"But Tony said it was a big problem...."

From the Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire Council website:

Council's Mission Statement:

The Shire (its Council and Employees) will listen to the community, provide ethical and open leadership, responsible and considered judgement...

This Shire Council never ceases to amaze me.  The bald-faced way they go about trashing their stated values and ignoring all common standards of propriety to suit the narrow, small-minded interests of those in the inner-circle beggars belief.

In recent days, all of our elected councillors (except President Tony Pratico, who has a financial interest) voted to endorse a proposal which will harm the financial viability of the Blues at Bridgetown festival to benefit a few local traders, one of whom is Mr Pratico.

The Council's Blues Festival Trading policy has for years allowed the Festival organisers to sell to street traders the rights to sell food and drink, and other merchandise in the town for the three days of the festival.

The councillors have now unanimously approved a plan to prevent these traders from setting up in certain areas where they have always traded, including near Mr Pratico's chicken shop, and to ban them from trading on the Friday and Sunday of the festival.

So what justification has been put forward for this radical, and possibly very damaging change to this important event?

Simply this statement from CEO Tim Clynch"in his report to the councillors:   Councillors had indicated that in recent years they had received communication from local shopkeepers that competing stalls had been allowed to trade in close proximity to their businesses.

And, if you can believe it, he went on to say: Council will have to determine whether it wishes to release the draft policy for community consultation including a formal referral to Blues at Bridgetown. On the basis that Council has clearly enunciated its position on Blues Trading the
recommendation is that Council adopt the policy without community consultation.

Without community consultation!  What happened to listening to the community? What happened to considered judgement?

Who were these shopkeepers who went to the councillors demanding change?  The only one we know about was Mr Pratico who complained to the newspaper after last year's Blues that vendors were too close to his chicken and chips shop.

Public consultation matrix for Council decision to change Blues trading policy

	Local traders (including Shire President)	Outside traders	Blues festival	Patrons	Locals
Likely impact	positive	negative	negative	negative	neutral
Consulted?	some (anecdotal)	no	no	no	no

The mysterious birth of Council Item C.02/0414

Our Council will soon consider a report from CEO Tim Clynch which is likely to recommend that during the Blues weekend no mobile food or drink stalls be allowed in the vicinity of Shire President Tony Pratico's fried chicken joint.

Funny that... I can remember being told by Blues officials during last year's festival that Shire President Tony Pratico had exploded in anger because he thought food and coffee vendors had been allowed to operate too close to his Chooks outlet. He promised to "fix it" for next year, they said.

President Pratico was even quoted in the local newspaper after the event, complaining that coffee vendors had taken business from the coffee machine in his joint.

So here we are in the planning stages for this year's event and suddenly the Council wants to look at changing the way the event is managed, and in the process possibly damaging the ability of the Blues to make the event viable financially.

The CEO and the councillors will tell you there is nothing improper or untoward going on.  "We have only asked for a report," they will say.  "Tony Pratico declared his financial interest and left the room when we discussed the Item," they will say.  But there is more to it, and as always, the devil is in the detail.

 For instance; Q: how is it that I can predict that the CEO's report will recommend no stalls in or around Memorial Park (which is where Mr Pratico's chicken shop is located)? A: Because it is right there at the bottom of the motion passed by Council calling for the report.

 That Council request the CEO to present a report tothe May 2014 meeting of the Standing Committee reviewing its “Trading in Public Places – Blues Festival” Policy addressing but not limited to the following matters:
• The Shire is to have input and final approval for the location of stallholders
and mobile traders within and adjacent to public places.
• The operation of stallholder and mobile trading on private property adjacent to
public places to the Saturday only (being the road closure period) of the
Festival.
• That the placement of stalls within the public portions of Memorial Park (not
venue area) be limited and no mobile traders be permitted in this area.

Q: How did this Motion come to be put before the Council meeting?

A: It came out of an informal discussion, behind closed doors, between the councillors and the CEO prior to the Standing Committee meeting on April 10 and Mr Pratico took part in this discussion.

Q: How did the dot points, particularly the third one come about? Was Mr Pratico involved?

A: Good question! I put it to CEO Tim Clynch and this was his answer...

