A blissful bailout

                                                                 WESTWARD  HO
                                              (Originally a novel by Charles Kingsley) 

He who, in his own best interest, should consider it ‘Best ‘ to remain nameless will soon be setting sail westward. Maybe this will be back to become a permanent, pre-next election fixture at the bottom of Tony Simpson’s  local government rose garden as a living memorial to the Shire of York Council’s folly in daring to question a Minister of the Crown- while still in office .

Or maybe not- he may have some ‘Town of East Fremantle 2029 Needs Analysis’ to vision for a fat- fee.

Then again according to Roel Loopers, the author of the online publication Freo’s View, he could have some allegedly poorly finished business with the City of Fremantle to re-attend to- or try to ignore.

Mr. Loopers claims, and I quote from Freo’s View, Mr. Best’s recent $80,000 visioning report for the port city was not worth the paper it was printed on. Mr. Loopers alleges it is a lazy, plain, uninspiring summary of poorly attended workshops- and queries whether anyone researched if the consultant (Mr. Best) has the academic knowledge to analyse community issues? (That is Mr. Loopers publically stated opinion which he should be perfectly entitled to.)

In York’s case this opinion is immaterial, as long as the Minister for Local Government and Communities, Tony Simpson, thinks Mr. Best is the best- that is all that matters.( And the so –called Shire of York’s  ‘Official Unofficial’ online publication should not have any adverse opinion that it is perfectly entitled to.) 

What is the difference you ask? The Shire of York was audacious enough to question the lack of credibility of a Government Minister and his staff, Mr. Loopers only questioned the credibility of someone who had, at that stage, just been employed as Shire of York commissioner by Minister Simpson.

So what has Mr. Best done for York that Mr. Loopers considers could have been done by an Administrative Assistant acting on behalf of the City of Fremantle. Only those who, possibly, in their own self- interest, have attended Mr. Best’s visionary workshop séances would know.

How many in York attended these workshops is debatable. Mr. Loopers claims the number of people attending Mr. Best’s Fremantle workshops may have been grossly exaggerated. The numerical methodology apparently being used is - if the same 10 people attend 10 workshops then 100 people rocked up to be visionary inspired.

So what are Mr. Best’s recent activities, initiatives and key strategic activities for and on behalf of the York community?

One is to purchase a gutted property, being Lot 800, 801 South Street York for $625,000 from Nola and Dick Bliss, part of which will be used as a carpark. This property has allegedly been on the market for two years and has been purchased by Mr. Best for, arguably, well above market value.
(In the 1980’s, Alan Bond, purchased Channel 9 from Kerry Packer for over twice its market value. This was the penultimate financial blunder that sent his business empire crashing down around his ears.)

If you look at Mr. Best’s budgetary measures adopted by himself at a Council Meeting on June 26, 2015, for the 2015-16- Financial Year, nearly $500,000 has been removed from local road maintenance while an additional $562,000 has been dug-up for recreation facilities. It means an extra $947,000 in this year’s budget has been set aside for recreation while local farmers bounce along through the potholes.

This basically means that after a farmer hits a huge pothole in a Shire maintained road, he can have a beer to calm his shattered nerves at the YRCC Tavern or The York Palace Hotel. That is if their bars are open and he survived the impact and allowed to drink on his medication.

So are the people in York who know Mr. Best- best- those who are accused of employing Visa-less workers and have no shire planning approval for some of the structures on their properties, or are they the normal, genuine, hard- working country folk who have their towns best interest at heart?

Only Mr. Best can answer that question and, at the end, he may well have to.

So what is the definition of Commissioner, made up of commission and “er”? Commission is in this case is a large payment for services rendered. “Er” probably means who actually knows what services were rendered!

(Roel Loopers comments are at https://freoview.wordpress.com/tag/james-best/

a blog by David Taylor

________________________________________

Dear Sirs,

Decision to approve Shire of York Budget 2015-2016

At a Special meeting of Council held on Thursday 25 June 2015, Commissioner James Best autonomously approved the Shire of York Budget 2015/16. Within the budget was a provision of $625,000 to purchase lots 800 and 801 South Street, York. It is understood that there is a commitment to purchase.

