Accountability... not!

Honest, law-abiding citizens and ratepayers of Bridgetown-Greenbushes who learned that auditors had found a series of irregularities, including illegal arrangements, occurring within our Shire would perhaps expect some serious action to be taken as a result.

But wait, this is Bridgetown, where it seems the normal rules do not apply…

Our elected councillors have been provided with a report which found, among other things;

-       - a breach of the Local Government Act by Shire staff who allowed a private individual to use the swimming pool kiosk as a business without putting this free lease out to tender,

-       - evidence that staff at the tip have been using money collected from the public for “stationary etc” without accounting for it,

-       - a failure to put rules in place for the use of credit cards by senior staff,

-      -  staff receiving cash advances without having to sign for the money.

So what have they done?  Simply agreed with the CEO’s recommendation that changes to address the issues raised be introduced in stages over the next six months or so (no rush).

Questioned about the auditor’s report at the June Council meeting, Shire President Brian Moore had this to say: “The items raised by the auditor, are not items that cause any major concerns for the operation of this Council. I have complete and utter faith in the CEO and the staff in the handling of these matters.”

(I wonder what it was about the revelations of a lack of proper processes and controls in relation to the handling of ratepayers funds that gave the President such confidence.)

 Asked if members of the public could be allowed to view the credit card statements to satisfy themselves there had been no abuses, Mr Moore replied: “You can apply for an FOI (Freedom of Information Act request) for that information”.

 Under Mr Moore’s picture on the Council’s internet home page are listed “Council Values”  One of them is ‘openness and accountability’. 

Mackman slapped down again by her 'colleagues'

Those who attended the public gallery for the June Council meeting were treated to a display of democracy not in action.  In short they caught a glimpse of what is wrong with the Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire Council.

 Many went to see what could be done to convince the Council its recent backflip on saving historic Zinnekars House (a quick, unanimous decision, without debate, to demolish it) was wrong and should be corrected.

 A sympathetic councillor, Doreen Mackman moved a motion for Council to reconsider the demolition. To the dismay of those watching, this motion did not get off the ground because there was no other councillor willing to second the motion.  As a result, it lapsed without a debate.

What the councillors don’t understand is that their glib decision to ignore a colleague’s motion and let it lapse only undermines their own credibility and the authority of Council.

 All of them, and particularly the President, should understand that you do not necessarily have to agree with a motion to second the motion. By seconding the motion you are simply saying that you are prepared to listen to the mover’s reasons for bringing up the issue. You do not have to speak or vote in favour of the motion. Many times while on Council coucillors including myself would second a motion and explain they were doing so simply in order to hear the debate. It reflects the old saying; “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

 But this wisdom does not exist within the current council. The action of refusing to second a councillor’s motion is, in effect, a slap in the face for the mover. It indicates Council has such contempt for the substance of the motion it is not even prepared to listen to the reasons for it. 

In this case, it was a slap in the face for those in the community who support preserving our built heritage and particularly those who went to the meeting hoping to hear the issue discussed by their elected representatives.

 The Council is now moving rapidly to demolish the building before the groundswell of community anger over this senseless destruction builds any further.

 

So much for this…

 COUNCIL'S MISSION STATEMENT

The Shire (its Council and Employees) will listen to the community…

Anyone like free lease of a public hall?

Learning recently the Shire's swimming pool kiosk had been handed over for free to a private individual for use as a business and that this breaches the Local Government Act (see post below) reminded me of the strange situation regarding use of the Yornup Hall.

Those who have followed Council over the past few years would know that I fought long and hard, but in vain, to have the Yornup Hall managed by the Council like every other publicly-owned hall and Shire asset.

For many years, the CEO has advised Council that management of and funds raised from the use of Yornup Hall should be allowed to remain in the hands of a private group of locals known as the Yornup Hall Committee.  Compliant councillors have allowed this appalling situation to continue, despite me pointing out repeatedly that it was against the principles of  proper governance and accountability.

Councillors who may have been quite comfortable supporting something improper may not be willing to remain supportive if it turns out the arrangement is also illegal.

Just like the swimming pool kiosk, the hall seems to have been handed over on a free lease basis and on my reading of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act this would also appear to be a breach because no-one else has ever been given the opportunity to bid for the right to manage and operate the hall.

If any councillor feels uncomfortable about the possibility they may have unwittingly sanctioned an illegal use of a public asset, they should contact me to discuss how the situation could be resolved.

Simply following and hiding behind the advice of the CEO might not provide enough protection if I am right about this issue.

Rare exposure to outside scrutiny exposes many problems

It is bad enough having to pay ridiculously high rates which go up alarmingly every year, but when you find out the money being stripped from us is not only being wasted on silly projects (like a new library in the digital information age) but also being mis-managed, you start to see red.