The issues of stallholders (commercial vs community, location of stalls, etc) was discussed.  I raised the issues initially as I was reporting on issues that I had discussed previously with Caroline from the Blues.  These issues including the operation of the “food court”, whether stalls/traders could operate out of Memorial Park and an idea that Caroline had about reserving the space immediately in front of each shop for that business to extend trading out into the street.

 Mr Clynch’s reply does not make sense and does not answer the question, but that was his response.

 I also asked Mr Pratico's fellow councillors if they thought that, given he declared a financial interest when the issue came to Council, it was improper for Mr Pratico to take part in the informal discussion which led to the creation of the Motion voted on by Council.

 Councillors Julia Boyle and Doreen Mackman chose to completely ignore my email, despite my request that they at least let me know if they did not want to answer my questions.  So much for the "listening and responding to the concerns of residents" rubbish they trot out at election time.

Councillor Steve Hodson chose to take a swipe at me for being so impertinent as to ask questions. 

 "I dont understand why you seem to have an issue with the president but I feel that it does you no justice to continue this line," he retorted.

Crs  Nicholas and Quinby were not at the informal meeting.

Cr Moore said it was just general discussion at the informal meeting, no specifics and Cr Scallan agreed, but added that he recalled Cr Pratico declaring his financial interest at the informal meeting.

The upshot is that we do not know how dot point three about keeping street traders away from Memorial Park came into existence.  The CEO said it came out of the discussion at the informal meeting, but those who attended and responded to my questions did not recall any specifics being identified, only the need for a general policy on the issue.  It is quite possible that it arose from general informal discussions between the CEO and the President, which of course take place on a regular basis.

It is important to understand how dot point three came into existence because if it becomes Council policy, this policy will provide a direct financial benefit to a business owned and operated by the Shire President, which will not on the face of it apply to all other businesses in Bridgetown, and which may harm the viability of the Blues festival.

If Mr Pratico's colleagues on Council want to do this, they had better have a very good reason.

Council determined to kill off Blues Festival

One of the best things Bridgetown has going for it is the annual Blues at Bridgetown festival.  It brings thousands of visitors to the town, puts us on the map and delivers major economic benefits.
Naturally, our Shire Council wants to kill it off.

This month's Council agenda (for tomorrow night's meeting) reveals that at a behind-closed-doors meeting of councillors recently, it was suggested that the rules regarding street stalls and vendors during the festival be reviewed. For reviewed, read changed.  They want the number and location of street vendors curtailed.

I would bet London to a brick that it was none other than Shire President Tony Pratico who led the call for this.  If you go back to a post here from November this year, you will see that he kicked up a stink after last year's Blues Festival, complaining that coffee vendors were stealing business from the coffee machine in his fried chicken shop.

Councillors must be aware that the Blues Festival has battled in recent years to keep the event going due to the difficulty of running the event at a profit.  Yet, now they are talking about giving the organisers a kick in the guts by reducing their ability to sell spots to vendors.

Background to the Council Agenda item states: The feedback from councillors at the informal meeting held on 10 April 2014 was that there was a need for the Shire to have input into the location of stalls and traders so as to avoid conflict between stalls and adjacent businesses selling the same or similar product.

It would be absolutely improper for Mr Pratico to use his position as a councillor and President to enhance the profitability of his business during the Blues festival by getting rid of any competition in the area. Surely he will not take part in debate and voting on this?  He has already been found guilty once by the Local Government standards panel of failing to declare an interest in agenda items.

The fact that this item even made it onto the agenda is a disgrace.

Bridgetown… the end of the line for progress

trog•lo•dyte (ˈtrɒg ləˌdaɪt)
n.

1. a prehistoric cave dweller.

2. a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character.

3. a person living in seclusion; hermit.

4. an extremely old-fashioned or conservative person; a reactionary.

5. an animal living underground. 

 

While the civilised world is moving ahead and experiencing progress and change, citizens of Bridgetown can feel safe living here, protected from modern improvements.

A little over ten years ago, when we first came to Bridgetown I marvelled at a story in the local paper about how money to widen and make safer Winnejup Road had to be returned to the State Government after locals successfully persuaded the Shire not to go ahead with the improvements because it would mean knocking down some mature trees on the side of the road.

“Look around, there is no shortage of trees!” I cried.

I often amuse incredulous friends in the city with my summary of how Main Roads wanted to spend millions to re-route the trucks around our main street, but because some locals protested the Shire held a referendum and even though the referendum result was a “yes” to the by-pass, they said “no” because the yes vote only won the count narrowly.

