Cr
Smart believes that looking back is unhealthy and does no good. Presumably he
does not believe that we should have organisations such as the CCC and the
various Ombudsman bodies, because they are always looking back.
We
can learn a lot by looking closely at what has happened, the actual events that
occurred, the actions that were taken; rather than rushing headlong into more
of the same. This one reason why good organisations hold post implementation
reviews and record the outcomes in order to provide a feedback loop to the
design of policies, processes and procedures.
A
good organisation does not just record the outcome but takes action to
strengthen any weak areas that were identified, any failures in the process, any policies that need updating.
It
is wise to learn as you go through life rather than merely hoping that things
might turn out a little better. For things to turn out better we usually need
to change something we cannot rely on random external changes to alter our destiny. It is the examination
of the past that gives us insight into what that ‘something’ we need to change might be.
We can identify any novel or innovative solutions that the project team initiated and ensure that these improvements are disseminated throughout the organisation. We
can also identify who was responsible for any project failures and make an assessment as to whether they were
meeting the professional standards we are entitled to expect, and whether they
are also meeting the ethical standards of our community. If they fell short of
meeting the standards we expect then we can ask questions. If they were merely
needing more training that too can be addressed, but only if this need is
identified.
If,
for example, we have employed a senior member of the shire executive team who,
within a few days of securing employment, could not function adequately due to
illness then we must identify why this happened. My reason for using such an
example is that Cr Smart has written to explain that the fundamental errors of
fact that commenced the lengthy and random planning process for Karridale were due to the
senior executive responsible being seriously ill. So ill his capacity to function at the senior executive level was impaired.
These issues arose immediately the executive commenced employment with the shire and so some valid questions that might be asked include; was the health check adequate? Were any
indicators ignored? People do have sudden health events that a medical
examination can miss, but these are most infrequent during the economically
active mid life years and if such an event occurred in this case then it may have been wise, for both parties, to agree to void the employment contract.
The costs associated with having to attempt the development of a planning strategy on three occasions must have been significant in both financial and human costs.
Just
supposing, this senior executive then made serious errors of judgement and
failed to comply with shire policies for the next 4 years. And also allow yourself to imagine that
none of the other members of the executive team, or subordinate staff, nor any
of the elected councillors, noticed any signs at all that the executive was not
working in compliance with shire policies, and was not functioning to the professional
standards we have a right expect.
Keeping
such a scenario in mind can you now imagine what an impact this one senior
person’s illness might have on the local residents, on their local economy, the
financial well being of their children and grandchildren, their psychological
health, feelings of self-efficacy, on the social fabric of this community? And the burden on the ratepayers of funding three attempts to produce a strategy.
Senior
executives are highly rewarded for the skills and experience they bring to an
organisation. Organisations have executive teams of highly skilled people, they should not be on
risk for one member experiencing a deterioration of mental capacity. In the
case of planning for Karridale it would seem that none of the other members of the
planning department noticed anything was wrong with this executive's functioning, neither did the CEO and other members of
the executive team, nor the elected councillors.
Or did they?
Only
now that the planning is over has Cr Smart confided that;
“The
poor judgement of a couple of inexperienced planners, dealing with an
environment they were not familiar with, whilst being led by a highly qualified
and respected Director who was unfortunately in the latter stages of fighting
terminal cancer, resulted in a less than desirable outcome.”
When did our councillor identify the issues he delivers as his explanation for non-compliance? Did he identify the poor judgement in 2007? 2009? 2011?
It is only now in 2014, with all the plans endorsed that he offers any hint that due process was not followed, that poor judgement was present and there was a management failure.
If we believe that Cr Smart has expressed his honest opinion, then surely as a responsible shire president he must call for an urgent review of the shire administration? Karridale may be the centre of my universe but I am well aware that the poor judgement and other factors referred to above will have been operating throughout the shire. Was the planning for Kudardup any better than for Karridale, or did they too experience a less than desirable outcome.
Cr Smart might find that such a review cannot be performed unless an independent reviewer is given unfettered access to all documents and emails and thoroughly examines events of the past. Looking back can inform the future but only if we are all honest.
