Cock-eyed view of democracy

Our Shire President Brian Moore was on ABC radio the other day discussing the Special Meeting of Electors which called on Council to reverse its decision to demolish historic Zinnecker’s House.

As expected, he signalled the Council’s intention to disregard the motions passed at the well-attended Electors Meeting.

You may be asking; how could the elected representative of a local government be so dismissive of such solid community feedback?   Well, apparently he has become clairvoyant.

Mr Moore said on-air the recommendation of the Electors Meeting presented Council with a dilemma, as it now had to choose between the wishes of a “vocal minority” and that of “the silent majority.”

The President is notorious for his glib remarks and often intemperate approach to the job, but this takes the cake.

He now purports to know what every citizen who did not attend the Electors Meeting is thinking and claims most of them want him and his colleagues to tear down an old building in the “heritage precinct” of the main street.

Think of the money we could save on local government elections!  No voting required. We simply ask Mr Moore to use his “third eye” to tell us who the majority of residents want on Council.

But what about the dozens of people who care enough about their community that they took the time and trouble to attend a lawfully constituted public meeting, to have their say, and cast their votes…?  

The Shire President seems to think they’re just a noisy bunch of trouble-makers who will go away if ignored.

A special meeting

The Special Meeting of Electors held on Monday, September 17 was an eye-opener.

The conduct of the President, CEO and councillors who attended was interesting, and revealing of their attitude to the community and us pesky ratepayers and electors.

They were grim-faced throughout, but grinned and nodded when someone from the crowd referred to the meeting as a ‘Kangaroo Court’. 

Special Meetings of electors are enshrined in the Local Government Act in order to give residents and ratepayers a voice when they feel an issue is being ignored by their elected representatives. These meetings can only be called when at least 100 electors are prepared to sign a notice calling for such a meeting.  Any decisions taken by a special meeting of electors must be forwarded to a Council meeting as recommendations or motions.  The final decision on whether to accept or reject a recommendation from the electors then rests with Council.

At this special meeting, electors sent their councillors a clear message that they want Zinnecker’s House retained and money set aside from Shire reserves to repair, renovate and restore the house.

They also sent a message that they want the Shire CEO to fulfil his obligation to be accountable, in relation to the advice he said he obtained that the existing Council resolution to retain Zinnecker’s House did not have to be revoked prior to Council deciding to “deconstruct” the house.

How were these messages received by the CEO and councillors present?

Several councillors present openly voted “No” to the motions which were carried, thereby indicating they are not willing to wait for the Council meeting to consider the recommendations of the meeting, but have already made up their minds.

The President at one point tried to stop an elector from moving a motion. The CEO then intervened in the middle of debate to tell an elector what he should and should not say in relation to the motion being debated. When the elector tried to respond to the CEO’s criticisms, he was shouted down by the President.

Cr Sue Moscarda went further. She declared that this motion (see Item 3 below) was “offensive”.  She accused the elector who moved the motion of insulting her by daring to question her integrity.

The motions carried by the meeting of electors which will now go forward to Council as recommendations were:

1.      That Council revoke Resolution C.14/0412 (Which was; ‘Funds be included in the 2012/13 budget for the deconstruction/demolition of Zinnecker’s House with all materials deemed suitable for reuse being set aside for possible use in the renovation of the Bridgetown Railway Station’)

2.      A)  Council transfer the sum of $200,000 from the land and building Reserve to the building maintenance reserve and;
 B) Council arrange for works to be carried out to make safe, renovate and restore Zinnecker’s House to a standard suitable for public access, such as accommodation, using funds from the building maintenance reserve.

3.          A) In the Public Interest, and in Council's interest Council publically disclose at the ensuing      Ordinary Council Meeting the content of the 'additional information' it claims it considered in its decision to reverse its previous position to retain Zinnecker's House.

