A perpetual state of status quo

I’ve finally figured out why we are stuck in a rut with this moribund, uninspired and uninspiring Council.  It has become a self-perpetuating machine.

Here’s how it works:

Our charismatic CEO hires lots of staff and treats them well. He also looks after the councillors, providing them with resolutions to vote on and projects to approve which they can then call achievements. He puts on nice food and alcoholic drinks after every meeting and regularly takes them and their spouses out to dinner with his senior staff and their spouses (all on the ratepayers purse). Everyone is happy.

Comes the time for an election or by-election. Friends, relatives and associates of the councillors and the Council staff are encouraged to run. When it comes to voting, most of the community are apathetic because they have been told in the Council newsletter and the compliant local media that everything is hunky-dory. But there is one group of highly-motivated voters --  council staff, councillors and their friends and relatives, who are naturally keen to maintain the status quo.  Because the CEO has hired so many staff, these insiders and their circles of friends and family make up a big enough section of the population in this small community to ensure, because they will always vote, that one of their own is elected.

In the recent election, we saw the outgoing councillor Brian Moore replaced by his wife Joanne. How cosy!  Another candidate was the husband of a former councillor. One of the current councillors is the father of a Shire staff member.

CEO Tim Clynch has just been given another pay rise, but he continues to hire staff to help carry out the duties he is supposed to perform. The Shire now has more than 50 staff members, so many that Mr Clynch has recently decided he needed to hire a part-time Human Resources Officer. So until the growth of the population here outstrips the growth in Shire staff numbers, or until we amalgamate with another Shire, it seems nothing will change.

By-election race explained

What passes for news media in this part of the world has done a predictably mediocre job of covering the Council by-election, failing to identify a single issue and falling back on standard “candidate profiles”.

So let me deconstruct some of the tired platitudes served up by the candidates in last week’s Manjimup-Bridgetown Times.

Joanne Moore.  Shamelessly standing to take over her husband Brian’s seat, despite the fact that if elected will have the same financial conflict of interest which he cited as his reason for resigning. (See post titled ‘From one conflict to another’ below)

“Clearly the time has come for maintenance of what we have in roads, rather than the sealing of existing roads.”   Meaning: The road to my house is sealed, so bugger everyone else – especially Southwell!

“I’m a down-to-earth person who is not afraid to speak my mind.”  Meaning: Although I’ve been to several community meetings and never uttered a word, I did poke my tongue out at someone once, which I thought spoke volumes.

Peter Quinby.  Used to put his name to poisonous letters to the paper penned by his councillor wife. They’ve heard councillor pay is going up and they miss the free dinners, so its his turn to warm a seat.’

“It is unrealistic to expect rates to increase in relation to the CPI. Equally, unless the Shire delivers a constant package of works and services, rates are likely to increase as new services are supplied. I would pay particular attention to the budget to ensure the Shire gives value for money.”  Meaning: no-one knows.

“I believe local government should support development in the community largely by getting out of the way.”   Meaning:  Let’s continue to do nothing, and just enjoy the free drinks and meals.

Marta Sandberg.  Famous for having her deceased husband cryogenically frozen.

“Services are a lot like infrastructure. We have to balance what we want with what we are willing to pay.  All in all, I think Bridgetown has found a pretty good compromise.”   Meaning:  I have no new ideas on the way forward, but I’m bored and getting on Council might be interesting.

John Nicholas.  This is his third try at getting on Council. If he misses out this time will go down as the Nathan Buckley of Bridgetown politics – the best candidate never to win a seat.  (Buckley best AFL player who never played in Premiership).

“ I am open to the notion of alternative management of shire services to permit shire funds to be focused on essential  services.”   Meaning:  Money can be saved by contracting out the work of the Council works crew and reducing the number of  full time employees.

Gerry Georgatos & Jenny Kaeshagan.  Not sure of the wisdom of partners running together.  They are both great candidates, but standing together may cost them votes.  They have each put forward strong and interesting cases for a fresh approach to managing Council affairs and community issues.

Along with John Nicholas, they are the stand-out candidates, offering the best chance for much-needed reform of this moribund Council.

The CEO cannot be questioned, apparently...

