TAKE DOWN – political signage in the Shoalhaven

Well, I’m glad my virtual signs I made a couple of weeks ago came in handy, with the recent news from Shoalhaven Council that all candidates in the upcoming election must abide by SEPP 64 and Council’s Development Control Plan 82 A Signage Strategy with regards to the display of political signage. The Ann Sudmalis Liberal Candidate for Gilmore signs had started popping up around Nowra way ahead of the federal election. They didn’t look like they were going anywhere, so I thought I’d give a helping hand to get them TAKEN DOWN.

So the news that “Council has received confirmation that the Ann Sudmalis signs will be removed today” is ABOUT TIME.

The reality is that political signage is a BIG issue. While it mightn’t seem important, the problem is it’s the subconscious that matters. People that might not be interested in government or voting at all or know any candidates, may at the end of the day be more likely to remember and pick a name they have seen more often. Limits on how far away from an election period that candidates can advertise is there for a reason, to provide fairness and consistency for all candidates, to not unfairly prejudice the election in favour of a candidate, as well as to ensure the public are not bombarded with excessive political advertising over long periods of time before an election.

The disturbing thing with regard to this issue is that the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore did not actually know the State and Local signage regulations applied with regards to the political signage. That’s a real worry, because any elected member needs to uphold a great range of policies, etc. I would also have thought that the current Member for Gilmore who is also the Shoalhaven Mayor would have been quick to point out the local regulations.

Great to see the signs finally being TAKEN DOWN.

When Tony Abbott came to town – Nowra

Well the Tony Abbott “show”, promoting Ann Sudmalis, the Liberal candidate for Gilmore, rolled on into Nowra on Thursday 13th June 2013 and it sure didn’t disappoint.

It started with a pricey exclusive fundraising breakfast with Tony Abbott, although, something went significantly pear-shaped and the party had to go elsewhere – woops-a-daisy; imagine running Gilmore and the country like that! Anyway, the guests were varied but did include a Sydney property developer; and local solicitor specialising in Local Government and Planning Law.

If you’d paid the very handsome price to attend the brekkie, some were lucky to be “randomly selected” or invited to attend the Community Forum held at the Nowra School of Arts. Lots of Liberals around, even some Team Gash Shoalhaven councillors, despite the invites going out to community groups and people randomly selected from the electoral roll.

If anyone needed to see what was going on, only needed to watch from the outside, where the real action was. The inside afterall was entirely predictable. According to the “inside”, what Tony is really and mainly going to do for Gilmore’s massive unemployment, is remove the Carbon Tax, despite Gilmore’s unemployment being high way before the Carbon Tax was introduced. The third river crossing was talked about but no promises made. Anyone could have read any of that in a fluffed up expensive brochure, without much substance, or any real individualised thoughts for the Gilmore electorate. I mean c’mon Gilmore, I don’t really care who gets elected, but please, please, please, give us something for Gilmore.

But perhaps its best to look from the outside in context.

On the door guarding the entrance to the Nowra School of Arts,  Shoalhaven independent councillor from Team Gash, Clr Clive Robertson proudly wearing an Ann Sudmalis Liberal for Gilmore supporters T-shirt. Although after a while, Clr Robertson seemed to get a bit squirmish wearing the shirt (probably after I’d taken a few pics) and had a sudden change of shirt.

Then there was Team Gash independent councillor candidate, Bill Carter also donned in the Ann Sudmalis shirt, and clearly guarding the entrance door from Arthur Rorris the Secretary of the South Coast Labour Council, who oddly enough wasn’t allowed in. Bill is often seen around Nowra proudly driving the Ann Sudmalis bus.

That same bus was parked outside the Nowra School of Arts for over three hours in a one hour parking zone! Not that any Shoalhaven councillors on the door or even the Shoalhaven Mayor seemed to mind. Council did decide to alert the parking officers but oddly enough, the bus was moved just in the nick of time. If the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore can’t work out that 60 minutes = 1 hour and blatantly disregards that local government sign in such a public way, then what hope have we got if elected?

Lots of Liberal supporters at the Community Forum, some in blue Ann supporter t-shirts, some not. Lots of people in blue Ann Liberal Candidate for Gilmore supporter t-shirts going to and from the direction of the Gilmore office.

Speaking of the Gilmore office, I decided to go over, afterall I knew I wasn’t getting into the exclusive invite only function, and the thought of getting past Bill Carter didn’t really enthrall me. I thought I’d see how our taxpayer funded office was going. Inside, only one employee. Perhaps the others were at morning tea or lunch, or even on leave? Decided to ask if there was a report or something showing key performance indicators and a list of achievements for the Gilmore office; to which the answer was no. I asked again nicely in a slightly different way……Then the answer: for the fourth time, we haven’t got any……My thoughts: really?, no performance criteria and measurement against that criteria? No list of achievements for Gilmore? Around $54 grand a month in Gilmore salaries and no actual performance measurement. Crikey, that is rough…..Back to the Nowra School of Arts…..

I’ve spent a lot of time in the Nowra School of Arts over the years, but I’d never seen such secret and dangerous business going on like the Community Forum. I remember it as a young ballet student – you know, the stuff of “fairies” and “make believe”. But no more, that day it was Ann supporters in a sea of blue shirts drawing the blinds in one of the front rooms. The other front room appeared to have a security guard patrolling. Yes, dangerous and secret business community forums must be.

And so I really did enjoy my coffee, while Bill Carter was the bouncer guarding the door. I talked with lots of passers by who came up to me and asked what was going on “inside”; asking me whether they could go in because they would have like to; gave me their thoughts of what people were really talking about down the street about the visit. People believe it or not just wanted to know if Tony Abbott really had big ears (I kid you not, not my choice of words, I was even surprised at that one). Also mentioning the Ann bus that had overstayed its one hour parking, etc – all great conversations…….

Then the most amazing sight of all. The double doors opened to the Nowra School of Arts like some sort of grand opening. It was none other than Shoalhaven independent (Team Gash) councillor, Clr Patricia White, all decked out in, would you believe it, yes, the Ann Sudmalis Liberal for Gilmore supporters t-shirt. The same Patricia White that left the Liberal Party, is an independent councillor on Shoalhaven Council, but now clearly supporting the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore. Are Clrs Patricia White and Clr Robertson some type of closet Liberals? How does that work anyway? Do you swear some type of allegiance to a Team Gash independent team for local council, and then some pay back with support for the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore?

All that makes me wonder, whether Joanna Gash will really resign from the Liberal Party after the election. With all the talk about the broken promises of PM Gillard, but will Joanna Gash break her own promise and not resign? Was the whole “independent” thing for the Shoalhaven council election one big  hoo ha to look independent? I mean Clrs White and Robertson seem entrenched as closet Libs.  Jo has so much power and control as both the Member for Gilmore and Shoalhaven Mayor, and then if Ann Sudmalis gets elected – will Jo want to relinquish control? Or, will Jo be a closet Lib, retaining substantial power/control close to home and very tightly?

But probably, the most simple and sad realisation for me from the day. Politics rules, politics divides and politics is blind. Politics and who we choose to put in “power” is affected by money, advertising, business, power, influence, and unrelinquishing loyalty. Very sadly, in my view, its “Stuff Gilmore”, that’s the truth; its all about votes, power and control in Gilmore.

Gilmore Staff Salaries

With an average Gilmore electorate staff salaries bill (including relief) of around $54,000 per month*, the question is, in your view, do Gilmore taxpayers and residents get value for money? In your view, have we got value for money in Gilmore over the past 17 years?  Has it really been a case of  “Getting the job done”?; or is that just political spin to help get re-elected? Below are the monthly Staff Salaries and Relief for the Gilmore electorate office from January 2012 – September 2012. The information has been sourced from the full detailed Monthly Management Reports for Joanna Gash MP (Gilmore) obtained via a Freedom of Information (FOI) application with the Department of Finance, which was difficult to obtain and cost a lovely $651. The information below is one page from each monthly report. Note: names were redacted from the FOI to ensure privacy, to reduce the cost of the FOI and to make it difficult for the FOI to be refused.

January 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

February 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

March 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

April 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

May 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

June 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

July 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

August 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

September 2012 – Gilmore Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary

Note:

* The average staff salary figure has been derived from the information available from the Staff Salaries and Relief Budget Summary in the monthly management reports from January 2012 – September 2012.

Poor, poor “Connie”. If it ain’t on, it ain’t on.

If you’re in the Shoalhaven, or just entering the Shoalhaven for the Queens Birthday Long Weekend, don’t miss poor, poor “Connie”. I’m calling her “poor, poor “Connie” because “Connie” wearing the condom wedding dress, and featured in a display at the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre, has been getting a fair bit of flak thrown at her. Poor, poor Connie. If it ain’t on, it really ain’t on!

