Euro-Leaks https://facebook/euroleaks2014 Posted by Damien Rogers · 23 hours ago · Edited A good Rate Rise submission by Mr Neville Hughes which is being emailed around. With his ok. Here is a copy. In accordance with Councils advice dated 19 December 2014 my submission follows: EUROBODALLA SHIRE COUNCIL’S EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT HAS VOTED TO PROGRESS COUNCIL’S ADOPTED PROPOSAL FOR A SPECIAL RATE VARIATION IS A TRAVESTY OF GOVERNANCE AND PROBITY BECAUSE IT SEEKS A CONTINUATION OF ITS ENTRENCHED INCESTUOUS CULTURE Submission by Neville Hughes Perpetuating the culture. “Council supports a financially responsible rate rise” was the lead heading of Council’s 19 December 2014 advice to residents and ratepayers. Submissions in response are required by Friday 23 January 2015. But, as to how the advice will be judged will depend on the level of trust the reader possesses in the ‘total’ Council. In this context it is not just elected members who make up the corporate body of council as the decision maker, but all the senior professional staff who play vital roles in influencing that corporate body through the individual elected members. The significant factor in determining this matter of trust will be the real-time behaviour and conduct of those involved in meeting the attitudinal, governance and probity standards of the Council as experienced and/or observed over time. My experience and observation, over about fifteen years, is reinforced by extensive research of the outcomes resulting from the real-time self-interested behaviour and conduct of those involved in meeting the attitudinal, governance and probity standards of the Council. In 1989 Mr Tony Fitzgerald QC’s report on corruption in Queensland recorded that, “ Institutions become corrupt or inefficient because of the attitudes of those who work within them......If the community is complacent, future leaders will revert to former practices”. Unchallenged power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. This describes the well entrenched incestuous culture in this Council. Some councillors and staff have been there far too long. In making this statement I am very conscious that the ethical human factor which determines “what ought one to do” is an immensely practical question which confronts all of us, whenever we have a choice or decision to make. This adds to the need for a community to overcome its inherent constraints, particularly inertia and dominance of self-interests which add to that inertia, in order to empower themselves to take remedial action. Not to do so, is to erode the democratic rights and freedoms gained through exhaustive struggle over eons. History has shown that dramatic tipping points have occurred when a community has acted as one and asserted its will on oppressive authorities. The headline “Thousands sign rates petition” in the Bay Post front page on Wednesday January 14, 2015 is a strong indication that the Shires’ residents and ratepayers are at a point to take the remedial action they seek. The leadership and work of Clr Milton Leslight is undoubtedly proving to be an important catalyst in this process. My experience of ESC’s real-time behaviour and incestuous culture, began in the 1990s. Here are listed some major matters that I found necessary to research in order to ascertain the realities. The consistency of the recurring incompetent outcomes revealed, present strong evidence of the incestuous, self-perpetuating culture that exists within Eurobodalla Shire Council. NB This evidence is especially important having regard to the financial capacities of the ratepayers in the shire. 1995 - The Friend & Brooker affair. A 10 year legal battle which cost, a legal bill of about $1.6 million, and council ordered to pay the contractor settlement for work done, interest, damages and legal expenses of $2,748,802 on top of the original $2,531,061 paid for work done in constructing rising mains sewers and pump stations on the north Narooma sewerage scheme. Originally estimated to cost about $7 million, the final cost was $11,411,658. 2002 - The Shire came dangerously close to being without water due to inaction. 2004 - The building of the “Spine Road’ an important by-pass, to relieve pressure on Beach Road in particular, was budgetted at $10.812 million. Four months later Council was informed it would receive a grant of $10 million from the Federal Government. Ten years later the road is only partially finished at a cost of about $20 million. Council has been informed that a grant of $10 million is available from the State Government. Council is still resolving the connection to the Princes Highway with State Roads Authorities. Over this extended period the benefits in all their forms of the finished road being denied to the community. 