The irony didn’t hit me until later…

I went along to the May Council meeting last Thursday to ask a couple of questions.  I was going ask the CEO why he had been selectively applying the convention, enshrined in Council Policy, to give a Certificate of Appreciation and councillor nameplate to outgoing councillors.

You see, this little tribute to departing councillors was religiously followed until Cr William Moyes and myself lost our seats at the elections 18-months ago.  No tributes, no nameplate presentation, no invitation to drinks for us. In fact, we heard there were high-fives exchanged at the Council offices upon announcement of the poll results. 

So I asked CEO Tim Clynch if he believed Council Policies should be adhered to without favouritism or personal prejudice.

Before Mr Clynch could speak, President Tony Pratico, intervened and declared my question was out of order. Questions could not be asked of the CEO, he said.  In my time on Council and attending Council meetings, I have heard dozens of questions put to the CEO during question time and answered by him.

At the previous Council meeting in April, five questions were asked, 3 directed to the CEO.  At the March meeting there were 22 questions asked, 14 answered by the CEO, 6 by the President and two answered by both of them.

But I realised later, my question did get answered – by Mr Pratico. Yes, this Council does selectively apply its policies according to favouritism and personal prejudice. If you are someone like me who dares to question and (heaven forbid) criticise the current regime, the rules are changed, you lose your rights and are shunned.

 

 From: Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire  'Council Values'

• Acceptance of community diversity
• Openness and accountability
• Equity and fairness for all

Not much ado about nothing

If this blogger and others hadn’t got stuck into the Council for doing a backflip on its previous decision to preserve and restore Zinneckar’s House, what would they have to show for the past six months?

Not much more than a few street name changes and some financial housekeeping.

They should thank us for making it look like they actually had an issue to deal with.

At the most recent Council meeting on April 24, things were settling down and back to normal.

First, there was question time and a few curly questions to deal with from myself, William Moyes and Bert Reynolds.

Then there were some decisions to make: allow a lunch to be held on a bridge?, endorse a couple of nominations for committees?,  accept the monthly financial statements?,  allow a variation on the some funds for road projects? and rubber stamp some resolutions from the standing committee.

Needless to say, they all got the nod, with every councillor voting in favour of every recommendation from the officers without a word of discussion or (heaven forbid) dissent.  Nothing more strenuous for the councillors than some page-turning and hand-raising.

It was all over in under an hour and would have taken less than half an hour, but for those pesky questions.

They all then adjourned to the room next door for catered meal and free drinks on the ratepayers.

I want to know…  WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE???  WHERE ARE THEIR IDEAS, THEIR PLANS TO TAKE THIS COMMUNITY FORWARD??

We ratepayers are paying each of them around $290 per meeting and are getting no ideas, no vision, no scrutiny.

Most of the current councillors have not moved a single motion of their own this year.  Some have never done it! As outlined above they go through entire meetings without uttering a single word!

Surely, we deserve better. That is what this blog is about. 

Please vote for change at the current by-election and the normal election later this year.

(Electing past-president Brian Moore’s wife Joanne Moore or nasty former councillor Stephanie Devanay’s husband Peter Quinby is likely to ensure nothing more than continued robotic endorsements of Council officers’ recommendations.)

What lies beneath...

There is something very strange going on.  Brian Moore resigns the Council Presidency and his seat, citing a conflict of interest, but then his wife Joanne nominates for the seat, thereby re-creating the conflict.  At the same time one of Mr and Mrs Moore's closest friends,  Peter Quinby also nominated for the Council by-election.

Quinby's wife Stephanie Devany quit council a couple of years ago after a stint characterised by her intemperate, foul-mouthed outbursts.

So two uninspired and jaded councillors quit, but then their spouses want to jump back in. Why the sudden renewed interest within this chardonnay-sipping clique in getting seats on Council?

Could it have anything to do with Mr Moore's other role as a member of the WA Salaries and Allowances Tribunal?  It is known that this body has recently been considering the issue of how much councillors should be paid.  This was the reason Mr Moore gave for quitting, given the obvious conflict of interest.

Now, does Mr Moore know something about changes to councillor remuneration that he might have shared with his wife and friends, prior to any public announcement?

If he did, and if that's why his wife and friends are standing, it is a very poor reflection.

From one conflict to another

Speaking (below) of people who should understand conflicts of interest, what about Mr and Mrs Brian Moore?