A big congrats to the Illawarra Shoalhaven Area Health Service HIV and Related Programs Unit for bringing us “Connie”, a super great way to promote the awareness of sexually transmitted infections, and the need for protection. Also to Shoalhaven City Council (u know I luv ya, really I do!)  for having the guts to put up the display, even with poor, poor Connie gaining national media attention. But that’s surely a good thing, right? Afterall, Sexually Transmitted Infections are a huge issue with around 70,000 reported cases of STI’s in Australia in 2008.

The reality is that Connie could be anyone; your daughter, sister, mother, niece, cousin, and males don’t escape either, etc.  And, sexually transmitted diseases can be a real silent, and not so silent issue, affecting people’s health, their social well-being and ultimately their lives. Imagine if you or one of your loved ones were Connie in the wedding dress, only to find out years later that you were ill or no longer able to have children. Would you be devastated? And something that can be prevented by a simple condom and regular screening?

So as poor, poor “Connie”, cops the flak, c’mon Clr Guile, please tell me you’re just giving out that flak to help raise Connie’s profile? If so, it’s definitely working, with the headline “Condom wedding gown “Shames Region”. I’ve never seen a local Shoalhaven issue travel around Australia so fast; truly, I’m envious. I just counted via a google search 120 newspapers on-line around Australia that “Connie” has featured in – that “Connie”, she sure does get around. No wonder that dress has so many condoms! Can never be too prepared.

Okay, so there may be some arguments against “Connie”, but I really don’t see them. The bit about offending “families”. Well, isn’t that what “Connie” is ultimately trying to help? Help families, which goes on to help our social and even our economic well-being? I feel a real need to “protect” “Connie”. I mean, she’s the underdog, she has no real voice; who’s sticking up for our poor, poor “Connie”?

I reckon the Illawarra Shoalhaven Area Health Service HIV and Related Programs Unit staff deserve a medal for coordinating and bringing us “Connie”. “Connie” could be a real winner for the Shoalhaven. Please, please stay “Connie”? At the moment “Connie” is displayed in the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre, although I believe she may be going to another site or two around the Shoalhaven before departing the Shoalhaven with all the keen holiday makers on Monday.

I would have loved “Connie” to get out more; go on a date in town. Spread the message more. Find some more admirers and really live it up in Nowra and the great Shoalhaven while she has the chance. I can just imagine “Connie” chucking a “mainey” down Junction St Nowra, with all the Shoalhaven Councillors in tow. It might even be like the “Connie” Pied Piper, and may just be Shoalhaven Council’s best ever community consultation session yet! (way wishful thinking for me). In fact, each year we could have a Shoalhaven “Connie” day, where people could dress up displays in their own ingenious way to promote their favourite cause, with money going to local charities. I can picture a “display” inspired by our very own “Connie” at every store in Junction St and people coming from far and wide to participate in the annual “Connie” Festival. How great would that be? Or on Tuesday, if “Connie” stays, I’m sure she would love to come to the next Shoalhaven Council meeting and sit in the public gallery.

So, if you’re one of the tens and tens of thousands of people visiting the Shoalhaven this weekend, (the Shoalhaven, the most visited area in Regional NSW – our own very bit of paradise), whatever you do, don’t miss “Connie” and her great message; if it ain’t on, it’s simply not on. Go, go, go “Connie”!!!!!

Links

Illawarra Shoalhaven Area Health Service, http://www.islhd.health.nsw.gov.au/

HIV/AIDS & Related Programs (HARP) Unit,  http://www.seslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/HARP/

NSW STI PROGRAMS UNIT, http://www.stipu.nsw.gov.au/

Australian Government, STI’s ARE SPREADING FAST; ALWAYS USE A CONDOM, http://www.sti.health.gov.au/internet/sti/publishing.nsf

Australian Bureau of Statistics, STI’s, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Jun+2012

Shoalhaven City Council, http://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/

Shoalhaven Holidays, http://shoalhavenholidays.com.au/featured/shoalhaventourismmasterplan/

Nowra CBD Promotions, http://www.nowracbd.com.au/

An SOS to the world – Shoalhaven Council Rates

I love the song Message in A Bottle by “The Police” and the lyrics:

“I’ll send an SOS to the world;

I’ll send an SOS to the world;

I hope that someone gets my;

I hope that someone gets my;

I hope that someone gets my:

Message in the bottle”.

Lately, I’m beginning to think we need an SOS to the world for Shoalhaven rates, because not too many elected representatives seem to be listening. This is how it feels, a bit like a “castaway“, on the oz “island lost at sea” (so glad I can swim), “rescue me”, and a “Message in the bottle“.

“Come in Joanna Gash Federal Member for Gilmore“. No response. “Come in Joanna Gash Shoalhaven Mayor“. No response. “Come in Shelley Hancock MP South Coast“. No response. “Come in Gareth Ward MP Kiama“. No response. “Come in my Shoalhaven Ward 2 Councillors“. No response (pitiful really). “Come in elected Councillors“. No response (apart from Clr Findley √ and Clr Guile √). “Come in Tony Abbott”. No response.

Talk about none of the above wanting to talk about the Shoalhaven Rates issue. It sorta seems like a dead duck closed shop issue….. But, I did have some luck with the NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell, with the NSW Minister for Local Government still to respond. Gotta love that; might take a while I’m guessing and be all over red rova, but full points for effort.

Okay, so my sign (message) below was just a tad unconventional, but sometimes desperate times where people won’t respond despite a desperate plea just calls for equally drastic measures, and I was quite serious. Our Shoalhaven Council really wants to UP YOUR(S) rates, despite weak consultation with the Shoalhaven community. Sort of a “clayton’s consultation“, the kind where you sorta inform a bit, but you’re not really consulting, despite whether you might be either for or against the rate rise.

So as I await eagerly (yes, really I do) for the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s decision on the 8% increase, expected sometime next week, I think there’s one REAL REASSURANCE we have, either if you’re for or against the rate rise. We saw how magnificently quickly Gareth and Shelley acted (in conjunction with the Shoalhaven Mayor) to “put right” that “terrible, terrible” [TIC] decision from the Administrative Decisions Tribunal with regards to Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Nowra. Yes, just like “knights in shining armour“, gallant in duty, we should always be able to rely on Shelley, Gareth and our Gilmore MP to rescue us from any “terrible” [TIC] Tribunal decision with regards to the rates. That is….. if we can find them….

“Sending out an SOS to the world.“ Come in Shelley. Come in Gareth. Come in Joanna. “I hope that someone gets my…. Message in the Bottle.“

Shoalhaven Council Leaner and Meaner? $80,000 civic reception?

With Shoalhaven Council getting right into the fitness fad, getting Leaner and Meaner, the plan to increase rates by 8%, CUT jobs and finding those $7.55 million in annual savings, is the spending of $80,000 of ratepayers funds on one Welcome Reception just a touch extravagant?

Council seems to think not, lashing out at the last minute via an urgent Mayoral Minute on 21st May 2013, to agree to use $80,000 of ratepayer funds from Council’s Strategic Projects Reserve, to hold a welcome reception for the dignitaries of the International Fleet Review coming into Jervis Bay in October 2013.

So is $80,000 for one Welcome Reception for dignitaries a bit rich given the “slugging it out” circumstances in the Shoalhaven?  I mean the Quinn’s Lane roadwork at South Nowra, which is causing an absolute “bottleneck” and really crippling local business; and Council refuses to complete the work at night and weekends for cost reasons? And then $80,000 for one civic reception? – a Strategic Capital Project?

“Barbie” by the Beach? That could work.

Remember the “China Doll” incident and the headline in the South Coast Register 16th June 2011 “The Councillor dinner that cost ratepayers $1080” for seven at $154/head at ratepayer expense.  Well, that’s got nothing on this civic reception at $80,000! If it was$154/head, this could feed 519 dignitaries. Of course, if it was Lion’s or Rotary by the park at $5/snag, 16,000 could be fed, inclusive of a considerable community donation.

The article mentions “DINNER at the exclusive China Doll restaurant, with its spectacular views across Sydney Harbour”.  But, I reckon, between you and me, we’ve got the best “spectacular views” right at Jervis Bay; the Navy knows it and knew it long long ago. It would take a lot to top those  spectacular views!

I can see it now. There will be the Shoalhaven Mayor as the local Council head dignitary. By then there will be the new Gilmore MP whoever that may be…..together with all the dignitaries. Should make for many great happy snaps….mmmm…… wonder if the photography would be included in the $80,000?……

Til death do us part – a $40,000 Shoalhaven Council Rates Bill

“A $40,000 Shoalhaven Council rates bill? A council rates bill made up of almost $20,000 in interest; is that normal for Shoalhaven Council? Are there any other cases like this in the Shoalhaven?“, the person asked… I thought, Shoalhaven Council; define normal.

And so the story goes. Back in March 2013 I was contacted by someone that made a shock discovery via redirected mail, that their mother who had recently passed away had a near on $40,000 Shoalhaven Council rates bill.