2006 - A major bulky good project failed at Surf Beach because Council gave wrong information to the developer. In December 2006 Council publicly announced it had signed a 99 year lease with the developer. No rental figure was mentioned but the $600,000 per annum was built into Council’s budgets and plans - it was intended to help fund the Spine Road. The community was led to believe this scenario until the ‘Friends of our Beaches’ community group forced the Council to admit in September 2007 that the lease did not exist. 2008 - The Moruya to Deep Creek reservoir pipeline, completed at a cost of about $32 million in November 2008 had no water pass through it until late in 2010. Excess piping material from this project with an estimated value over $500,000 was left in the bush. A resident located it in 2009. 2008 - Council Minute No 08/38A of 26 February 2008 records approving “a bonus of $100,000 plus the gift of a car, and agreeing to allow the (outgoing) general manager to remain on the payroll post his retirement date. This decision was made in a secret/confidential meeting of Council. It was accidentally leaked and became public. DLG circular to councils No 05/25 dated 31 May 2005 dealt with “Payment of Gratuities and Other bonuses to Employees On Termination”. Inter alia, it stated - “ The payment of gratuities and other bonuses on termination can put at risk public confidence in councils as responsible custodians of public assets. This is particularly so where there is no legal obligation to make such payments. There is less risk where bonuses are paid under a properly documented and performance based salary bonus scheme”. Also, just prior to this secret decision, an annual meeting of councils took place in Mudgee. The issue of gratuities was extensively discussed and it was resolved that councils not make such payments. It was well publicised in the Sydney Morning Herald. Those who attended that meeting made no report of this resolution to ESC. I with others pursued this deficiency, requesting ESC to introduce a policy to prevent future similar bonus payments. This was rejected in April 2010 by the then mayor, “Council acts in compliance of the Local Government Act. It is unlikely that any future Council would make a similar decision in rewarding any retiring staff members in such a fashion. Therefore, your suggestion that Council give consideration for a policy to prevent future similar bonus payments is not warranted”. I and others thought differently. NB I made a presentation to ESC on 27 July 2010 in support of Agenda item NM10/06 ““Recognition for long and meritorious service, using public funds, demands a properly documented policy, transparently available and practiced openly, or, be completely vetoed”. My submission traced through Councils inadequate Minutes. However, I found sufficient references to indicate that the subject gratuity was being anticipated from 2005. You can study it - see pdf attachment. I include this piece from my presentation: “This sequence of “WHAT” happened is a manifestation of ill-considered “Why” and “How” it happened. That history, and the quality of Council’s response, reflect Tony Fitzgerald’s findings: “Ethics are always tested by incumbency”. Those payments were derived from rates and taxes, and the payers want certainty that these circumstances will never be repeated. Properly instituted policy direction and openness is essential and prevents repeats of “Why” and “How”. Only then , will ESC begin building a carrier wave of trust on which effective reciprocal communication with the community can occur. There is no other way!” Tragically, this has not happened. 2012 - Council and its “Greenhouse Action Plan 20012-2017” (GAP) There were about eight or so submissions received following the public exhibition in July 2012 of the draft GAP. One was from me and one from a neighbour Mr James Taylor. I understand that the others were from Green organisations or their members. My submission and that made by Mr Taylor were ignored because it was claimed that we offered “no peer-reviewed scientific references to support our position”. This is manifestly wrong and untrue. Yet, in those two submissions and in the presentation I made to the Council meeting held on 24 July 2012, information was presented to Council, which time and events have shown to be correct. They reveal the glaring errors made by Council. I list some of the key points made in Mr Taylorʼs and my submissions and my presentation to Council on 24 July 2012 which Council ignored: “Agenda Report 012/158. Under ‘public submissions’, states, “Two respondents questioned aspects of the science behind climate change but offered no peer- reviewed scientific references to support their position”. This is a total misrepresentation. The part of the ESC GAP, that seeks to improve the quality of life for all people through applying the “idea of efficiency to smarter use of energy and water” should be the constant focus by council within the practicalities of its responsibilities. To the extent that the GAP attempts to find ways to increase the energy efficiency of Council operations that provide cost savings over a period of about five years, this is laudatory. However, these actions must always be taken within a strict and thorough cost accounting