Mr Carbone's 'business experience' consist of, Mr Best?
3. From what I've heard, when Mr Carbone last worked under contract to the York Shire Council he overstayed his welcome, overreached his ability, and overstretched his fee to several times what he had originally quoted. Is that true? Surely the Council and CEO of the day would never have allowed that to happen - would they?
4. Now, here's a ticklish one for Mr Best. If Mr Carbone is again working with the Shire as a consultant, is he doing so because he tendered for the contract and won? Or are we back in 'jobs for the boys' territory, so typical of local government in WA? (Mr Carbone was seen in town a few days ago, so he may have started his new job already.)
I think you will find it 'jobs for the boys' Mr Best. There is a strong link between Carbone, Ray Hooper and the DCEO.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine the 'dirt' Carbone has gleaned over the 10 years, of course he would be 'slipped' into the job if he wanted it.
Of course there is a strong link between the DCEO and Carbone - we paid him to do her job. Part of the deal when she was initially employed in 2009 was to convince Councillors that it was a cheap option and retaining the use of financial resources from the City of Canning (Dominic Carbone) would justify it.
ReplyDeleteAs part of Ray Hooper's Performance Appraisal, Key Result Area 8 (KRA8) - Resource Management;
The mandate was cost efficiency so, Hooper used that as a tactic to benefit himself and his employee, regardless of whether or not she was capable or had an intention to obtain training and qualifications to step up to the role of a CEO.
So how did Ray Hooper sell her talents to Councillors?
Qualifications: Employed (at the time) for 17 years
Financial Impact: Savings in respect of....No state wide advertising, No employment consultancy costs, savings on a vehicle, no staff house required and, believe it or not, a value was put on 'freed up office space'.
Sadly, the only reason she got the job was because she was cost effective (cheap).
Bearing in mind Ms Cochrane has undergone zero training for the role of DCEO or for that matter to further her career path, it is blatantly obvious that this was an appointment of convenience.
Surely Ms Cochrane's job was advertised and she won it in open competition and not through patronage?
DeleteIs it true that she has no qualifications and has made no move to acquire some? I can't believe it!
Time to have all Staff member's qualifications listed on a board in the foyer of the Administration so Ratepayers know they are getting value for money.
ReplyDeleteStaff with qualifications will be only too pleased and proud to disclose them.
Ms. Cochrane may have some difficulty accepting she needs to list "Convenient and Cheap"
On another matter, the days of employing friends, friends of friends, and relations are over. This may have worked ok 30 or 40 years ago, but it does not wash any more.
One of RH tricks was to employ people from key families in York. Trouble is, many are related one way or another, but hey it works wonders when you want to wield a bit of clout, need to do some name dropping or want certain people to get across the line on election day.
Re Carbone, did we ever have a 'competitive anything' for selection of him? Strange we didn't hear anything till he landed the job; and then the shock-horror that went through all assembled gallery at that particular Shire Meeting!! But then, the Commissioner seems to think he is entitled to unilaterally make certain decisions for the sake of 'efficiency'.
ReplyDeleteOn another point raised in January, and again now: Mr Lehmann did not get paid the 'projected' $10,000. I have that on the best (not 'the Best') authority. All of us should be careful what rumours we spread, and what unintended angst and damage to reputation mere speculation can cause.
Some of the things I read on here and I am not talking comments, I mean facts make me shake my head in disbelief.
ReplyDeleteHow any one could read some of the things on here and not be amazed at what has happened in York, is beyond belief.
Thanks to the Blog Master who has kindly peppered the funny cartoons all the way through. It's good to laugh even if your sad reading and reliving some of the crap that went on here and still going on ...Sadly . :)
I agree with you Darlene, it is very hard to take it all in as there is just so much dirt being dug up (past and recent). They say a picture paints a thousand words (well Telly Savalas did) and the cartoons say it all. I have a good laugh conjuring up some very strange thoughts before reality takes over....thanks blog master please keep them coming they are so funny.