My memory flashed back to Shoalhaven Councils Pensioner Rates and Charges – Arrears and Interest  policy. The Pensioner Policy allows pensioners to remain in their home with no need to pay any general rates, while Council charges the maximum interest rate allowable, with the pensioner racking up a rates debt against the home. Seventeen years later if the debt + interest is not repaid, Council takes out a Statement of Claim over the property and when the person passes away or the property is sold, Council reclaims the debt. “Yes, that would be it“, I said. Sort of brings a whole new meaning to the term “Til death do us part” and the fact that perhaps there are really pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

My thoughts went back to that Shoalhaven Council Policy and Resources meeting I sat in late last year (11th November 2013), where I was the sole member of the public in the room. I had listened to the short discussion about the Policy to be reviewed Pensioner Rates and Charges – Arrears and Interest. The current Council decided to stay with the existing policy which allows pensioners to defer their general rates, although the Staff Recommendation was to cease Pensioner Rates Deferral from 2014/15, mainly on the basis of the $3.5 million in pensioner rates arrears, with that figure tipped to increase to $7.5 million within the next fifteen years. The words that remain in my mind from that meeting are things like: pensioner; allowing pensioners to remain in their home; a windfall for council when the house is sold; and fairness.

I really struggled with this issue, and case, and it sure had me intrigued – still does. I researched other rates deferral policies and alternatives to rates deferral from examples in NSW, VIC, SA, WA and New Zealand; and of course all the details of this particular case. Don’t get me wrong, the Shoalhaven Policy is good in “intent”, but I found myself more and more questioning the notion of “what’s really fair“.  That great financial saying  “a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow” has particular relevance, with ratepayers facing a proposed 8% rates increase to help with an infrastructure backlog. Of course, an organisation that doesn’t manage its accounts receivable well (or have appropriate policies to support that) won’t have the best working capital management which in turn negatively impacts on business survival and growth. In Council’s case, we’ve heard the argument for an 8% rates increase (bringing in $2.3 million above the rate pegging amount) “that we have to have” according to Council, and here we have growing pensioner council rates arrears of $3.5 million, a growth of  78% in the last fifteen years and fast growing to $7.5 million within the next fifteen years. Worse still, an 8% rates increase will see pensioner rates debt increase further and most likely may push pensioners towards rates deferral for the first time; and so the staggering cycle continues, as once these debts escalate they are of great magnitude and hard to escape. If property values are low, the house is sold and the debt repaid, the escalating debt may have also restricted retirement options, which I believe happened in this case. The other issue to consider is the  17+ year period of time where interest rates fluctuate. Cash flows into the future carry more uncertainty and price volatility. 10% is the current rate based on an extremely low official interest rate, but imagine the debt if interest rates went much higher as they have in the past.

The family in this case had absolutely no knowledge of the outstanding rates debt. There was complete shock when the rates bill arrived in the mail. “If only we’d known” was the response, “we could have done something about it“. They figured that perhaps there was just too much embarrassment to ask for help and it went from there. And so I began a formal Government Information Public Access Application (GIPAA) to hopefully provide more details of the case. It was clear that the issue was quite distressing for the family as they struggled to find answers from Council themselves. But after reviewing the GIPAA material I couldn’t find what I was searching for. I went back to Council a second time, just to make sure I hadn’t missed it, but it wasn’t there. I then asked just to make sure. The GIPAA information provided NO evidence that the pensioner had even entered into a Rates Deferral agreement with Shoalhaven Council. There was NO application. NO signed agreement. No application mean’t that Council had not considered the individuals financial and social needs for the “fit” with its rates deferral policy; were there alternatives to rates deferral? There was no financial position of the pensioner provided because there was no application. Did Council even know back in 1991 what outstanding debts may have already been secured against the property? Was there a similar arrangement for electricity, water, etc? There was also NO evidence on file that Council had referred the pensioner to seek financial/legal advice prior to entering into a rates deferral agreement. There was no evidence that the pensioner had sought  financial/legal advice (and provided evidence of that to Council) before entering into a rates deferral agreement. For 18 years, the GIPAA information shows no attempt by Council to gain repayments for general rates. That is until March 2009, when Council seemed to take a keen interest in the rates debt one month before serving a Statement of Claim against the property in April 2009, 18 years since the debt started accruing. Fast forward to late 2012 and the death of the pensioner, the council general rates near on $40,000 bill arrived by re-directed mail, and the shock. The GIPAA information reveals a number of  internal emails of how Council should best respond to the families concerns; even a Council internal email referring to it as a possible “test case“.

I know, I know, Council will argue that the rates bill was sent out and that the pensioner could contact them at any time. But, does Council have obligations? It could be argued that the rates deferral arrangement is a type of long term financial instrument that Council is offering, with zero cashflows (no rate repayments) in return for a future value payment including interest in 17+ years time. What type of financial arrangement do you know of where you can rack up a significant debt over a long period of time without the company understanding an individuals circumstances and both signing an agreement? Want to buy a TV interest free for seven years – there’s plenty of paperwork. I can’t really imagine someone taking off with an expensive TV from a local store, with no agreement signed, with no attempt by the company to regain repayments for 18 years and then suddenly for the debt collector to come knocking 18 years later. Imagine that…… Sure, its one thing to have a pensioner rates deferral policy. But surely along with that comes obligations: an application, taking into account the individuals financial/social situation including exploring alternate options in whether to proceed, referring to and gaining evidence that financial counselling has occurred prior to entering into any agreement, as well as genuine follow up during the period of rates deferral.

This issue is particularly relevant given the “capacity to pay” argument for the 8% rates increase. What it does in many ways is “traps” the elderly, frail and people in ill-health into rates arrears and then charging interest at the maximum amount and the ensuing growing debt that just gets out of control and unmanageable, which can further worsen health issues. A lot of the time people may be ill and/or too embarrassed to seek assistance. While Council has a Hardship Policy which can waive interest generally between 3 – 6 months but may extend to 12 months, there seems little availability of hardship provisions extending beyond 12 months, except deferral and a rapidly mounting debt. Why not recognise the valuable contributions of pensioners and consider offering further pensioner concessions aimed at bringing in increased pensioner rates payments and helping pensioners avoid debt; also helping improve Council’s cashflow for much needed infrastructure improvements.

The thing that really bugs me is that Council’s application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) pp. 20-21 to increase rates by 8% addressed the criteria “Community’s capacity to pay proposed rate increases“, by using the Pensioner Policy as a basis to show “affordability” for the 8% rates increase. Who is Council kidding? Pushing people further into rates deferral debt doesn’t indicate “affordability” – it shows the opposite. No mention in the application of the $3.5 million and rapidly increasing pensioner rates arrears. No mention of the increasing strain that an 8% rate increase would place on pensioners as rate debts continue to grow out of control, pensioners are subject to “bracket creep” as they move into the successive higher brackets of rates arrears owed. One need only look at the 63 pensioner arrears assessments in the $10,000 – $19,000 range totaling $862,739 to know that these debts will significantly escalate which is going to be a massive concern.

The reality is that Council’s own Community Engagement Policy p. 7 labels a Rates Variation Proposal as a “City Wide – High Impact” action which requires the highest level of consultation with the community. Perhaps if Council had actually addressed its own Community Engagement Policy in its application to IPART (which it didn’t), it would have been able to work with the community and workshopped with stakeholders to come up with some real solutions to some of the systemic structural imbalances that are in place with regards to rates in the Shoalhaven, like the increasing outstanding pensioner rates debt, and other rate inequities stifling working capital management for Council infrastructure renewal and encouraging private business growth bringing  jobs and employment. It is perhaps “easy” and a quick fix of sorts for Council to increase rates for X and X. It is much harder to work with the community to come up with rate solutions that will sustain the Shoalhaven into the future in a fair and reasonable way.

I couldn’t finish without a good dose of irony – have to keep my humour somehow!!!! My comments are in purple.

1. “Mrs Gash was disappointed to see the government going into debt.” [in relation to the 2013 federal Budget] (Joanna Gash MP, Illawarra Mercury, 16th May 2013)

But its okay to push pensioners further into rates deferral debt in the Shoalhaven with an 8% rate increase?

2. “Please keep letting me know about the cost pressures you are facing where you live….write in and give me some examples where your cost of living is going up so I can bring these to the attention of the government.” (Joanna Gash MP, The Gilmore Report, Feb 2013)

I’d say a $3.5 million pensioner rates arrears debt in the Shoalhaven is a good signal indicating there’s a problem with the cost of living and an 8% increase will contribute further to that problem. Why not bring that to the attention of IPART?

3. “I really wanted to see some leadership, I wanted to see that we were dealing with issues, I wanted to see competent, stable government,” she said.” [in relation to the 2013 federal budget] (Joanna Gash MP, Illawarra Mercury, 16th May 2013)

Why is the Shoalhaven Mayor not dealing with the ever increasing Shoalhaven Council pensioner rates arrears? Where is the “competent, stable” Shoalhaven Council?

4. “They understand that a household budget needs to be honest and deal with income versus expenditure – not just putting debt on a credit card.” [in relation to the Budget Reply Speech 2013 federal budget] (Ann Sudmalis, Liberal Candidate for Gilmore, South Coast Register, 17th May 2013)

In Shoalhaven land, pensioner debt seems like it’s on some type of Council credit card, with deferral of payment for 17+ years while high daily interest accrues.