framework. The extent to which the GAP attempts to mitigate climate change is completely wasteful in light of the failure of the world to agree on a common, global effort. Efforts by our local Council to reduce emissions will have no effect whatsoever on global climate. We, the taxpayers, should not be spending our money on a futile objective. The Council should not take measures against the economic interests of residents for reasons of apprehended catastrophe unless and until predicted effects of climate change becomes far more certain. In section 7, the GAP poses the question of what will this cost Council? It should be retitled what will this cost the taxpayers?. As such the complete failure of the GAP to answer its own question is an appalling failure of governance. The GAP should not be approved and implemented until and unless a properly costed program and accompanying budget is approved AND made visible to all ratepayers. Section 7.3 Resourcing and Funding explains how ESC’s bureaucracy must be expanded to deliver on GAP: it describes a classic transfer of wealth and empire building exercise at ratepayers expense.” Following the rejection of these submissions, I wrote to Dr Catherine Dale General Manager of ESC on 13 October 2013 from which these extracts are taken: “Further contemplation of the background to the adoption by Council of its second Greenhouse Action Plan (GAP) prompts these additional comments and questions to those made in my email to you dated 10 October 2013. Particularly in regard to your published claim that “the completed and committed actions from the former 2007-2012 and current 2012-2017 GAPS generated financial savings of $1 million annually in energy and water costs”. You will understand that it is one thing to make such a claim, but another to show that it amounts to a worthwhile return on investments of ratepayers funds, because the annual savings have little meaning until the savings add up to more than the up-front cost. In the case of energy efficiency it is critically important to look at both the sunk costs up front and eventual returns over time. Ongoing maintenance costs should not be overlooked. Therefore, it is important to ensure that a rigorous cost/benefit analysis has been made, and is available to ratepayers regarding your published claim that “the completed and committed actions from the former 2007-2012 and current 2012-2017 GAPS generated financial savings of $1 million annually in energy and water costs”. So, I respectfully ask what have been the costs associated with producing the GAPs and funding the measures resulting in your claim? A full, fair and professional cost/benefit accounting is required so that a ‘return on investment’ can be calculated. I am sure that ratepayers would expect this accounting to embrace all the relevant matters listed in my earlier email of 10 October 2013.” Dr Gale’s response essentially relied on the point that it is the Council’s decision to make. The need to address the matters I raised were by-passed. 2014 - South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Planning and Policy Response Framework Re: PSR14/062 South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Planning and Policy Response Framework - 14/336 Motion Councillor Pollock/Councillor Burnside (The Motion on being put was declared Carried. Councillor Innes and Leslight voted against the motion.) I have presented necessary evidence in my email of 29 December 2014 to all Councillors, the General Manager and three State Government Ministers calling for this decision be repealed. It has been copied to our State Member Hon Andrew Constance and the media. The chicanery involved on the part of ESC is breathtaking. Additional Comment. i) Councillor Pollock has been a councillor for about 27 years. The Minutes and records will show that he played a foremost part in each of the matters I have listed. Similarly, Councillor Thomson has been to the fore in each matter during his ten years as a councillor. ii) The need to use specialist consultants and legal advisers is of course part and parcel of governmental and commercial life. However, the extensive research of the ‘Friends of our Beaches’ highlighted the excessive way in which ESC and particularly senior staff encapsulated themselves in the use of selected consultants using desk-top studies to justify their cases: some with palpably inflated and unjustifiable projections. Allied to this protective shield was the excessive use of legal advice to conveniently deflect key questions. iii) Is our society to languish in this grey area of incompetence and questionable behaviour? Conclusion. The choice before the ratepayers and residents of Eurobodalla Shire is whether to allow the self-perpetuating incestuous culture of the total ESC Council to continue, or to demand that the process to remove it be implemented by the authorities of the NSW State Government. Neville Hughes
Posted on: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:46:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015