B) In the Public Interest, and in Council's interest and in the CEO's best interests Council instruct the CEO to disclose and table to Council and present this information at the ensuing Ordinary Council Meeting whom, and when, from the Department of Local Government provided advice to the CEO that 'concurred' with the view of the CEO that the existing resolution to retain Zinnecker's House did not require rescinding.

                             

The handling of these motions at the forthcoming Council meeting will be an interesting test of whether the officers and councillors are familiar with, and prepared to act in accordance with the first line of the ‘COUNCIL'S MISSION STATEMENT’  which is:  “The Shire (its Council and Employees) will listen to the community, provide ethical and open leadership…

Long wait for apology

The email exchange below shows what happens when our Shire CEO makes an incorrect statement and defamatory statement about a ratepayer, which is published in the local newspaper…

Bridgetown-Greenbushes CEO slams critics

By Gerry Georgatos

Aug. 28, 2012,

Ex-councillors William Moyes and Michael Southwell in June lodged a complaint to the DLG claiming Mr Clynch and the council had failed to rescind an existing resolution in December 2010 not to revisit the issue of demolishing the historic house.
 …(Mr Clynch) said advice from the DLG was not the major determinant in councillors deciding not to rescind the existing resolution.
"This is totally incorrect and unfortunately demonstrates Mr Southwell has failed to research the matter. Nowhere in my report to the April 2012 meeting of the Standing Committee on the subject matter of 'Review of Various Shire Buildings' did I mention anything about DLG on whether the previous council resolution needed to be rescinded."

Email: Tue 28/08/2012 12:19 PM

Tim,

You have been reported in today’s Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail making defamatory statements about me.

Could you identify the incorrect, poorly researched statements allegedly made by me or, failing that, issue and have published an apology?

Yours,

Michael Southwell

Email: Thu 30/08/2012 12:35 PM

Hi Michael

It wasn’t my intention when responding to a question from the reporter to defame you and I don’t believe I have.

Regards

Tim Clynch
Chief Executive Officer
Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes
 
PO Box 271
Bridgetown WA 6255

Email: Thu 30/08/2012 1:31 PM

Tim,

Two short definitions of ‘defamatory’ from the web:

Collins English Dictionary: injurious to someone's name or reputation

Princeton University Thesaurus: harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

You made two points in relation to me; I had stated something which was incorrect and that this meant I had failed to properly research the issue.

These statements are obviously harmful to my reputation. However, if you can establish they are true, there is no problem.

Can you tell me which allegedly untrue statement by me were you referring?

Or, do you contend that you were misquoted?

Yours,

Michael Southwell

NO RESPONSE…  (I’m still waiting)

Paying the price

Many people advised me against having a say on how our Shire is being run, and putting forward my views.

‘Look out,’ they said. ‘They will find a way to stitch you up.’

‘Keep your head down, or it will get kicked,’ others warned.

I decided instead to go ahead and exercise my right to free speech, to run the risk of retribution, because I don’t want to live in a society like that (I didn’t think ours was a society like that), and I strongly believe a diversity of views is the essence of good government.

That didn’t make it any easier when the kick in the guts arrived this week.

The road pictured above is the road I live on, Blackwood Park Road. It is one of the oldest, and worst, roads in the district. It has two blind bends and one blind crest. It is narrow, parts are tree-lined with no shoulders, and is slippery and pot-holed in winter, corrugated and dusty in summer.

It is so notoriously bad the local taxi driver will not take the fare if the pick-up or destination is Blackwood Park Road.
But it is the road my wife and children must travel on at least twice a day, usually more.

In 2009 this 100 year-old road finally made it on to the tail end of the Council’s five year “Strategic Plan” to be sealed (in stages.)

In 2010 it was still on the plan, with the work due to begin in 2012/13 – this financial year.

In 2011, it was still on the plan, with the work due to commence this year, with stages 2 and 3 listed for the following two years.

My neighbours and I were looking forward to the workmen and machinery appearing any week now.

But behind closed doors Council recently decided there are now other priorities and Blackwood Park Road has been removed from the list of roads to be fixed this year.