5. “Meanwhile, Shoalhaven City Council’s director of Finance and Corporate Services Peter Dun said council would also be delivering a balanced budget.” (Peter Dun, Director Finance and Corporate Services, Shoalhaven City Council, South Coast Register, 15th May 2013).

Oh, its balanced alright; balanced with a planned additional incoming $2.3 million special rate variation while pensioner rates debt has imploded to $3.5 million.

6. “I can’t help but wonder how pensioners and the unemployed can survive the way they do” (Joanna Gash MP, The Gilmore Report, Feb 2013)

Yes, the rhetoric can be easy with regards to sometimes vulnerable pensioners, people that have been contributing to society all their life. Often frail and with significant health issues. It’s one thing and easy to keep “shaking hands”; turning up at official events, sympathising with vulnerable pensioners in Gilmore and the Shoalhaven in an attempt to gain votes. It’s a completely different thing to ignore them once elected; failing to innovate and address structural rate imbalances; actually helping pensioners at all levels of government.

Til death do us part – a $40,000 Shoalhaven Council Rates Bill

How does Shoalhaven Council plan on getting to the $7.55 million annual savings figure? Here is the information.

It’s been difficult to get much information about Shoalhaven Council’s Organisational Review. Council has so far refused to release details that make up the projected $7.55 million annual savings. The public have been left in the dark about what services “might” be actually affected. The 2013/14 Budget presented to the public and now on public exhibition for comment closing 24th May 2013, also shows no projected figures for Council’s individual operating programs/functions that include the savings from the Organisational Review. Put simply, the Budget put before us gives us no real idea at all about service levels going into 2013/14 or beyond. We are talking about some pretty MAJOR CUTS and changes to meet that target, but so far the breakdown of the figures has not been given. A further worry is that Transformation Task Force meetings are “confidential” and the only Councillor representation is Clrs Gash and Wells. Most of our elected councillors are also left in the dark, essentially locked out of Transformation Task Force meetings.

I completed a formal Freedom of Information request (Government Information Public Access Application) in an attempt to try and obtain some information regarding the Organisational Review. So far I’ve been denied any information relating to Transformation Task Force meetings (which I’m appealing) but the Financial Savings Initiatives that make up the $7.55 million annual savings target has been provided to me via a formal request. The figures are below and provided for your information. What do you think? What “could” the Financial Savings Initiatives mean for you, your community and the Shoalhaven?

Game On Shoalhaven Council. “WE DON’T RATE IT” – but how do you “rate” it? – 8% rate increase

“WE DON’T RATE IT”. That was the headline in the South Coast Register article 4th March 2013 in relation to the Shoalhaven Council’s proposed 8% rates increase. With now over 3,800 people having signed the petition opposing the rate increase, and the Council’s public meetings finished “informing” the public of Council’s plans to increase the rates by 8%, what next? But, how do you “rate” it? Game On Shoalhaven Council. Have your say, before it’s too late.

If you missed the Public Meeting, a copy of the Presentation given by Council staff can be found here – Public Meetings 2013 Draft Budget 2013-2014.

The Draft Delivery Plan and Operational Program is currently on public exhibition until 24th May 2013.

Most Important

Public Submissions

Anyone wishing to make a public submission regarding the Draft Delivery Plan and Operational Program INCLUDING THE PROPOSED 8% RATE INCREASE can make a public submission via:

Council’s website

Email at council@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au

Mail to PO Box 42 NOWRA NSW 2541

IRIS Survey

Shoalhaven Council have engaged IRIS Research to conduct a phone survey of a random 600 residents. This survey is currently happening. A copy of the Draft survey can be found here:  IRIS INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY 2013.

What next?

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will consider Shoalhaven Council’s application for a permanent 8% rate increase with a yes or no answer set for around mid June 2013. Council’s application to IPART can be found here. That doesn’t mean rates will go up. It just means, if IPART did approve the rate increase, that your elected Councillors will be voting either yes or no to put the rates up.

Shoalhaven Council have already set dates to consider the rates increase. The dates are:

Tuesday 11th June 2013 at the Policy and Resources Meeting, and

Friday 21st June 2013 at the Ordinary Meeting of Council

(a Friday; such a lovely day and time to consider an 8% Rates increase. Perhaps they were hoping noone would attend!)

Both meetings are scheduled to commence at 4pm and are at the Shoalhaven Council’s Nowra Administrative Centre, Bridge Rd Nowra.

Stay tuned for my next article which will focus on some questions that seriously need answering

in relation to the Budget and the 8% rates increase.

Not the pppppoooool again

Fresh from another wonderful public meeting regarding Shoalhaven Council’s Delivery and Operational Plan (aka about the rates increase) at Vincentia, I have listened to a small barage similar to last year at Vincentia about the redevelopment of Nowra Pool, mostly from a couple of parochial uninformed people that I’ve got to say, have got NO IDEA and are clearly focused on “their” Bay and Basin area.  How short sighted. Sorry about that, but as you can see, I’m just a tad ticked off (it’s way into the morning when I’m writing this). I decided at the time to bite my lip and let Council’s Director of Strategic Planning handle it, and that he did very very well, as I knew he would.

I’ve got to say, in all my life I have never seen a community asset, the Nowra Pool, that has had so much chucked at it. There’s been various plots to sell off the community land, even to the extent of people being taken there to see what they thought about building something else there. Never mind the users, the community. The Nowra Pool for some strange reason regularly features in the paper or on radio. If anything is to blame in the Shoalhaven, whatever it is, the Nowra Pool is always at the top of the list, guaranteed. If anything the Nowra Pool deserves a medal for hanging in there, and that’s the staff too that have battled with the pool to keep it going. There wouldn’t be too many pools or community assets that have lasted 57 years without a major upgrade.

Here’s how it began back when the pool was in the river close by to where it is today.

Followed by the most massive community fundraising and construction effort to build the Nowra Pool as we know it today. The community fundraising commenced in the early 1950′s and concluded with the pool being opened in 1957. The Shoalhaven River Festivals that were held, which were a celebration all over Nowra were raising funds for the construction of the Nowra Pool. To date, in today’s terms, the community fundraising effort for the Nowra Pool remains the largest fundraising effort in Nowra. Here’s a snapshot from the opening of the pool.

and in 2013:

So here we go from the meeting tonight.

The Cost

The first issue was around the so called fact that the Nowra Pool lost money and it was then compared to the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre because that wouldn’t lose money. Newscheck and thankyou to the Director of City Services that kindly pointed out that all pools lose money. In fact I can provide some valuable feedback here and explain that the Nowra Pool has an annual operational cost of around $130,000/year. I’ll compare it to the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre, simply because that was raised as a comparison, and its yearly operational costs are around $160,000. Lets not forget that the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre also has further income generating streams of a cafe and gymnasium which require significant ongoing capital outlay, reducing ongoing operational expenditure that a pool such as Nowra Pool does not have and has not had. But why stop there. Libraries cost money. Sporting fields cost money. Seriously, what doesn’t cost money? Or should Council’s shutdown everything that doesn’t make money? Here I was thinking that’s what Council’s do, provide services.

The Patrons

The age old issue, noone uses it was raised. Maybe not you, who mentioned it, but plenty of people do. Tens and tens of thousands of people, even without all the bells and whistles like decent amenities, cafe, gymnasium, heated pool water, spa and walls and air conditioning. In fact the Nowra Pool actually draws patrons right across the Shoalhaven and beyond because it is an outdoor pool in a scenic location. You’d be surprised the number of people that don’t want a stuffy indoor pool during summer and travel to Nowra to swim. Close to town when people shop. Close to the Nowra CBD for lunchtime swims. School kids from a variety of close by schools walk to the pool. The pathways around the Riverbank providing good cycling and walking access and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Close proximity to the River was always part of the idea to provide a safer alternate to swimming in the river. Carnivals of all sorts. Community groups book the entire pool out. Even scuba training businesses utilise the Nowra Pool  from would you believe Huskisson!!!!!! Easily accessible by a variety of, get this, schools right around the Bay and Basin use the Nowra Pool for school swimming carnivals, by-passing their local Bay and Leisure Centre pool. Funny that, isn’t it. Then there’s school sport, recreational swimming, water-polo, swimming club, birthday parties, water-sliding and generally lots and lots of fun.

But there’s already a pool

Then it was pointed out that there was already a pool at Bomaderry, which someone pointed out was a “lovely facility”. Seriously, have they been in the outside toilets, and that pool at around 40 years of age is getting old too. But lets compare the facilities to the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre. Both the Nowra and Bomaderry pool facilities (Northern pools) have NO gymnasium. There is NO cafe. There is no Waterpark. There is NO spa. There is NO additional really tiny tots pool. At Nowra, asbestos clad amenities which are really really bad, not to mention a distinct lack of disabled facilities. There is no cover on the Nowra Pool and it can get mighty cold. So, simply, there are no decent facilities as compared to the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre. In fact, its quite primitive to the ritz and glitz of the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre, that the central area of the Shoalhaven have at a lovely cost of over $10 million; not to mention the huge ongoing capital expenditure to maintain all the additional facilities. No, people never ask about those costs do they? Why not when you can focus on Nowra Pool?