DeleteThere is nothing in David's letter to suggest otherwise, but it needs to be made absolutely clear that MR LEHMANN DID NOT, I REPEAT DID NOT, RECEIVE THE $10,000 EARMARKED FOR THE WORK HE WAS HIRED TO DO but for reasons that remain mysterious was prevented from doing.
ReplyDeleteThe point needs to be made emphatically because some people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, to Mr Lehmann's understandable annoyance. It goes without saying that he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, which some allege may be more than can be said for the folk who got in his way.
Mr Best has referred to 'gaps' in Mr Lehmann's investigation. I hope he understands why those gaps exist. Perhaps, if he hasn't done so already, he should make time to discuss the matter with Mr Lehmann. He might learn something to his, and our, advantage.
It appears from David's letter that Mr Carbone may not have been engaged after all to investigate YRCC finances but that Mr Best himself intends to undertake his own investigation. Hubris attracts nemesis, Mr Best. Much better would be to call for tenders for a suitably qualified auditor with no connections, past or present, with the Shire administration. Now that could be a bit pricey, but would certainly be worth paying for. The auditor would have to be given unrestricted access to the relevant financial records; I'm sure the commissioner would make sure he or she got it.
Or, did Mr Lehmann investigate and report?
ReplyDeleteIs it another Fitzgerlad report?
We already know, if the powers that be don't like what they read, they will suppress it.
Secrecy secrecy secrecy
How come Mr. Best can undertake an investigation on the Wreck centre, is he qualified to do a forensic audit which is what the people of York deserve, even if it costs us.
ReplyDeleteSorry Mr. Best, nothing short of an independent forensic audit will be good enough, lets get it over and done with and stop all the crap. Put it out to tender and we don't want to see the names Carbone or Maccri chosen thank you very much.
Everyone in York knows the wreck centre project was a shambles and it is time the Administration stopped trying to hide the figures.
Hope Mr. Best Isn't going to have ex Project Manager Gail Mazuik and Carbone to help him.
Will Ms. Maziuk and Ms Cochrane hand over the documents to him because they refused to provide our Shire President with documents he asked for.
I thought Mr. Best was only here till the first week in July - doesn't he realise it is going to take months to unravel the Wreck Centre records and make sense of the creative accountancy.
Perhaps this is a not so subtle clue his contract has been extended without telling us.
I very much doubt that Mr Best has the skills and qualifications required to carry out a successful forensic audit, or any kind of audit come to that. Very few people do. The problem is, he seems to have persuaded himself, or more likely has allowed himself to be persuaded, that a forensic audit is unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteIf he attempts to undertake such an audit, with or without the help of Mr Carbone, it's a fair bet that he will encounter the same degree of obstruction as did Mr Lehmann, but will be less aware of what is happening, because Mr Lehmann knew what he was looking for, and I'm not convinced that either Mr Best or Mr Carbone would have any better idea of what to look for than would I or any reasonably intelligent member of the public.
Charlie 2, your closing paragraphs strike me as being very shrewd. I would only add that Mr Best would have to be quite brave to accept an extension of his contract (money's good, though). He must have realised long ago that he is here on sufferance, resulting from a despotic and unpopular act on the part of a poorly advised minister. He is now virtually halfway through his term of office and appears to have accomplished little or nothing of consequence or value. He is costing us a large sum of money that we would not have to pay if we had our Council in charge instead of him. He has made comments about the Shire that have not endeared him to many residents. His only supporters in town seem to be members of the Shire administration (with whom he appears to have thrown in his lot, goodbye impartiality) and a tiny handful of folk who seem to have swallowed his nonsense about forgetting past wrongs and 'drawing a line in the sand'.
