Footpaths for some, goat tracks for others

This is one section of the so-called footpath on Bunbury St between Hampton Road and the Primary Schools. It is made up of crumbling bitumen covered with a layer of loose gravel on a steep incline.

A friend of mine fell and broke her ankle here recently while walking her children to school. At the hospital, she was told so many people have sustained injuries in this spot the hospital staff refer to it as 'the Bridgetown slide'.

This is the route dozens of parents and children must negotiate on the way to and from school every day. It is a disgrace.

I fail to understand why we must put up with dangerous third-world standard footpaths and roads while $1.8m of ratepayers money is being spent on a showpiece library.

But it might be because only some of us have to put up with the dangerous roads and footpaths.

For example, the footpath below in Barlee Street is on the route between the CEO's house and the school.

Nice work if you can get it #2

So, while the CEO gets to hand-pick who will advise his employers on whether he should get a pay rise (see posting below), the councillors get to decide for themselves how much they will be paid for attending Council meetings.

 And guess what? Our councillors have repeatedly decided they deserve to be paid the maximum possible meeting allowance, which is $7000 a year, or roughly $320 per meeting. When most of the meetings these days take less than an hour (see posting below), that’s a very tidy sum.

Taking the same allowance for contributing to the affairs of a small country Council with around 4000 citizens as those who serve on large metropolitan Councils like Joondalup, Armadale or Stirling cannot be justified.

While on Council, I tried repeatedly to convince my colleagues that we should show restraint and demonstrate respect for ratepayers funds by taking a smaller meeting allowance. I was always resoundingly outvoted.

I don’t think councillors should be allowed to vote on how much money they will receive. If you think about it, every single councillor should declare a financial interest and leave the room when this item is presented.

 

As a ratepayer, I strongly object to having my money spent topping up the bank accounts of people who attend a couple of meetings per month, vote yes to every suggestion from the staff for an hour, then retire to enjoy free food and alcohol (also paid for by the ratepayers).

Being on Council used to be seen as community service, but with things the way they are at the Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire Council, it can now be viewed as an easy way to earn extra cash, and free meals.  

Nice work, if you can get it

Councillors are not supposed to interfere in the day to day operation of the Councils they govern.  They have two roles;

1) establishing policies to be followed by the officers

2) appointing and directing the Chief Executive Officer.

So it’s important the Council is happy with the performance of their CEO.

Pursuant to this, each year councillors must review the performance of their CEO.

It has been the practice of the Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire Council to appoint a committee of councillors to review the CEO’s performance and his remuneration, and this committee then provides a recommendation to the full Council for rubber stamping.

For the past four years, our Council has voted to endorse a suggestion from the CEO that an outside consultant be engaged to assist the committee in reviewing his performance.  On all four occasions the CEO has suggested that a Mr Fitzgerald of FitzGerald Strategies be appointed.

In 2011, the CEO’s recommendation was not greeted with the usual unanimous rubber stamping. I was then on Council and I argued strongly against the appointment, on the basis that it involved a clear conflict of interest. I had discovered that Mr Fitzgerald is often engaged to do contract work for the Council (on the decision of the CEO) as an adviser on industrial relations. I pointed out it would not be in his interest to prepare advice for council which was adverse to the CEO,  given that this might affect his on-going relationship with the CEO and prejudice his chances of being offered more work. However, it would in Council’s best interest to obtain completely impartial advice on the matter. I also said that perhaps it would be healthy to change advisers on this issue, so that we might get different viewpoints.

I was able to convince two other councillors, Cr Moyes and Cr Williams to oppose the appointment, but the motion was passed, six votes to three.

It is interesting that Cr Williams was one of those who voted unanimously to appoint the CEO’s regular, hand-picked consultant to steer his performance appraisal again this year when Mr Fitzgerald's appointment for 2012 was put to Council last month.

There is one other thing that is curious about this… Council President Brian Moore has been on Council’s CEO performance review committee for four years. Given he is a member of the State Government’s Salaries and Allowances Tribunal and was that tribunal’s executive officer for many years previously, why does he need a ratepayer-funded consultant to tell him how to assess the CEO’s performance and decide whether a pay increase is justified?

By the way, the outcome of the process described above has been glowing appraisals and a pay rise for the CEO every year. But that doesn’t surprise anyone, does it?