I would have really liked to suggest “Yeah, righto, let’s rip out Nowra Pool, but first let’s rip out the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre as well – seems fair. I mean there’s the Huskisson Sea Pool after all. Or, perhaps rip out the Huskisson Sea Pool. No, that wasn’t mentioned at the Vincentia meeting as an option was it? Funny that, how people can be so far short sighted to have the best facilities in their area but without information seek to deny a reasonable request for another part of the Shoalhaven, even after the Nowra Pool upgrade project was scaled back and cut in funding to get rid of features available at the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre.  So, perhaps for starters we should get back on par with the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre and rip out the BBLC gymnasium, the cafe, the waterpark, the spa, the tiny tots pool and the heating, and why not, the walls, chuck out the air conditioning as well just to get back to some sort of sensible basic necessity – seems fair don’t you think.

So what’s the option?

Well, the Director of Strategic Planning kindly pointed out that the $4 million in the budget sure was a cost, but it was far cheaper than the cost of building a leisure centre (similar to the Bay and Bay Leisure Centre). The costs that he means are a cost of around $37 million, so right about then I think the $4 million wasn’t looking too bad. By the way, that $4 million (which has been significantly cut in funding) now doesn’t get any new “dunnies”, no cafe, no gymnasium, not even a waterpark. So, when it is re-built, the people that mentioned it tonight can sip their “lattes” at the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre, go for a gym session, have a spa, enjoy the really generous amenities and can think “ta-ta Nowra”- you poor citizens, you simply don’t deserve what we’ve got.”

Let’s not forget the pretty immediate need that its fixed because as we keep getting reminded over and over: WE JUST DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH LONGER ITS GOING TO LAST – ITS 57 YEARS OLD – IT’S GONNA FAIL SOON.

Let’s build a building on it

Okay, so this one wasn’t mentioned at the meeting, but what the heck, it usually pops its head up somewhere, so I’ll mention it anyway in advance.

The land the Nowra Pool sits on is a natural flood basin, and by flood I mean it really really floods. Check out the photo below of the 1970′s flood when the water had already started receding. Can you spot the Nowra Pool? As you can see, the flood basin actually protects the older part of Nowra. In fact, in 1938 Council resumed part of the land for that very reason, to protect the low lying land and publicly gazetted it for public recreation. Council’s own independent Reports showed that it was next to impossible to build on the land due to it being severely flood prone. Perhaps build high on stilts, but you know, what Council is going to approve it and take that huge risk? And even if that did happen because of the problems with the site, commercial viability is slim. If Council retains the land as community land and builds something low key such as pool, Council retains and can wear its own risk.

But “we” don’t want it

Who’s we? Here’s another newsflash and if that person really didn’t see anything in the media or any of the public sessions at the time, it shows how blissfully ignorant of the subject they really are. The Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan went through one of the most comprehensive public consultation sessions, firstly to try and re-classify the land which failed because of overwhelming support to retain the land as community land and re-build the pool. The Elton Study was commissioned and community, business, council, school and other community reps all worked together and came up overwhelmingly that the Nowra Pool should be retained and upgraded as part of the Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan. It was acknowledged that the Nowra Olympic Pool has an amazing history, with first being a pool in the River, close by to where it is today; then there was the most mammoth fundraising effort of the time to raise funds and physically construct the pool…. As a result of that extensive consultation, the Nowra Pool Advisory Committee, which was set up to progress the upgrade, with the Committee made up of publicly advertised positions representing community, sporting, business and council representatives, have been working on the plan for upgrade. The new Council and the old Council all support the upgrade of the pool and it is scheduled for completion by July 2014.

Admittedly, it would have been nice to get some upgraded “dunnies”, a waterpark, a cafe overlooking the Shoalhaven River, a gymnasium, a spa, you know, but alas not to be. But I’m sure there’s going to be one giant fundraising effort coming up for that waterpark and cafe. And the stages are still possible leading to a great facility kickstarting the revitalisation of the riverfront. Watch this space.

And you know, it will be a pleasure to see people coming to the re-built Nowra Pool from all over the Shoalhaven and beyond, as happens now. And one day, when another pool is in danger of closing in the northern, central or southern Shoalhaven, or needs some help in another way, you know, I will be only a phone call away and happy to help.

I support all aquatic facilities in the northern, central and southern area’s.

Cheers.

C’mon Ann – show us your policies – not the “headless chook” Post

Well this federal election has certainly brought out the weird and wacky in the Gilmore electorate. But who needs Policies, right? - when you can go for full market reach at any cost? Take for example the latest Post today by the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore on her Facebook page, Ann Sudmalis Liberal for Gilmore.

The picture which makes a mockery of a number of current government members also has a link to a website which has the Prime Minister of Australia and other members with their heads removed, in a barnyard scene with an axe overhead. All this of course is on the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore’s Facebook Page, and when I look at it on my mobile, directly above the Post are local school children at school at an official Anzac Ceremony, with what appears to be Ann Sudmalis representing Joanna Gash Member of Parliament at the function. Not a good look at all with that correlation on the Facebook page. If I was a parent at the school, I would not be impressed at all. As a taxpayer I’m less than impressed either. But does it really surprise me? No.

The reality is that Gilmore is crying out for good leadership and action. We’ve had 17 years of the same. What’s unemployment like in Gilmore? ….Where are the policies that the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore stands by? I’d comment and question policies on the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore’s Facebook Page, but I’ve been censored out. Legitimate questions regarding policy generally go completely unanswered, despite a number of repeated attempts to get answers.

As an example, where does the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore stand on the Gonski Educational Reforms?  As one commenter on Ann’s Facebook said, and quite rightly so, do we know if the Liberal Government will try to block the Gonski Education Reforms when taken to Parliament soon? If the Gonski Educational reforms are introduced and if a Liberal Government elected, would Ann Sudmalis as an MP be part of a government that took away new legislation stopping the Gonski Educational Reforms? We know already that despite a number of attempts to meet Ms Sudmalis’s schedule, Ms Sudmalis could not even turn up to a  Gonski Educational Forum held in Nowra last month. These are the questions, and lots of others, that we need to be asking and getting answers from all candidates in the federal election.

Okay, so perhaps I could look at this in a positive light; perhaps it’s “free range” to make a Post and movie with Ann’s head off, or Ann and Jo’s head off, or perhaps sitting in the “clucky” box of the barnyard with the axe overhead. But the truth is, as much I may question people’s and organisations actions; I would never do that.

Cluck, cluck.

What’s going on with the North Nowra Link Road? – Council holding Public Meeting 7pm Monday 6th May

Feeling caught in the traffic at Illaroo Rd, North Nowra? Well with daily vehicles expected to increase from 18,000 to 39,000, the situation is getting worse. Don’t miss Shoalhaven Council’s Public Meeting 7pm Monday 6th May 2013 at Council’s Reception Room Nowra Administrative Centre where Council will discuss the current situation and the public get to have a say on the future direction of the project. See Shoalhaven Council’s Media Release 17th April 2013 for further details.

You can check out one of my previous article from 7th November 2012 about the North Nowra Link Road “The North Nowra Link Road – what the public doesn’t normally see and why it’s important”.

I wrote to all Team Gash Councillors on 7th November 2012, just prior to the Extraordinary meeting 7th November 2012 considering the North Nowra Link Road issue providing them with a copy of the article which showed quotes from the JBA Planning Report and imploring them to read the quotes from JBA Planning Report and review ALL the options for the North Nowra Link Road. I didn’t get a reply; they didn’t go for a Briefing and reviewing all the options; just pushing the one northern option – and the rest, as they say is history.

So, it came as NO surprise to me to find that the Northern option was approved and then Council received further details about the Moss Vale Link Road and possible conflicts between the Northern option and the Moss Vale Link Road. In fact that is what I call a stuff up of monumental proportions. I’m not entirely sure the general media even cottoned onto what had really happened. By this stage, I guess its fair to say people were over it and just wanted a solution.

Not long after residents of North Nowra received what I call a “spin” flyer from the Shoalhaven Mayor, paid for by Shoalhaven Council (ratepayers), explaining that the NSW Planning Commission had approved the one northern option; Team Gash’s stance going into the election was supporting the northern option; and the current situation that it must look at all the options including any linkages with the Moss Vale Link Road and the Nowra Bomaderry Structure Plan; also that the Mayor wasn’t aware that the NSW Planning Commission would only approve the one northern option. Freedom of Information documents I obtained clearly show the NSW Department of Planning stating to the NSW Planning Commission that Council’s preferred option was the northern option. I don’t think there can be any doubt that Council strongly influenced the approval of the one northern option, without most Councillors understanding the implications of the Moss Vale Link Road and the Nowra Bomaderry Structure Plan. Had they listened……..

