Compromised Investigation?

Some of you may have read Warren Hately's article "Questions about the 'Deep Thought' investigation" in yesterday's AMRTimes. I had to smile at Cr Smart's use of language.

Apologies for this preamble but he was just so funny that I feel compelled to comment.

"Those identified in the letter had a right to be angry about the accusations it contained," he is quoted as saying.

Cr Smart is a defender of 'rights'?

Can I ask when this Damascene conversion occurred? Or do “rights” only apply to leaders?

When he shouted at me on Thursday I had no “right” to ask any questions about two men who had deliberately published lies about me openly and very publicly, distributing those lies far more widely than any Deep Thought letter. Why would that be?

My character, honesty and integrity were compormised when the shire covertly sent misleading and incorrect information to the media, and Richard Pawluk was misleading throughout the "Community Facilities Needs Plan" for Karridale, that our councillors were apparently happy with, again my name was used specifically in this document. Anyone reading Richard’s report in conjunction with other planning documents might reasonably assume that I was one of the "community representatives" referred to. But in fact I did not collude with Richard Pawluk, and Cr Smart presides over a shire where I have no “right” to know the names of the "community representatives" claiming to speak for the people of Karridale.

Now that my appraisal of Cr Smart’s record on the protection of “rights” is out of the way I will return to considering the recent investigation.

The AMRTimes reported Ilya Hastings as stating that the shire's processes were all in line with industry standards. Nothing of interest in that, we would expect nothing less; but such a statement does nothing to reassure us that all is well.

This week a Goldman Sachs trader, ‘Fabulous Fab’ has been sentenced for a fraud. It is inconceivable that Goldman Sachs would not have processes and policies in place; but two other things are needed for integrity to dominate any institution. First there must be full compliance with those policies and procedures, and second every person within the institution must be honest.

One might ask whether Linton Hodsdon's questions relating to non-compliance will eventually reveal fraud within planning, but for now we are considering the Deep Thought case and using only the skimpy facts known to me I would like to suggest how fraud can happen even when processes are followed and policies are complied with, and why I believe the investigation that ratepayers funded was compromised.

The simplest method of fraud is to have somebody working on the inside of the organisation you are targeting.

The more senior the person is the better and bigger are the opportunities for fraud. But this is not to say that those lower down the ladder are without their opportunities too.

Consider the tendering process. Councillors who might be considering tendering must disclose and leave the meeting during any relevant discussions. That looks good and gives a nod to open and transparent processes, and it is an easy item to check.

Tender documents arrive at the shire and are opened by a person who could feed information back to an associate preparing to submit a their tender. A late tender, composed after all the data from the earlier documents have been assessed could be accepted. If a member of the clerical support staff is willing to collude all manner of falsification can occur.

In one case reported by the CCC in recent years the dates on documents were altered after receipt by staff working in the office. These people were prepared to commit what they perceived to be a minor indiscretion for very small sums of money or gifts. In fact the dates were crucial to the developers and made a huge difference to the outcome of planning decisions.

A senior person could just be liaising with the tenderer after the tenders are all available for scrutiny. Having a process is no protection against deliberate mischief. A process can protect against error, and in some cases it can provide an audit trail that will indicate where the mischief originated from after it is discovered, that is all. A process cannot protect against deliberate misrepresentation, fraud or corruption.

I do not know the identity of Deep Thought, but yesterday's AMRTimes has stated that a man lost his job, which narrows the field 50%, but doesn't help me as I don't know any ex-shire employees who are male.

What I do know is that we had an allegation of fraud, corruption, malpractice or incompetence against members of the team of people who manage shire assets on our behalf. From what has been reported the accusations were not against clerical staff, the accusations were against the senior executive team and councillors.

There was an accuser, Deep Thought, and the accused, the AMRShire Management Team, led by the CEO. For brevity I'll use CEO to represent the whole team.

Deep Thought accused CEO, via Cr Smart.

That was a bad move Deep Thought.

Presumably Deep Thought was under the misapprehension that Cr Smart would deal with the matter in a way that would seek truth, justice and fairness; instead Cr Smart allowed the accused to choose who he would like to investigate the matter.

At this point Cr Smart must have been fully aware that he was asking the fox to check whether all was well in the hen house.

Why would he do this?

CEO chose Ms Lake, and he took her out to dinner on the 7th August, was that a standard civic duty as outlined by Johan Louw? Are all consultants offered hospitality from the ratepayers purse? CEO advised Council the investigation would be funded by an LGIS insurance claim.

After Ms Lake reports back CEO then publicised the fact that there was 'not a shred of evidence' , which would surprise no one.

When there is any suspicion of fraud within the heart of an organisation the only way to obtain evidence is to avoid any possibility of anyone within the target organisation knowing about an impending investigation. That is why we need organisations such as the CCC and the Local Government Ombudsman, etc.

Once you advise the accused that investigations are taking place they will certainly hit delete and head for the shredder if there is anything incriminating.

But when a senior insider is the problem there is rarely any evidence anyway without covert surveillance. Uncovering fraud is a complex matter and those involved are clever. Consider the lengths Brian Burke and Norm Marlborough went to in order to avoid covert telephone recordings. The following transcript is tedious to read but it is important that we do attend diligently to such material if we wish to understand how the leaders of our society behave, we must lose our childish awe where leaders are concerned and begin to behave as adults who can acknowledge that bad things do happen at all levels of government, and in all areas of civic life.

 In the AMRTimes article Linton is bothered about the extravagance of the accused taking the investigator out for dinner, and he is quite right to be concerned, but I would also raise the issue of whether the entire investigation was compromised by this act of generosity with ratepayers monies.

Would any of us feel comfortable if the CCC asked James Trail to recruit an investigator to examine his alleged wrongdoings? Would we feel it was perfectly in order if he then took her to dinner and expected us to pay?

Deep Thought make the mistake of sending his concerns to Cr Smart, and paid a heavy price.

I sent my concerns to Cr Smart last year and received no response whatsoever, until last Thursday when he advised me that he had concerns for my mental state.

I can't lose my job and so there must be some other penalty for asking questions.

Does the shire run a facility for dissenters? Worth watching Heather Brooke again, just for reassurance that it can take a long time to get the information you need, and persistence is not a recognised indicator of any damaging mental state.