What a goose!

The Shire Council's "Insight" publication this month provides another insight into its culture of defensiveness and obfuscation in the face of any criticism.

Somebody complained about the geese that hang out near the river park, so the Shire swung into action, sending the Ranger down to Ford house to warn owner Jenny Rotman that she would have to fence them in or have them seized and removed.

Jenny was understandably upset and concerned. She let some people know what was going on. These people let the Council know they thought what it was doing was unfair and ridiculous.  These are the people that Council acolyte Lee Steinbacher referred to as "gossips" when she wrote an excuse and cover-up for the Council in the Donnybrook paper.

Now we see the Insight publication offer a full page report headed 'The saga of Bridgetown's geese'. Yet this long, so-called saga fails to mention the actions of the Ranger. Instead, there is a dissertation about why the Council has to act on complaints, vague summaries of lots of discussions and risk assessments, finally leading to the conclusion that no action was required.

Any sensible, reasonably competent person would have reached that conclusion within about two minutes of hearing the complaint.

Shire President John Nicholas also used Insight to justify the Council's ridiculous intervention, dishonestly claiming the Shire "at no time ever contemplated taking action that would see them removed."

He then had the gall to have a whinge and take a veiled shot at someone (presumably Mrs Rotman), saying: "It seems that the CEO and I both spent an inordinate amount of time on such a small issue which could have been avoided with the appropriate dialogue."

Talk about blaming the victim!

Shhhh... don't tell tourists about that hotel

Its almost a year now since I brought to the attention of Council and councillors the atrocious state of the Shire's Visitor Information Bays at each end of town.

Faded, dated and crumpled maps give visitors the first impression of a town which doesn't care and has very low standards.  The other odd thing was that the Freemasons Hotel which I part-own and which has stood in its current location for 112 years was somehow missing from all the maps and lists.

I got a letter from the CEO at the time, saying it was another "oversight" and would be fixed pronto.

Nothing happened.

I recently raised the matter with the Visitor Centre boss Dariel Hodgins and she said she would get right onto it.  Then she came back with an email saying she had contacted the CEO and the reason nothing had been done was there was no provision in the 2015/16 Shire budget for a new map/lists, but plans were now afoot for a  digital map to be produced.

However, she added, it had been decided in order to ensure "equity" among businesses in the Shire, the new map would have not identify any commercial premises, only Shire  and community services.

So my bid to have the Freemasons Hotel listed on the information for tourists seems to have resulted in complete removal of all references to accommodation, food and hospitality providers - all the things a visitor might want information about, especially when the Visitor Centre is closed.

I asked Ms Hodgins if this 'equity' policy would be extended to the Visitor's Centre and received no reply. But consistency would seem to demand that, henceforth, no information on any commercial premises be given out by Visitor Centre staff.  Visitors to Bridgetown will be advised they are "on their own" when seeking out a place to stay or a place to eat and drink.

If they ask why, they could simply be told it was to prevent anyone or anything associated with the Shire from possibly assisting a business in which I have a stake.

What you get if you dare to question the local Shire Council...

 

This is Blackwood Park road, just 5km north of town, last weekend.  Its just under 2km long and is one of the oldest roads in the district.  My home is on this road. It has been left to deteriorate to the point where it is now almost impassable by a normal 2-wheel drive vehicle.

Our councillors are very proud of the millions of dollars of ratepayers money they have spent to improve the pool and improve the library. They have also spent lots of money to improve the Shire office facilities, including putting in a lift to go up one floor. But they ignore basic infrastructure like roads because they all now live on good ones. The road was supposed to be sealed four years ago, but since I started this blog it has been ''bumped" down the list of priorities every year. I understand it must give them some satisfaction to keep postponing the sealing of the road that 'Southwell' lives on, but it is grossly unfair on my family and the other residents and users of this road. 

There are ten houses and four farming operations which can only be accessed via this road. It is not even a gravel road, it is a dirt track.  For people in a first world country in 2016 to have to traverse a goat track like this to get to their homes and businesses, is a disgrace.  Further down the road from where this picture is taken, the road is only wide enough for one vehicle.

The councillors need to understand that until all ratepayers can at least get to their homes on a reasonable road, it is wrong to spend their money tarting up all the facilities used by Shire employees.

Third world road

While our Council staff and councillors congratulate each other for spending millions of dollars of ratepayers money on a flash new library and pool, the provision of basic services is ignored.

I am one of about 20 people who live on Blackwood Park Road, north of Bridgetown at the bottom of Hester Hill.  Although it was one of the first roads in the district, this can now hardly be called a road. It is a bumpy, pot-holed, muddy goat track.

It has been on the list of roads which the Shire plans to upgrade, but due to my activities in trying to hold the Shire and councillors accountable, the work keeps on getting postponed.  It is their way of punishing me for daring to question their actions.  The problem is my family and others who live on the road are also being punished, and put at risk. The road is dangerous.

Other roads on which councillors live have jumped the queue in front of Blackwood Park Road.

I ask you, is it fair that most citizens of Bridgetown-Greenbushes can drive to and from their homes on sealed or properly made roads and we residents of Blackwood Park Road have to traverse this...?

It's got me stumped...

Question: When does examination of a felled tree's stump provide evidence of how healthy the tree was?
Answer: Only when it helps CEO Tim Clynch to concoct a story.


At the recent Annual Meeting of Electors, we the people, asked the Council to refer to authorities two cases of illegal cutting down of native (jarrah) trees; one by Shire employees, another by a resident.

Clynch told the councillors there was nothing untoward about the staff cutting down a tree because it was diseased and in danger of falling on someone.

'Ecological Equity:  The condition of the tree, being diseased (rotten) removed any ecological values that tree may have had.' he told councillors.  No action taken in regard to this incident.

