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.

Footpaths for some, goat tracks for others

This is one section of the so-called footpath on Bunbury St between Hampton Road and the Primary Schools. It is made up of crumbling bitumen covered with a layer of loose gravel on a steep incline.

A friend of mine fell and broke her ankle here recently while walking her children to school. At the hospital, she was told so many people have sustained injuries in this spot the hospital staff refer to it as 'the Bridgetown slide'.

This is the route dozens of parents and children must negotiate on the way to and from school every day. It is a disgrace.

I fail to understand why we must put up with dangerous third-world standard footpaths and roads while $1.8m of ratepayers money is being spent on a showpiece library.

But it might be because only some of us have to put up with the dangerous roads and footpaths.

For example, the footpath below in Barlee Street is on the route between the CEO's house and the school.

Nice work if you can get it #2

So, while the CEO gets to hand-pick who will advise his employers on whether he should get a pay rise (see posting below), the councillors get to decide for themselves how much they will be paid for attending Council meetings.

 And guess what? Our councillors have repeatedly decided they deserve to be paid the maximum possible meeting allowance, which is $7000 a year, or roughly $320 per meeting. When most of the meetings these days take less than an hour (see posting below), that’s a very tidy sum.

Taking the same allowance for contributing to the affairs of a small country Council with around 4000 citizens as those who serve on large metropolitan Councils like Joondalup, Armadale or Stirling cannot be justified.

While on Council, I tried repeatedly to convince my colleagues that we should show restraint and demonstrate respect for ratepayers funds by taking a smaller meeting allowance. I was always resoundingly outvoted.

I don’t think councillors should be allowed to vote on how much money they will receive. If you think about it, every single councillor should declare a financial interest and leave the room when this item is presented.

 

As a ratepayer, I strongly object to having my money spent topping up the bank accounts of people who attend a couple of meetings per month, vote yes to every suggestion from the staff for an hour, then retire to enjoy free food and alcohol (also paid for by the ratepayers).

Being on Council used to be seen as community service, but with things the way they are at the Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire Council, it can now be viewed as an easy way to earn extra cash, and free meals.  

Nice work, if you can get it

Councillors are not supposed to interfere in the day to day operation of the Councils they govern.  They have two roles;

1) establishing policies to be followed by the officers

2) appointing and directing the Chief Executive Officer.

So it’s important the Council is happy with the performance of their CEO.

Pursuant to this, each year councillors must review the performance of their CEO.

It has been the practice of the Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire Council to appoint a committee of councillors to review the CEO’s performance and his remuneration, and this committee then provides a recommendation to the full Council for rubber stamping.

For the past four years, our Council has voted to endorse a suggestion from the CEO that an outside consultant be engaged to assist the committee in reviewing his performance.  On all four occasions the CEO has suggested that a Mr Fitzgerald of FitzGerald Strategies be appointed.

In 2011, the CEO’s recommendation was not greeted with the usual unanimous rubber stamping. I was then on Council and I argued strongly against the appointment, on the basis that it involved a clear conflict of interest. I had discovered that Mr Fitzgerald is often engaged to do contract work for the Council (on the decision of the CEO) as an adviser on industrial relations. I pointed out it would not be in his interest to prepare advice for council which was adverse to the CEO,  given that this might affect his on-going relationship with the CEO and prejudice his chances of being offered more work. However, it would in Council’s best interest to obtain completely impartial advice on the matter. I also said that perhaps it would be healthy to change advisers on this issue, so that we might get different viewpoints.

I was able to convince two other councillors, Cr Moyes and Cr Williams to oppose the appointment, but the motion was passed, six votes to three.

It is interesting that Cr Williams was one of those who voted unanimously to appoint the CEO’s regular, hand-picked consultant to steer his performance appraisal again this year when Mr Fitzgerald's appointment for 2012 was put to Council last month.

There is one other thing that is curious about this… Council President Brian Moore has been on Council’s CEO performance review committee for four years. Given he is a member of the State Government’s Salaries and Allowances Tribunal and was that tribunal’s executive officer for many years previously, why does he need a ratepayer-funded consultant to tell him how to assess the CEO’s performance and decide whether a pay increase is justified?

By the way, the outcome of the process described above has been glowing appraisals and a pay rise for the CEO every year. But that doesn’t surprise anyone, does it?

Back in your box!

New councilor Doreen Mackman has raised the ire of  CEO Tim Clynch for daring to even vaguely suggest that a Council officer may have erred in refusing to allow an exhibition of photographs from Amnesty International to be displayed in the public library.

Her fellow councilors immediately fell into step with the administration, refusing to support her sensible motion for development of a policy on what material can be displayed in Shire facilities, then refusing even to hear her reasons (by refusing to second the motion) for a follow-up motion suggesting a public statement be made, explaining the decision to ban the display.

Mackman's 1st motion:

That Council formulate a policy covering the conditions for granting permission for
public displays/exhibitions in municipal venues

The reason:

The reason for the motion is to prevent personal bias, errors of judgement or

imposition of any particular belief or attitude towards the subject matter by the Shire

or any of its Officers when assessing an application for the use of a municipal facility

for a public exhibition or display, and to ensure consistency of response and

impartiality to all applicants.

The CEO's response:

The background/reasons to the motion provided by Cr Mackman suggest that a

policy is needed in order to “prevent personal bias, errors of judgement or imposition

of any particular belief or attitude towards the subject matter by the Shire or any of its

Officers when assessing an application for the use of a municipal facility for a public

exhibition or display, and to ensure consistency of response and impartiality to all

applicants”.

Whilst concurring that a policy on this subject would provide direction to staff on

Council’s position regarding displays and exhibitions in Shire venues, any suggestion

that staff acted in a biased and discriminatory manner when dealing with the recent

request by Amnesty International for a display in the library is rejected.

The result:

Lost 3/6

Crs Moore, Pratico, Wilson, Hodson, Scallan and Simpson voted against the Motion

Mackman's 2nd motion;

That Council issue a public statement, by way of a newspaper advertisement,
regretting some public anxiety that arose as a consequence of a recent decision to
prohibit a public display in municipal facilities, and reported misunderstandings about
the context.

The CEO's response:

For Council to issue a public statement expressing regret it would seem that it would

have to make a judgement that the decision by the Acting CEO to reject the request

by Amnesty International for a display in the library was an error in judgement, poor

decision or a biased decision.

The outcome:

Moved Cr Mackman - Lapsed for want of a Seconder

Mr Clynch's responses in his 'background' to the motions go far beyond his job of simply providing historical, legal, financial or administrative information to help councilors make their decision. I would suggest he is taking part in, and seeking to influence, the debate.

Rubber stamping as a form of government

Since the October 2011 Shire elections, four full Council meetings have been held.  The longest one ran for 1.5hrs and the shortest just 19 minutes.

The reason?

There is no longer any debate, no discussion and certainly no dissent.

Every single motion put forward by Council staff has been passed, unanimously.

“To see entire Council meetings go by with every item passed unanimously and without a word of debate or discussion makes a mockery of the democratic system.

“Our elected representatives are apparently content to turn up once a month and rubber-stamp everything the Council staff want to put up.

"Remember, these people were elected to represent us and are paid $8000 a year to do so. That works out to $400 for every meeting they are supposed to attend. With the meetings lasting less than an hour, that's good money for simply raising your hand and nodding your head!

“If this group of councilors are happy to let the CEO run the show, then what are we paying them for?”