Our elected representatives are busy glossing over and moving on after seeing a highly embarrassing consultants report which looked at the financial procedures within the Shire.

Among the explosive revelations which you probably won't read about in the local press:

- someone at the Shire breached the Local Government Act by allowing the swimming pool manager to have free use of the office at the pool to run a kiosk for private profit

- staff at the tip (landfill site) have been allowed to dip into cash received from the recycling centre from time to time to pay for "stationery" before the money is accounted for. (Why can't they use Council stationery??) 


- cash advances are routinely given to Shire officers without them having to sign for the money


- senior staff have been given corporate credit cards, but there is no policy on what they may be used for, opening the Shire up to Craig Thompson-style abuses


To top it all off, the consultants found it strange that ratepayers who are late paying their rates are hit with penalties, while no such penalties are levied upon any of the Council's other debtors.


The Council has decided to address the issues identified, but not straight away. These things take time, we are being told.


I wonder what will be done about the breach of the Local Governement Act?

Watch this space.

Blue Lights Blue

Strange as it may seem, senior Council staff seem determined to kill off, or at least interfere with, the 'Winter in Bridgetown' blue lights which were so spectacularly successful when launched last year.

The lights are due to go back on next month, but Council officers are pushing to introduce a policy, which would give them the right to dictate how the lights can and cannot be arranged. Those who wish to display the lights on the town's many Heritage-listed buildings (like the Freemasons Hotel, which I part-own) would have to pay $80 and go through an approvals process each time they wanted to put them up.

Its regulation for regulation's sake and a poke in the eye for the business people trying something innovative to bring tourists to the town. 

I'm all in favour of restrictions on advertising and signage to protect the ambiance and amenity of the town. While on Council I drove the formation of a new signs policy, but saw this process constantly undermined by concessions given to entrenched vested interests.

If the Council is serious about signs and visual pollution, why has it taken no action to remove the illegal signs which have been chained to the lampost right outside the Council offices for at least the past three years?  (They can be seen in the photo above)

Airbrushing (and demolishing) history

Q:When is a Council decision not a Council decision?

A: When the CEO disagrees with it.

 

In December 2010, Council voted against a recommendation by the CEO (it would never happen with the current council) to get rid of the historic home known as Zinnecker's House next to the Visitor Centre in Hampton Road. Council decided the house should be retained, and set aside $30,000 over three years to make repairs.

 

Less than 18 months later, at the urging of the CEO, Council has thrown this decision out and resolved - unanimously and without debate or discussion  - to demolish the building.

 

 Normally, to perform such a backflip, Council must consider and pass a special motion to revoke their previous decision. But in this case, the CEO swept that formality aside saying it was "not required as that (previous) resolution has been acted upon - the building has been retained since then (the decision cannot bind Council forever) and funds were included in the 2010/11 budget for the first stage work to the building."

 

Never mind, either, that Council's recently adopted Strategic Plan endorsed as a key strategy 'To enhance and protect our built heritage' and that one of the actions listed to achieve this was to 'Prepare and implement a conservation plan for Zinnekers House.'

 

So what was the reason given for bulldozing an historical building in the main street of a town which sells itself as WA's only National Trust listed Historic Town?

 

The estimated cost of renovating and repairing the building was $175,000 and this money would be better spent on, among other things, improving the Shire staff office accommodation.

 

I'm not making this up.

Caravans and tourists? Not here, thanks.

At last we've seen a debate at a Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire Council meeting…

But what did it reveal?

That our councillors are so desperate to be liked they will bow to the whims of any noisy minority and reject perfectly reasonable proposals which might take the community forward.

When I was on Council I would often remind my colleagues we were duty-bound to make decisions in the best interests of the whole community, rather than to simply appease whoever happened to be agitating or glaring at us from the public gallery. These reminders were routinely brushed aside, and have obviously been forgotten.

At the March Council meeting a majority of councillors (7 to 2) rejected a plan for someone to set up a small (four berth) caravan park in a developed and populated area close to town.  The neighbours had come to the meeting to complain that it would increase traffic on their roads and spoil their views.

The reason given for rejecting the advice of the Shire’s Planner by President Brian Moore, who moved the amendment, was; “The caravan park was not in keeping with the amenity and ambiance of the area.”

I would ask, was the Bridgetown caravan park (the owners of which lodged objections to the proposal), when it was first proposed, in keeping with the existing amenity and ambiance of that lovely riverbank area?

Was the town of Bridgetown, when it was established in keeping with the amenity and ambience of  the then pristine area?

And finally, is the huge and expanding Greenbushes mine in keeping with the amentity and ambience of that bushland area?

I hope you see my point.