These were the particular quotes from the JBA Planning Report that REALLY ALARMED me, noting Option 3 is the Northern Option that Council went with. But in the end, I couldn’t do anything.

“Because of the adverse traffic impacts associated with option 3 and because of the close proximity to Moss Vale Link Road it is likely that if option 3 were approved no link road would be built (other than the Moss Vale Link Road)” (p.33)

“…however the close proximity of option 3 to the Moss Vale Road Link means that it is vital to consider whether it (option 3) would be viable considering that Moss Vale Road Link was considered a necessary link in the context of the Nowra Bomaderry Structure Plan. That is if option 3 was found to have some merit in traffic terms, would it still have merit if modelled in conjunction with the Moss Vale Road Link Road.”

“All three base options reduced traffic and overall average delays in the critical zone on the highway (Bolong Rd and Illaroo Road), which has a positive impact on the Highway. Option 2 resulted in the greatest reduction in traffic and overall average delay through the intersections of Bolong and Illaroo Roads, closely followed by Option 1. Option 3 showed least reduction in traffic and overall delay through the intersections of Bolong and Illaroo Roads.”

“In terms of new living area’s North Nowra has been assessed to be able to accommodate 2 new living area’s at Crams Road and Bangalee Rd West, with a total of 1,280 new dwellings envisaged, providing for approximately 18% of growth in new dwellings across Nowra Bomaderry.”

“Of particular importance under the State and Regional Plans is the expectation of increased densities in existing urban areas over time and this alone is also likely to lead to significant increases in traffic along Illaroo Road” (p. 26)

“North Nowra Link Road option 3 will result in limited or no improvement to economic sustainability and social wellbeing and results in unacceptable adverse impacts on the Highway at Cambewarra Road”  (p. 30)

“The output Vehicles Kilometres travelled (VKT) and VHT parameters from the modelling of all options indicate that option 3 is the only option that leads to worse VHT conditions…” (p. 31)

“Option 3 results in the highest values of VKT and VHT, and therefore is least capable of all options in complying with the State Government Integrated Land use and transport objectives of minimising network values of VKT and VHT. Because option 3 results in the highest values of VKT and VHT, it therefore has the greatest indirect social, economic, and environmental impacts of all the options (highest overall network delays, highest overall network operating costs, and highest overall emissions) of all the options modelled.” (p. 31)

“The northern option does not provide improvements to the Highway at Bolong Rd and Illaroo Rd to the same extent that could be achieved with Options 1 or 2, would results in less diversion of traffic from Illaroo Rd, and option 3 is the only option that results in unacceptable adverse impacts at the Highway/Cambewarra Road/Moss Vale Road interesection.” (p. 32)

“The modelling demonstrates that the Moss Vale Road link does not interact well with option 3.” (p. 33)

“This traffic modelling concludes that option 3 is the option which returns the lowest overall benefit across the traffic network and so is least capable of meeting the growth forecast in and around North Nowra.” (p. 33 and 34)

“Option 3 is the only option that leads to failure of an existing intersection (Highway/Moss Vale Road/Cambewarra Road) does not have spare capacity to accommodate an option 3 link road”. (p. 50″

“The traffic modelling does demonstrate option 3 least meets the objectives of a North Nowra Link Road”. (p. 51)

“Given the outcomes of the modelling, and with consideration of the project objectives:

• option 3 provides the lowest benefit to the level of service of the Illaroo Road/Princes Highway intersection
• option 3 provides the lowest benefit in regards to safety and environmental conditions on Illaroo Road
• option 3 has the lowest benefit in providing for access between North Nowra and Bomaderry in a way that satisfies the Nowra Bomaderry Structure Plan growth expectations
• option 3 should not be considered due to the adverse impacts on the highway
• option 3 should not be considered due to the higher overall environmental impacts (higher emissions) which is not consistent with the State Governments objectives to minimise VKT and VHT (option 3 has the highest VKT and VHT of all base options modelled).” (p. 56)

“Considering the very adverse impacts of option 3 (poorest performing of all route options…..” (p. 57)

“Cost estimates for clearing of vegetation are 67% higher for option 3 than for option 1″ (p. 60 and 61)

So I will certainly be listening and asking hard questions at the public meeting on Monday 6th May 2013.

Shoalhaven Proposed 8% Rates Increase – First Public Meeting and then the Empire Strikes Back

So, how did the first public meeting go which discussed the proposed special variation to Shoalhaven Rates?

Well, I’ve got to say, I was mighty annoyed last week to discover that the first public meeting scheduled for Nowra on Wednesday 1st May 2013 had received extremely poor public advertising by Shoalhaven City Council, particularly seeing as though any minimal public advertising by Council in the lead up did not even mention that these meetings were going to include a discussion on the proposed special rate variation. After no recent Facebook Post and no Media Release in the week leading up to the first public meeting and hence no news story in the paper or on Radio, I chased this up with Council, and Council FINALLY issued a Facebook Post, and a Media Release went out late in the afternoon before the next day of the first public meeting. Thanks must go to WIN News for running a story; to the South Coast Register who immediately placed an on-line article titled “Rates Increase Meeting Tonight”; and to Radio 2st who also put out a news story on the Wednesday morning.

I was really miffed and downright ropeable because according to Shoalhaven Council’s own Community Engagement Policy, a Rate Variation Proposal, is classified as CITY WIDE – HIGH IMPACT which requires the highest level of consultation with the community. In this case Council’s application to the Independent Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) had already gone in, without even addressing its own Community Engagement Policy. Council did not hold even one specific general community meeting discussing the Proposed rate increase. There were no direct mail outs to ratepayers with rates notices advising of Council’s plans and seeking input; this action would have been an easy one to do. Sure there was a feedback period with 68% of respondents not in favour of the special rate increase. Sure there was a petition of over 3000 people (and still growing) that had opposed the Rates Increase. But all that was essentially ignored and Council continued to press ahead with the Application to IPART. In my mind, it really was the poorest of poor in terms of genuine consultation, and I had hoped that at least the Public Meetings would have been advertised well by Council (ie, that they were about the proposed rate increase) to gain public feedback – but I was wrong.

Make no mistake these public meetings are “the meetings” before Council, if IPART approves the special rate variation in June 2013, makes a final decision whether to increase rates above the rate-pegging limit.

The first public meeting 1st May 2013

Let me start by saying, I fully support the projects being funded by the special rate variation. What I will NEVER support though is a process where ratepayers are not genuinely involved in consultation leading to an application for a special variation to increase rates. I will also NEVER support as a ratepayer not being given accurate and transparent figures supporting the need for a special rate variation. I firmly don’t believe we are getting the fully story. What makes me think that?

How much are those Organisational Savings Targets – $7.5 million, $4.83 million or $6.5 million?

Prior to the first public meeting, I studied the Draft Delivery and Operational Plan figures fairly closely. I knew exactly which questions I wanted answered. But, what I wasn’t prepared for was the startling find to see two totally different Organisational Review Savings Targets. The Target being presented to the seven members of the public present at the meeting was $7.55 million each year from year 3, but if you ventured off into the figures in the Report from year 3 it was $4.83 million. That’s a $2.72 million difference, a pretty major difference, considering the special rate variation is for $2.3 million, it’s a pretty important thing. The rationale given by Council was that the $7.55 million was what the Mayor thought they could achieve, but Council’s figure was more conservative. Interesting I thought. After questioning and exploring this topic and Clr Tribe asking what I would like to call it (meaning the title of the savings target); to which I replied I just want the Targets the same and reflected in the Budget accurately. The Mayor was concerned that perhaps the figure for the “costs to achieve” the savings had to come out of the figure, but I explained that on page 122 of the document the “costs to achieve” had already been subtracted from the 2013/14 savings target. I didn’t really mind. My thoughts were if they could not agree on the “Savings” and apply that consistently in the  Budget, then it did not give me confidence in the figures at all. I then asked the Director of Finance which “organisational savings” figure had been given to IPART to justify the special rate variation, to which no answer could be given on short notice. I did have Council’s application with me and found it was $6.5 million! Hopefully you can understand my sincere scepticism of the figures.

2013/14 Operating and Capital Expenditure

The other thing that had been bugging me was the figures given for Operating and Capital Expenditure for 2013/14. There was no comparison available with the years before figures for 2012/13, and considering such a large Organisational Review was happening and already commenced it would have been nice to see the change in budget for 2013/14 for individual operating programs or “functions” within the organisation. So, just for fun, I pulled off the 2012/13 figures off the Council website and compared the figures to 2013/14, and I was surprised to find there really wasn’t much of a difference. That’s because the $1.571 million in savings for 2013/14 hadn’t been applied to individual operating programs/functions. Essentially, anyone looking at the budget presented is not able to tell whether the savings are being allocated to X or X. Sure the funds are being allocated to the “deficit”, but where exactly? As an example, are the savings going towards Roads, or are they going to additional positions in a new “Media Unit” or somewhere else in the organisation. And if all “savings” aren’t going to roads, then why aren’t they, and shouldn’t that be the first point of call before applying for  an extra special rate variation?

