I've got an answer!

This is just what I needed. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I have got an answer, albeit a bit of a hand knitted and dropped a few stitches sort of fluffy thing. The sort of answer that Brian Burke might be proud of. All the right words, just not necessarily in the right order.

It's the old Anne Lake mystery, and before any of you complain that this has dragged on for too long you must remember that back in the day such matters could go on, and on, and on, for years. Typically the establishment won, because they were being paid well for providing non-answers and the rest of us just give up - unless we have a book running.

Complaint sent to the CEO on 11th March, and acknowledged 11th March

A question has been raised as to whether it was appropriate for our Council to approve payment for hospitality extended to Ms Anne Lake. In considering this matter other aspects of this alleged incident have been highlighted. These questions might have been resolved if Mr Linton Hodsdon’s questions, raised at the Council Meeting on 26^th February, had been answered fully and those answers placed in the public domain.

As the Council Meeting scheduled for 12^th March has been cancelled it would be appreciated if you would consider this matter as a formal complaint regarding the benefit of spending rate monies on what has been perceived as an unwarranted investigation that could have been dealt with as a routine disciplinary matter. Further, the integrity of the whole investigation has been brought into question by the apparent social relationship between Mr Evershed and Ms Lake.

The following questions need to be answered clearly and fully if the community can have confidence that the employee, reported only as “Deep Thought”, was treated fairly and that the public purse is not being used for private actions merely intended to suppress a whistleblower who posed no real threat to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River;

1 Was the investigation seeking to suppress the perceived risk that the CEO might be defamed?

2  Who had identified that perceived risk?

3  Who made the decision to select Ms Lake as the appropriate person to investigate claims that involved a perceived threat of defamation against a group of public service officers and elected representatives that included Mr Evershed?

4  If Mr Evershed, one of the persons allegedly identifying a perceived threat of potential defamation, selected the investigator were any questions raised by Council as to whether his action compromised the independence of the investigation?

5 What date(s) did Mr Evershed and Ms Anne Lake dine together funded by ratepayers?

6 What date did Ms Lake sign a contract to undertake the investigation work?

7 What date did Ms Lake complete her investigation and deliver her final report to Council?

8 Were any questions raised as to whether Mr Evershed and Ms Lake dining together compromised the investigation and impaired the capacity for a true and fair view of the situation to be impartially presented to Council?

9 Did any other persons perceive themselves to be threatened by the “Deep Thought” letter, and did they also extend hospitality to Ms Lake?

10 Is it possible for the entity known as “The Shire of Augusta Margaret River”, a local authority, to be defamed?

11 What date was the LGIS claim for Ms Anne Lake's consultancy fees, and associated shire expenses, lodged?

12 If the LGIS claim was not met in full please give details of items LGIS would not reimburse and the reasons given.

13 Will Council request that the Department of Local Government conduct an independent review of the processes followed, and the records maintained, from the date Cr Smart received the anonymous letter, allegedly defaming public service officials and councillors, until Mr Linton Hodsdon raised questions of the costs of this investigation? 

End of Complaint

Having received no response by 22nd April a follow up reminder was sent.

The following response was received on 23rd April

Was the insurance claim paid? Johan was unable to tell us this, but if it was then presumably the CEO would not have had to include a comment that an internal audit would be deferred to offset the costs of the investigation.

Our councillors can see no problem with the accused man choosing who he wants to investigate claims against himself, nor with them dining together. However for many in the community this matter has not been resolved. Until we have more transparency and fuller explanation this will continue to be perceived as an administration that is too concerned with covering up what has really been going on behind closed doors. I do not know who "Deep Thought" was. I have reason to believe that the DT letter was not widely distributed.

When we first heard of this letter Gary Evershed claimed it was damaging to the reputation of shire staff, and now I've been advised by Johan Louw that the shire administration wishes to promote "natural justice." 

In the interests of natural justice our community might like to think about this;

if an administration fails to follow due process and employs people who are unable to perform adequately, for a variety of reasons, and are under no competent management supervision do they actually have a reputation that can be defamed?

The Karridale Progress Association sent an email on 1st August 2013 because there were a number of concerns relating to planning documents. There was no acknowledgement or reply and we assumed it had been treated as contemptuously as every other request sent to our councillors. 

But then, out of the blue, Cr Smart sent the following reply on 17th March 2014 . It was not reassuring. 

The issue was never about the strategy or the structure plans, the issue was about having civic life conducted according to policies and procedures that the community can understand and that their elected representatives have agreed and recorded, and using accurate data and reports to inform decisions. 

Cr Smart cannot understand that the outcome was never the problem, he is presumptuous to assume he knows my preferred planning outcome as we have never discussed it. My criticism of this shire in regard to planning at Karridale has always been that the process and the actions of shire staff combined to produce an example of local government that was not following due process, as defined in their own Council Minutes. Now Cr Smart advises that not only did they act in a random manner, but the staff were actually not capable of undertaking the tasks required. If this is true it must surely indicate a serious management failure. Why were they assigned to tasks for which they were not suited? Why was a man too sick to perform given the role of Acting CEO?

Of course Andre Schonfeldt, Will Coogan, Nick Logan, Jenny Tattam and the others involved might take a different view and claim that the failures were not theirs. They might even feel that Cr Smart has defamed them? 

The question would still arise, at what point in this sorry saga did Cr Smart realise the planning staff he was dealing with were suffering from the impairments he describes?

Was he also aware that when Geoff Broad was made Acting CEO that health issues meant he could not function adequately? If so why was nothing said at the time? 

It will never be satisfactory for the shire president to tell the community that he heads an organisation that is honest and decent. We need actions to demonstrate that councillors and public servants are working together in our best interests. We need action to demonstrate that some interventions have been implemented to stop this shire ever allocating staff to projects for which they are not suited or trained, and to ensure that staff too sick to perform are not left in post, or worse elevated to the position of Acting CEO.

There is little sign of any action at present.