I say this much more in sorrow than in anger. Mr Best is intelligent and energetic. If he possessed independence of mind in addition to those qualities, and had allied himself from the start with the proponents of healing and reform instead of with those having a vested interest in forgetting the past and maintaining as much as possible of a very grubby status quo, he could have done all of us a power of good. Instead, he and his grey eminence Graeme Simpson have apparently elected to follow the ministerial line, that is, to rewrite history, shut down dissent, bury the Shire's past mistakes and turn us all into Pollyannas.
Mr Best, you can inspire confidence by dealing honestly and sensibly with the YRCC fiasco. Hire the services of a real forensic auditor, or throw your weight behind David Taylor's appeal to the Public Sector Commissioner and the Auditor General. Go on, I dare you. I'm not ready to give up on you yet.
We now know anyone who gets remotely close to taking the lid off the corruption within the SOY is dealt with swiftly, with callous disregard to the catastrophic consequences.
ReplyDeleteThose involved in the cover up must be hiding something pretty bloody serious.
Mr. Best is not qualified to carry out a Forensic Audit, he should leave it to those who are.
I suspect you are right. It beggars belief that a supposedly impartial department could be so biased, firstly by ignoring all the past, and then working overtime to get rid of Reid.
DeleteSomeone must have a lot of political clout, and that would help to explain MIA Davies.
Barnett does not want any inquiries that may reflect a shadow over his Government. He has a habit of ignoring things, hoping they will go away. In any case, he will never admit he made a wrong choice by putting the Baker in charge.
DeleteMia Davies appears to have been anointed and she does not want her political career tainted by what is happening here in York or for that matter the DLG.
Best is the Commissioner, he is not the CEO and should not get involved in the administration of the Shire.
ReplyDeleteIf, as it seems, and to the best (no pun again) of my knowledge, he has still not explained his attendance at the December council meetings and well before the council was suspended, his appointment was locked in before due process had been completed. That alone would create the perception of bias, so any audit or review work he does will simply be wasted as he is not independent.
If Best goes ahead it is simply to tick a box that it has been done, and not to actually do a proper forensic audit.
They will do anything to avoid being open and accountable.
Comments-volume:
ReplyDeleteOne comment consisting of ten considered lines of text has discernible meaning, whereas, ten comments consisting of one un-considered line has not.
It's not about quantity, its quality that counts.
Comments -anonymity:
Plato's book 'The Republic', contains a passage where a character named Glaucon relates a story of a shepherd named Gyges who discovers a ring which has the power to make him invisible. Realising the potency of his new possession, Gyges uses it to seduce the queen and murder the king, thus establishing himself as the new ruler. Yet, prior to discovering the ring, Gyges was a rather ordinary guy, a humble shepherd who worked hard for his pay and never hurt anyone. Glaucon’s point is that the only reason Gyges behaved himself was to avoid reprisal. He obeyed the laws because he feared he’d get caught and punished if he disobeyed. So when he happened upon a means to avoid such consequences, he exploited it to the extreme. Furthermore, Glaucon suggests that all of us are like Gyges. The only reason we act morally to the extent that we do, is because we are compelled by the laws governing society. The truth is, says Glaucon, we are immoral by nature, and if any of us had the Ring of Gyges, we’d act no differently than that ordinary shepherd.
Going back to the Wreck Centre I was very disturbed to hear the other day a friend of mine was offered a tab at the bar when he did not have enough money for a beer. Question is why would the manager do this? This is not her money she is risking it is ours. How does the till balance at night when there is credit? Who is auditing the books each day/week/month? Do they enter the stock into the system? Now I am questioning the food as well. I was asked a couple of months back what I would like to pay for a coffee, again by management! Oh dear me.
ReplyDeleteI hear ex Cr. Trish Walters has an external review decision stating she can have all documents relating to the wreck centre. Finally we can learn the truth about what it's really cost us. Once we know that we can find a way forward in relation to the white elephant. I believe there are a lot of documents so perhaps we need a working party to go through them. Let us know if you need some help Trish. We're stuck with it so we have to find a viable way for it to work.
ReplyDelete