Egos set to explode at library launch

As completion of the Council's new $4 million 'state-of-the-art' library in Steere St draws near, I prepare to cringe at the spectacle of President Brian Moore, CEO Tim Clynch and other 'prominent' councillors puffing and preening at what will no doubt be a gala opening.

For Mr Moore - who has given no direction or leadership to the Shire in five years as President, just endless pious platitudes about volunteers - it will be something to hang his hat on. "I built that library," he will tell his admirers.

The truth is he and fellow councillors did nothing more than nod their heads and agree with every single suggestion spoon-fed to them by Mr Clynch, accepting without question the  "need" for a new library which is six or seven times the size of the current one.

 At one point, while I was a councillor, I managed to convince them to put a limit on its size (and cost) at four times the existing library space (surely enough to do the job, I argued), but this resolution was later revoked on the CEO's advice. An adequate library appropriate to the size of our community was not going to be spectacular enough to satisfy the need for an attention-grabbing monument.

When the new library is unveiled, it might make us all swell with civic pride and will no doubt provide a valuable community resource.

But ask yourselves why the rates keep going up every year, well in excess of the rate of inflation, while $2 million of ratepayers funds is spent on this vanity project.  And don't forget an extra hundred thousand a year will have to be spent on running and maintaining it.

 

Tough job, but someone has to do it...

Councillors and senior staff should be thanking the so-called 'noisy minority' of Bridgetown for giving them an issue (Zinnecker's House) to deal with.

Otherwise, they would have trouble justifying their existence.

October's Council meeting ran for a full half-hour, including questions from the public and dealt mainly with renaming some roads and a meaningless submission on the State's new draft forest management plan.  They simply dismissed a petition signed by hundreds of local  residents, which urged them to retain Zinnecker's, without even discussing it.

If you consider the councillors are paid roughly $350 for each meeting they attend, that is a good hourly rate! And you can't tell me there is a lot of preparation involved in simply accepting all but one of the officer recommendations without debate.

After half an hour of raising their hands to vote in unison, the councillors (and staff) must have been famished. Just as well there was a lavish ratepayer-funded meal and alcoholic drinks awaiting them when it was finally over.

So what is really going on?

There is an old saying; ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!’ which now sums up the Zinnecker’s House saga.

The house has been there for around 90 years and has cost the Shire next to nothing to maintain.

Casting aside two previous decisions to retain it, the current Council decided in April to spend $8000 to demolish this piece of Bridgetown’s history.

The reasons given are all bogus. ‘It would cost too much to restore.’ (So don’t restore it!) ‘We don’t have a use for it.’ (You might find a use in the future, if you simply leave it there.)

The process around the decision to demolish Zinnecker’s is clouded by controversy, with the CEO steadfastly refusing to reveal the identity of the person within the Department of Local Government whom he said belatedly endorsed his advice to councillors there was no need for them to revoke the previous Council decision to retain the building.

This Council, which states its Mission as “to listen to the community...” has now ignored a petition signed by more than 250 locals, as well as the recommendations of a well-attended Special Meeting of Electors which voted overwhelmingly to retain the building.  Instead Council has now required that the building be removed (by others) within four months, or else demolished.

Council’s decision cannot be explained logically.  Why should the building be moved? It would lose its historical context if this was done.  And why the deadline? What problems will the building cause if it is still standing there after January 28?

It seems a simple demonstration of arrogance. Council is so determined to dig in over its decision to demolish the house, it is prepared to trash its own ‘Mission Statement’ and ‘Values’ in order to trample what President Brian Moore contemptuously refers to as “a noisy minority”.

Or is there a hidden agenda. If you ask me, it might have something to do with Zinnecker's next door neighbour Tony Pratico, the Shire Deputy President who owns the Chooks site as well as the property on the other side of Chooks.

If Zinnecker's is demolished and the Visitor Centre operations moved to the old Railway station, as is planned, I wonder what will happen to the site...  perhaps it would be offered for sale?  Would the wealthy and entrepreneurial Mr Pratico be interested in owning a 'super-block' on the main street? 

A new low

How do you feel?  If you are a resident, ratepayer and/or elector in the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes, your Council has indicated it doesn’t give a damn what you think, or say.

In a stunning snub to both its citizens and the legislation under which it exists, our Council has thrown out recommendations sent to it by a legally constituted Special Meeting of Electors, refusing to even consider one of the meeting’s recommendations.

A new low has been reached. A point at which President Brian Moore and his ‘team’ have blatantly revealed their contempt for the people who put them into office.

The resolutions of the Electors Meeting – that Zinnecker’s House be preserved --  were tossed aside on the pretext of a ridiculous notion that because only 70 people attended the Special Meeting of Electors its outcome could not be said to represent the wishes of Bridgetown’s residents.

Hello?? What is it about democratic processes that these people fail to grasp?

By way of illustration which may enlighten them, let’s follow this warped logic for a moment… President Brian Moore’s election must be invalid, because less than half the eligible electors cast their votes. He received 873 votes, which means only 20 per cent of residents said they want him on Council.  So I make a guess the ‘silent majority’ wish he had never moved here, therefore his house should be bulldozed along with Zinnecker’s!

I am at a loss to comprehend the arrogance of a group of elected officials who chose to not even consider a resolution sent to them by a Special Meeting of Electors. The Local Government Act says that the decisions of a Electors Meeting must be “considered” at the next Council meeting. Yet, the third resolution from this meeting was not moved or discussed at the Council meeting.

This resolution called on Council, quite properly, to ask the Shire CEO to state WHO it was he spoke to at the Department of Local Government when, as he claimed, he received advice backing his assessment there was no need to rescind the existing Council decision to ‘retain’ Zinnecker’s prior to deciding to demolish it.

The people of the Shire simply sought to have the Council and its senior officer live up to its Mission Statement (“…provide ethical and open leadership…”) and Values (“Openness and accountability”).

But this Council and this CEO have now demonstrated a belief they can make their own rules and are answerable to no-one.

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)