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.