But in the case of the tree chopped down by a citizen, under the same (strange) heading of Ecological Equity, Clynch told them: 'Inspection of the stump and trunk of the subject tree has occurred and the tree appears to have been a reasonably healthy specimen.'  This incident was reported to authorities.

Well, here are photos of the stumps of both trees.  Both look very similar to me.  See if you can guess which tree was supposed to be "diseased (rotten)" and which one was declared healthy..

Councillors should ask themselves why the appearance of the stump was reported to them in one case to support a view about the health of the tree in question, but not referred to in the other case.
Sooner or later you would hope at least some of them might realise they are being sold snake-oil.

Did the CEO lie to councillors?

You be the judge...  Council CEO Tim Clynch told councillors that the steel beams stolen from the Council depot were not stolen because they were "deemed to be surplus scrap of no value."
Here is a picture of the bundles of beams from which the stolen ones were taken.  This photo was taken at the time by the whistleblower employee who witnessed and reported the theft.

It shows some near-new beams, with the remainder still in the bundle with the strapping. Obviously not scrap, obviously of some value (even scrap metal has a value).

The CEO told councillors he investigated the alleged theft, but what sort of investigation was it, when he did not interview the whistleblower who reported it?  Instead, he stood by while the whistleblower was bullied and intimidated by his boss at the Depot until he quit, months later.

Will our councillors continue to pretend there are not serious cultural problems within the organisation?  Do any of our elected representatives have the courage to stand up to the CEO, or are they worried they will be branded a "troublemaker" as I was because I challenged and questioned him.

Councillors have no objection to staff taking Shire property, apparently.

If you refer to the item below, which asked the question; Do our councillors believe evidence of illegal activity should be reported to the authorities? – the answer is “no”.

Hard to believe, I know, but it seems they have been hypnotised by the CEO Tim Clynch.

Clynch is by far the most powerful man in Bridgetown. He is also perhaps the cleverest.  I have watched him operate over several years and I am in awe of his ability to manipulate people and situations to his advantage, and also his uncanny skills of sophistry and evasion.

Only he (and his acolytes in and out of Council) could argue that it was nobody’s fault that it took nearly two years to build a pool and that it wasn’t ready in time for second summer since the old one was demolished.

February’s Council agenda document was a tour de force.  It showcases Clynch’s use of bureaucratic jargon, half-truths and subjectivity to turn black into white, night into day or, for example, stealing into a simple misunderstanding.  But it also demonstrates something more sinister… his refusal to admit any wrong – by himself or his staff – and his determination to shut down anyone who dares to criticise or question.

The agenda correctly points out that any motions passed by the Annual Meeting of Electors must be considered by councillors at the next Council meeting.

But Clynch instead put forward his own set of recommended motions.  In the background to Clynch’s motions, the motions from the meeting of electors were mentioned, along with his reasons for rejecting them.  The electors’ motions were not considered or voted on, contrary to legislative requirements.

For some strange reason, the hapless group of councillors who are supposed to represent us simply went along with this and voted unanimously for all of Clynch’s motions without any discussion!  They act like robots, following and obeying his every command, and never daring to question his wisdom.

Now let’s look at some of the far-fetched justifications Clynch put forward for not accepting motions which simply asked that evidence of illegal activity be reported to the relevant authorities. 

1.       In the case of several steel beams which were stolen from the Shire depot by a Shire employee during work hours… 

The allegations were investigated by the CEO and a determination was made that the actions of a supervisor in allowing an employee to remove some beams that were deemed to be surplus scrap of no value  was an error in judgement by the supervisor.  There was no blame placed on the employee that took the steel as he had made the enquiry to his supervisor. 

The use of the term “theft” in the motion moved at the AGM of electors is incorrect.  The definition of theft is that of a criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.  The fact of the matter in this instance is that the steel was taken with consent and the taker of the steel had every right to believe that it was acceptable.

2.       In the case of a large jarrah tree which was cut down and sawn into timber used to build a deck and pergola ‘entertainment’ area for Shire depot staff…

The tree was removed under instruction of the Works Supervisor on the grounds that the tree represented a risk and danger to users of the internal track.  The tree was on a significant lean and after a period of monitoring and inspection by the Works Supervisor it was identified as diseased and at imminent risk of failure (falling).

3.       In the case of a ranger failing to take any action over the illegal felling of a large jarrah tree on Shire property.

The Ranger recollects that on the same day of this incident (8.1.16) she met with an adjoining property owner who asked her what action she intended to take over the matter.  Assuming that this was referring to the use of a chainsaw during a total fire ban she responded that no further action was proposed.

There is a common thread to all these fanciful stories… they are all the result of big misunderstandings.  If you believe these stories, you are also likely to believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

But choosing to believe and not questioning is the easiest way out of a tough spot for the councillors, and Clynch was on a winner when he backed them to take the soft option and support his cock and bull stories.

I, for one, take particular issue with his tale about the stolen steel beams. 

Firstly, he has now stated on the record that Works Supervisor Lindsay Crooks has so little grasp of his responsibilities to ratepayers that he believed it was ok for staff to take home any items belonging to the Shire which were considered surplus to requirements.  Surely this attitude disqualifies him from holding such a position. “Counselling” is not an adequate response to such an abject failure of governance and accountability. One can only imagine how many items paid for by ratepayers have gone home with the Depot staff on his watch if this was his attitude.

Secondly, he says because the steel beams were taken with consent, it’s not stealing.  But for that to be true you would need the owners’ consent.  What he fails to realise is that he and Mr Crooks do not own the material purchased for use at the Depot.  It belongs to us, the ratepayers, and I certainly don’t consent to the Shire staff helping themselves.