Earlier this year Mr Moore abruptly vacated his seat on Council, citing a conflict of interest between this role and his position on the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, which sets remuneration for councillors.  He saw that he should not be helping to decide how much he should be paid as a councillor and President.

But now his wife has nominated for the Council by-election.  If he should not be helping to work out how much he should be getting paid as a councillor, nor should he be doing so when his wife may benefit!

If she gets in, will he resign from the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal?  And if he does, what was the point of his resignation from Council?  Or are they simply seeking to establish a family political dynasty, like Bridgetown's answer to Bill and Hillary Clinton? (Except Bill provided leadership and Hillary has class.)

Read my lips... A-c-c-o-u-n-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y

It is lamentable that new Council President Tony Pratico, despite having been on Council for several years, does not appear to understand fundamental concepts of governance, such as conflicts of interest.

For as long as I can remember and as recently as April 11, he has consistently taken part in debates and voted on motions concerning the management of Yornup Hall, despite the obvious conflict raised by his membership of both the Yornup Hall Management Committee and the private group which was allowed to run the hall and its finances, the Yornup Hall Committee.  In one case, he was the only councillor to vote against a motion that the CEO should check whether the arrangements regarding the hall were legal. (It turned out they were not.)

But a strange thing happened at the most recent Council meeting on April 24...  Mr Pratico declared this conflict of interest.  Cr Hodson, who is also on the Management Committee, declared his interest and the Shire CEO's executive assistant, Mrs Norris also declared an interest as a member of the private committee.

So what brought on this sudden burst of propriety?

I suspect it may have has something to do with me lodging an official complaint a couple of weeks ago about Mr Pratico's failure to declare his conflicts on this issue.

Check out his record below...

Failure to declare an impartiality interest  (three instances)  Council meeting 25/2/2010.

Mr Pratico took part in the debate and voted against the following motion:

Item: C.06/0210  That the instrument of Appointment for the Yornup Hall Management Committee be withdrawn.

Mr Pratico took part in debate and voted in favour of the following amendment:  That point 3 of C.24/0210 be deleted. (Censure of the Management Committee chairman)

Mr Pratico took part in debate and voted against C.24/0210  (Noting the Management Committee had breached its Instrument of Appointment)

At the time, he was a member of committee in question, the Yornup Hall Management Committee.

Failure to declare an impartiality interest.   Council meeting 24/6/2010

Mr Pratico took part in debate and voted against C.13/0610  That Council defer consideration of a request (from the Yornup Hall Committee) to replace jarrah weatherboards on the hall until Council received  and considered financial statements from the Yornup Hall Management Committee.

At the time, he was a member of both the Yornup Hall Committee and the Yornup Hall Management Committee.

Failure to declare an impartiality interest. (two instances) Council meeting 25/11/2010

Mr Pratico took part in the debate and voted against the following motion:

Item C.03/1110 (Part 1) That all budgeted expenditure on upgrades and improvements to the Yornup Hall and surrounds be suspended until it can be established that this publicly-owned asset is being managed in a way which allows proper scrutiny and provides accountability.

Mr Pratico also took part in debate and voted against the following motion:

C.03/1110 (Part 2)  That the CEO seek advice and provide a report to Council on the legality of the current arrangements in regard to management of this publicly owned asset and retention of hall hire fees by a private group, being the Yornup Hall Committee.

At the time he was chairman of the Yornup Hall Management Committee and a member of the Yornup Hall Committee.

   Failure to declare an impartiality interest.  Council meeting  28/2/2013

Cr Pratico voted in favour of the following motion:

Item C.02/0213  That Council request the CEO to investigate and report back to the April 2013 standing committee meeting on the possibility of leasing the Yornup Hall to the Yornup Hall (Community) Committee and consequential disbanding of the Yornup Hall Management Committee.

At the time he was a member of both the Yornup Hall Management Committee and the private Yornup Hall Committee.

 Failure to declare an impartiality interest.  Standing Committee meeting  11/4/2013

Cr Pratico took part in debate and voted in favour of Amendment and Substantive Motion dealing with  proposal to lease hall to Yornup Hall Committee - Item SC.05/0413

At the time, he was a member of both the Yornup Hall Management Committee and the private Yornup Hall Committee.