It was explained that Council doesn’t know where the savings are going, what positions, etc, and I can sort of accept that, but there’s a half of me that says that’s a pretty particular figure for 2012/13; Organisational Savings of $2,571,302. I explained that and the figure went down to the “tens” which was pretty specific. It was explained that it was to balance the figures. Right, I thought. I explained that the Draft Delivery Plan and Operational Plan had a new organisational structure but the figures don’t match the structure. I was never going to win that one, but I think it shows the point that the figures are not transparent and there was a real reluctance to release more specific figures relating to the organisational restructure, bearing in mind that the changes in figures potentially affect service levels to the community, so its pretty important. Incidentally, I checked the IPART application, and it specifically mentioned the new Council structure with the change in the number of Directors from 6 to 4, and the change from 28 Section Heads to 18 (correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the figure for the reduction in Section Heads may have been mentioned before in the media?) . So clearly Council does know what’s going on, but its not reflected in the figures. I guess, the bottom line is, its difficult to make comment on a delivery and operational plan if we don’t know the actual changes. And again, if we don’t know the actual changes, how can we have the confidence in Council that any savings are going to “Roads” before the need for a special rate variation?

That oh so political comment justifying the 8% rates increase

When the Director of Finance made some flippant comment about the 8% proposed rates increase being no different to what the governments proposing now with the Medicare Levy; ooooh, that didn’t really go down that well at all….. Thankfully the person to the left of me picked up on that real quick, and made his feelings known pretty quickly how out of place that comment really was.

The poor advertising of the first public meeting at Nowra

I’ve written regarding this issue before, but the Director of Finance was able to clarify that 30 second ads were on Radio 2st. However, when a public member present questioned whether the ads advertised that the meetings were the proposed 8% rates increase, the answer was no. The General Manager asked the Director of Finance whether the ad in the public notices of the South Coast Register mentioned the 8% rates increase. I was able to answer that, and again, the answer was no. The issue was raised why there was nothing sent out with the Rates notices. I raised the issue of there being no facebook posts or media release, not until I pushed and pushed did Council finally do those. One member present said that Community Consultative Bodies had the information and communicated with members that way. I explained that yes, that is true, but there are a lot of areas that are not represented by Community Consultative Bodies. The truth is the larger population bodies of Nowra and surrounding area’s are not covered by a Community Consultative Body, so there is no way that all residents knew about the first meeting at Nowra. The failure of a direct mail-out re the proposed rates increase has also been absent in the whole process over the last five months.

Stop Press. Council issued a media release Friday 3rd May 2013 titled “Council refutes secrecy claims about meetings and rate rise“. Guess it looks  like Council is now striking back! A pity they didn’t save and use their energy for genuine Community Engagement.

Council’s own Community Engagement Policy

I’ve mentioned this previously so I asked why Council’s application to IPART did not even address Council’s Community Engagement Policy. There is a section in the IPART application, p. 14 oddly enough called “Community engagement”. The answer given at the meeting was “because IPART didn’t require it”. Oh that one really did hurt. A senior director voluntarily choosing not to address Council’s own Community Engagement Policy in the Community Engagement Policy of IPART’s application. And what’s worse, no-one picked that up. Not picked up by the General Manager, the Mayor? That really does explain a lot about the lack of consultation with the community. Did they not think that they needed to follow Council’s own Community Engagement Policy? Did they even know about Council’s own Community Engagement Policy? I mean it’s not hard; it can be found on Council’s website under “policies” – Shoalhaven City Council Community Engagement Policy. I mean here we have the message from the Mayor (and rightly so, I agree) and the vision for staff that consultation and communication are so important; and here we have disregard for Council’s Community Engagement Policy – slightly ironic? So, I held the document up, showed them the real people pictured on the front of the policy, and said these are real community people together with Councillors/Council that worked hard and agreed on the Policy, but the mood by that stage was fairly stoney faced. Perhaps Councillors realised they had done the wrong thing, but did they care? Who knows because Councillors who voted to proceed with the Application NEVER answer my emails about the lack of community engagement; and suffice to say for the most we’re not exactly on talking terms, but still I try for some strange reason. Stop check. They did issue that Media Release on 3rd May 2013.

The Media Unit

I asked some specific questions about the Media Unit attached to the General Managers position under Executive Support. I asked about the costings, function, who they reported to, etc. I asked similar questions about five times but the release of the information seemed not forthcoming. The most I could ascertain was there were three positions. Clr Tribe indicated that the reasons outlined at the meeting about the lack of consultation/engagement were reasons Council needed a media unit. My question to myself and something I emailed Councillors about later, is that you can’t farm out community engagement. Community engagement needs to be embedded into everyone’s job and with Councillors. As an example, the Mayor as leader of the Council could have easily gone out and engaged more with the community about the rate increase, led the need for in a positive way, community meetings, tweeted, etc. But, that didn’t happen. So, if we think that a magical media unit is going to come in and fix community engagement, I don’t think so. It might help in pedaling out the Mayoral or Council message, but engagement?

……and so that is where I must leave this true story…… Saturday 4th May 2013 and ironically Star Wars Day; I had not yet hit the “publish” button but of course today discovered Council’s Media Release “Council refutes secrecy claims about meetings and rate increase“. I guess that’s really like the Shoalhaven City Council Empire Striking Back. I’m not sure whatever happened to just genuine community engagement in the first place, and then there would not be a need to strike back, with ratepayer resources that is. Hang on, that must be “me” they are striking back at. OMG. Let the battle begin if they are game…….

C’mon Shoalhaven Council – where’s your real consultation with the proposed 8% rates increase?

Every now and again I just get mad about something, and the issue of the proposed 8% rates increase and Shoalhaven Council’s lack of genuine consultation with the community, has me really ticked off. It got the better of me tonight and I sent the following email to all Councillors…….

This email is to voice my immense dissatisfaction at Shoalhaven Council’s appalling public consultation in relation to the proposed 8% rates increase.

I was shocked yesterday and as late as this afternoon to find out that Council had not even issued a media release about the public consultation meetings about the Budget, including the proposed 8% rates increase, with the first  meeting scheduled to be held at Council’s Nowra Administrative Centre tomorrow 1^st May 2013.

Apart from a small advertisement in the local paper by Council, radio ads by council on radio 2st (which did not even mention that the proposed increase in rates would be discussed), and a notice on Council’s noticeboard on its website; there has been no other general public promotion of these meetings by Council, apart from WIN News running a News story. No recent Facebook message from Council. No recent twitter message from council. No media release. No newspaper article. No direct mail-outs to residents. Nothing with the latest rates notice. The reality is that not too many people will even make the connection between a Delivery and Operational Plan and a proposal to increase rates, so is Council being deceptive with its so called consultation?

What makes me more incensed, is that reading Council’s application to IPART on page 15, on the one hand Council tried to justify not holding public meetings to discuss the intended special rate variation due to poor attendance at specific community meetings in previous years and uses the public meetings for the Operational/Delivery Program as an example. But, on the other hand Council was relying on the same Delivery and Operational Plan public meetings as evidence of some sort of one way engagement with the community about the proposed rate increase:

“Council chose not to hold specific community meetings on this issue as this method of consultation has not been very successful in previous years. Each year (during the month of May) Council holds 3 public meetings to provide information on its Delivery Programme & Operational Plan. These meetings are generally attended by between 5 & 25 people, and are unfortunately not seen as being successful in making the community aware of what Council is intending to do each year”.

and on page 16:

“Council will be exhibiting its Delivery Programme & Operational Plan during the month of May 2013 to once again engage the community on the issue of renewal of infrastructure as a main platform. As well as providing extensive coverage in the local media, Council will once again hold 3 public meetings to provide a forum for the community to gain information on how Council is intending to raise its revenue……prior to it adopting the DP/OP for the 2013/14 financial year.”

But what’s been found is a total reluctance from Council to effectively advertise these public meetings and that they will be discussing the 8% rates increase. The lack of Council willingly to genuinely engage with the community about the proposed rates increase in general is astounding. I certainly hope the next thing I DON’T read about is the poor attendance numbers at the Nowra meeting, and as a result Council saying there wasn’t a lot of resistance to the proposed rates increase. Wouldn’t that be ironic, but I could sure imagine it happening.

Another major issue is that Council’s application to IPART did not even mention or address Council’s own Community Engagement Policy. The application contained no assessment against Council’s Community Engagement Policy Matrix. That is despite the Community Engagement Policy stating that a rate variation proposal is a CITY WIDE – HIGH IMPACT action, which subsequently requires the highest level of engagement with the community. Why would Council’s application to IPART not address Council’s own Community Engagement Policy?

It is bad enough in the extreme that Council has barged ahead with its application to IPART despite the application showing that its evidence of Strategy and Consultation did not support the special rate variation application, but it is a totally different thing now for Council to continue to pay lip service to genuine community engagement regarding the proposed rate increase including no specific community meetings and direct mail-outs to residents. The blatant stubbornness of Council to now not go out to the community and actively advertise and encourage participation in these public sessions, with the first public meeting scheduled for tomorrow night, again is appalling.