I do not believe the decision to approve the Budget was a lawful one.

On 6 January 2015, Council was suspended and on 7 January 2015, Commissioner James Best took up office. The first FRAC meeting for 2015 was due to be held on 9 February 2015 however due to the suspension of Council this did not occur.  There have been  no further Finance, Risk &/or Audit Committee meetings during the first six months of 2015, yet Audit committee meetings are to be held at least quarterly.

An independent and effective audit committee is critical to good governance. It assists council in discharging its responsibilities, and strengthens the financial accountability of the council and its senior management.

Key responsibilities of the audit committee include overseeing an entity's risk management framework, internal control environment and the accountability of senior management, engaging with internal and external audit and monitoring the status of actions to address audit recommendations.

The Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) requires that all local governments establish an Audit

Committee. The primary responsibility for establishing and appropriately using an audit committee rests with the appointed council.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 - SECT 7.1A

7.1A .    Audit committee

(1) A local government is to establish an audit committee of 3 or more persons to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred on it.

(2)  The members of the audit committee of a local government are to be appointed* by the local government and at least 3 of the members, and the majority of the members, are to be council members.

* Absolute majority required.

(3) A CEO is not to be a member of an audit committee and may not nominate a person to be a member of an audit committee or have a person to represent him or her as a member of an audit committee.

(4) An employee is not to be a member of an audit committee.

Membership

The Act requires that an audit committee is to consist of a minimum of 3 members and in that situation all must be council members. Where a committee consists of more than 3 members then a majority of those members must be council members. Local governments may decide to appoint a committee involving only elected members or they may appoint one or more persons who are external to the Council. If a Council considers it appropriate, the whole Council can be appointed to the audit committee.

If the local government wishes to appoint one or more persons other than elected members to the committee, which is recommended, it should ensure that they have the requisite knowledge and skills to provide benefit to the committee.

Operation of the Committee

Irrespective of the membership of the committee, all legislative requirements relating to committee meetings such as advertising meeting dates, notice of meeting and keeping minutes of meetings need to be complied with.

 I have spoken with DLGC and subsequently to the administration at the City of Canning Council.

I would confirm that the current three Commissioners of Canning Council act as the Audit Committee in place of Council.

I would also confirm that when there was only ONE Commissioner, two external members were appointed to make up an 'Audit Advisory Group' to enable the process of recommendations to Council and in turn legitimise the decision making process.

This has not been the case at the Shire of York.

'Additional Requirements'

New regulations were gazetted for the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 in February 2013. As a result of those amendments Local Government Operational Guideline 9 – Audit in Local Governments was revised.

The new Regulation 17 prescribes a number of matters that are to be reviewed by the audit committee.

These functions include reviewing the Chief Executive Officer's report on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the local government's systems in regard to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance; and reporting the results of the Committee's consideration of that review, to the Council.

This report and review process is to occur at least once every two calendar years, with the first review of each of the three areas to be completed by the CEO, reviewed by the Audit Committee and reported to the Council, by 31 December 2014.

Western Australian local governments are required to complete an annual Compliance Audit Return (CAR) in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 (Regulations). The CAR must be submitted to the Department of Local Government and Communities (Department) by 31 March 2015.

The period examined by this audit is 1 January to 31 December 2014 and the completed return is required to be:

·         Reviewed by the Audit Committee

·         Considered and adopted by Council

·         Certified by the Mayor and CEO following Council adoption

·         Submitted together with a copy of the Council Minutes to the Department by 31 March 2015.

I do not believe that any of the 'Additional Requirements' have been discussed or documented in the Shire minutes, however, if you can show that they have and I am incorrect, I will graciously apologise.

I await your response.

Yours faithfully,

______________________

26 June 2015