It was therefore entirely predictable that the Council would bend immediately to the will of the small group who didn’t like the idea of the National Broadband Network being rolled out here because the towers needed would be near their properties or would cause a few trees to be cut down.

One local resident summed up the prevailing mindset when he told the local paper: “It would be good if we could have faster internet without having the towers in town.”  An instant classic!

That’s Bridgetown… we’ll have improvements, but only if you promise nothing will change.

So we keep on knocking back millions of dollars offered to build us safer roads, better infrastructure and deliver state-of-the-art communications. 

But why worry, who needs the NBN when we have a brand new $4m library facility which allows people to go and borrow books? It might have been redundant as soon as it was built due to the internet, the Kindle and the ipad, but hey, that’s progress, Bridgetown style.

 

Pratico's push for secrecy

In January, President Pratico finally came up with an idea, and put a motion before Council.  As comets are sighted more regularly than motions put by Cr Pratico, I was interested to see what it was.

So what did he come up with? I should have guessed…  A proposal to take some of the deliberations of Council behind closed doors.  More secrecy!

His motion: That the CEO investigate and report back to the March 2014 Standing Committee,the feasibility of introducing an Informal Session prior to each Council meeting

whereby authors of Agenda Items would be available to answer questions on the

‘background information’ contained in the reports, to allow Councillors to make

informed decisions during meetings.

What Pratico wants is a private discussion between the councillors to sort out any issues about motions before Council, so that the motions flow smoothly through the Council meeting, which is open to the public and minutes are taken.

Pratico claimed he was taking this action because new councillors were not familiar with procedures which allow them to ask questions during Council meetings.  So why doesn’t he, as presiding officer, simply make sure all the councillors are familiar with the rules and procedures?

The CEO rightly pointed out that the proposal was contrary to the spirit and intent of Local Government rules which say that all deliberations of Council should be carried out in public, so that electors and ratepayers can see how decisions are reached.

His background to councillors said: “it is noted (on page 06 of the “Local

Government Operational Guidelines Number 05 – Council Forums”) that:

 “Anecdotal evidence suggests that in discussing the agenda of the forthcoming

meeting at such forums, implied decisions may be made. This familiarity with the

issues and known attitudes can lead to debate at the ordinary Council meeting being

stifled, or non-existent, much to the chagrin of the public who are not privy to the

earlier discussions. Forums held immediately prior to ordinary Council meetings

cause more complaints of secret meetings and pre-determined decisions than any

other type of forums”.

It is the intention of the Act that Councils conduct business,

and make decisions in a manner that is open and transparent…,” the CEO noted.

So faced with a half-assed suggestion from Pratico, along with a pathetic  justification, against clear advice from the Department of Local Government that arranging these kinds of hidden deliberations was unwise and improper, how did the councillors vote...?

The motion was carried, 5 votes to 4.  Crs Pratico, Hodson, Boyle, Mackman and Nicholas voted for secret Council meetings. Crs Wilson, Moore, Scallan and Quinby voted against the motion.

What's left for the CEO to do?

Our Shire Council has placed an employment ad, looking for someone to fill the following role: "Executive Manager, Corporate Services: principally responsible for the financial management and reporting of the Shire... oversee the management of its records management, administration and customer service, as well as contributing to governance functions.... Salary: up to $123,000.''

You could be forgiven for thinking they were looking for a new CEO, as that is a pretty good description of most of the CEO's responsibilities (and a CEO-sized salary).  But it seems they are simply hiring someone to help the CEO perform these functions. Recently a new position was created to take care of human resources management at the Shire, which is another of the CEO's responsibilities.

But hang on, isn't there already a Deputy CEO to help him do these things?  And doesn't he already have a executive assistant?  What tasks remain for the CEO to actually do himself? 

Shire staff numbers continue to grow while businesses in the Shire struggle and rates continue to rise far in excess of the rate of inflation.  It is a juggernaut that must be stopped.

While they continue to create $100,000 per annum-plus jobs in the administration office (and then complain there is not enough office space), the Shire says it cannot afford to fix its rural roads.

Only the councilors can stop the madness, but the problem is most of them, notably President Tony Pratico, are held in thrall to the CEO, convinced he is an infallible font of wisdom.