While Council may have a new “media unit” in its structure, that seems able to put out pretty pictures and the nice things, posts on facebook and twitter, etc, here we have a CITY WIDE – HIGH IMPACT rate variation proposal that is simply not getting anywhere near the engagement with the community it deserves. Let’s not forget either the petition of over 3000 people (and growing) that’s effectively been presented and ignored; the statistically invalid surveys and with questions not specifically addressing the special rate variation but used as evidence/justification in the IPART application; the public feedback submissions showing 68% against were against the special rate variation. If that’s not enough, the Budget now put on public exhibition for comment, at p. 104 doesn’t even show the public what Council functions/Operating Programs are facing cuts or increases as a result of the Organisational Review and where those “savings” are going. There is no comparison to 2012/13 either unless you hunt it down through Council’s website, as I’ve found. Given that lack of transparency, and the extremely poor consultation, how can the public seriously have faith in Council regarding the need for the special rate variation?

I note that after I wrote three post’s on Council’s facebook site last night and today enquiring why there were no Council facebook posts or media release, that Council FINALLY put one measly post up on its facebook site. When I rang Council I was put through to the “media unit” (I kid you not, that must be a new unit which has no transparent costings in the budget either), and I enquired why there had still been no media release, I was told there had been no direction to issue a media release, but that Council would be issuing a media release this afternoon. My thought, a bit late, don’t you think considering the first meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. Too right I’m annoyed.

If that’s Council’s efforts at consultation, I’m sorry but I give Shoalhaven Council a big fat score of zero. If Council wants to get serious about communication and consultation as it says it does and which I applaud, then Shoalhaven Councillors need to get their act together and lead by example.

……………………………………….

Needless to say, I sure am looking forward to the first public meeting re the Budget and proposed 8% rates increase – 7pm 1st May 2013 at Shoalhaven Council’s Nowra Administrative Centre.

Budget and proposed 8% rates increase – Shoalhaven Council holds first public meeting Wednesday

Well, Shoalhaven Council staff, in the recent Shoalhaven Mayoral Address, may have been addressed about some new visionary desire for a  2 day customer service turn-around time, and the need for greater communication and consultation with the community. But, it seems the “two day thing” may really be catching, but perhaps not in the way intended.

With Council’s first public meeting at Nowra now just under 2 days away to discuss Council’s Budget and that 8% rates increase, there has been very little advertising of the public meeting. No Media release on Council’s website. Nothing about it on Council’s Facebook site. Nothing with your most recent rates notice. It’s all been for the most eerily quiet. Why? Why should I even need to blog about it?

The first of three public meetings is set for this Wednesday night, 1st May 2013 at 7pm, at Shoalhaven City Council’s Nowra Administrative Centre. At the public meeting the Draft 2013-2017 Delivery Program and Operational Plan will be discussed which includes the Budget, fees and the proposed 8% rate increase.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the public meetings are a really good chance to question staff and councillors about the budget and in this case the proposed 8% rate increase and I would always encourage people to attend. I just think the poor notice and advertising of the event is really poor form, particularly for the first public meeting in Nowra.  It would be easy to think that these haven’t been advertised more in an attempt to reduce public attendance and hence less resistance to that proposed 8% rates increase. Perhaps this is one time that 28 day turn-around time, may just have been a good thing. After all, genuine consultation via public meetings with lots of people attending and engaging in discussion, regarding any proposal to increase rates by 8%, or changes in budget to Council’s various functions, would be a good thing.

So, if you’re looking for the information regarding the public meetings, the full details can be found via Council’s website.

Public Meetings are also scheduled for:

(Southern Shoalhaven) Ulladulla – Dunn & Lewis Centre 7pm Wednesday 8th May 2013; and

(Central Shoalhaven) Vincentia – Vincentia High School 7pm Wednesday 15th May 2013.

Grand Plans – Shoalhaven Council – Mayoral Address

In just under one hour, 2-3pm Tuesday 23rd April 2013, at the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre, Shoalhaven City Council staff and Councillors will receive a “Mayoral Address” from the Shoalhaven Mayor, Clr Joanna Gash about the Shoalhaven City Council Organisational Review. I’m guessing this is the moment that hundreds of staff gather to be told of whats going on by the Mayor, perhaps like some sort of grand vision or plan.

Councillors, yes our elected representatives, have also been left in the dark, most locked out of  Transformation Task Force meetings, not even knowing when they are on, so perhaps the grand plan may be revealed to them too. What an insult and to who they are mean’t to represent.

This whole process has got to have been the most bizarre and disturbing I’ve ever seen. This one tops the list. An organisation representing ratepayers and residents doesn’t even have any input from ratepayers and residents in the Review. They can’t be for real. The end users of Council services, and the community gets no say!!!!

That is of course unless you are a member of the Transformation Task Force (TTF) which is the Mayor Joanna Gash, Deputy Mayor John Wells, the General Manager and the Consultant.

So, be prepared to be briefed, staff and councillors, of the Grand Plans.

CUT JOBS AND INCREASE RATES – Shoalhaven City Council

CUT JOBS AND INCREASE RATES - that’s the message of what’s needed led by the Mayor of Shoalhaven City Council, Clr Joanna Gash. But is it needed?…….Residents of the Shoalhaven could be forgiven for thinking Shoalhaven City Council’s financial situation is bad, bad, bad. There’s the Shoalhaven City Council organisational restructure (resulting from an Organisational Review which low and behold commenced with the previous council) which will see the shedding of JOBS, and together with other cost saving initiatives is set to see an annual net savings of $6.5 million. Now, there’s the “intended” and somewhat “special” RATES INCREASE of 8%.

BUT, and this is a really great BUT, the good news is that the NSW Treasury Corporation’s (TCorps) Financial Assessment and Benchmarking Report on Shoalhaven City Council dated 5th October 2012 and the Updated Benchmarking Section 27th March 2013, shows that it is not that bad after all, in fact its pretty good. It found:

“overall, the review has found that Council has been well managed….” (TCorp, p. 4) and

“in a reasonably sound financial position“ (TCorp, p. 32).

But, that can’t possibly be? Can it? So, what’s going on?

These are some of my favourite headlines in the local media, and comments by the Mayor Clr Joanna Gash, and Deputy Mayor Clr John Wells, on this very issue. Confusing to say the least. Perhaps it’s why residents may have had the feeling that something was horribly horribly wrong with Shoalhaven City Council’s finances and the need to CUT JOBS AND INCREASE RATES. My comments follow in purple:

Headline – “Mayor’s doubts“

“Shoalhaven Mayor Joanna Gash has told a public meeting that if she had known how bad things were in council she might not have stood for mayor….Cr Gash did not deny she had made the statement.” “I’m not happy with the financial situation at council, I’ve made no bones about that”, she said.” “I won’t lead a council in financial disgrace. We have got to reduce debt over the years but we also have to continue to do capital works”. (Gash, cited in Crawford, 2013)

That’s my favourite dollar sign chucking a dummy spit, btw.

Headline – “WE DON’T RATE IT”

“I don’t want to be head of a council not living within its means”, she said”. Clr Gash asked how she could have gone to the people with plans for a rate rise when before being elected mayor she was not even aware of council’s financial situation.” (Gash, cited in McGill, 2013)

Has Council been in such a bad financial situation that it hasn’t been living within its means? Not according to TCorp.

Wouldn’t a Mayoral candidate make themselves aware of a council’s financial situation before becoming a candidate for Mayor; attended public budget sessions?

Headline – “Rates war of words – Mayor denies councillor’s claims subcommittee is a ‘secret society’”

“It is no secret we have inherited a very challenging financial situation from the previous council,” she said. “I’m far from happy with the current situation.”…..”To ensure we can meet what the previous council has committed to we have the decision to either raise rates or reduce services,” she said.” (Gash, cited in Crawford, 2012)

A very challenging financial situation? Sound? What about other options, including consulting with the community to see what they want. There’s also the organisational review that should have community input. Seeing as though Council is in a sound financial position, why not postpone any rates increase until the organisational review has been completed and real consultation occurred to determine whether a rate increase is required?

And, the statement “To ensure we can meet what the previous council has committed to“? – the Council Plan for the rates increase shows the raising of rates going to new projects, not projects already committed to.

Headline – “‘We’ve been hogtied,’ says Wells”

“The outgoing council, nine of whom did not stand for re-election, splashed out in the end having achieved very little over the four years of its term and committed to a number of significant projects and set up the processes to get the tender work going on those”, Mr Wells said” (Wells, cited in South Coast Register, 2012)

A. “We accept that its going to put us under the hammer over the term of this council which we think was a deliberate strategy of the outgoing council to hamstring us and bind us up.” (Wells, cited in South Coast Register, 2012)

but then the comment by Deputy Mayor John Wells on Radio 2st’s Turf Talk 14th December 2012 in relation to the significant projects and the funding for the projects:

Radio 2st Turf Talk 14th December 2012

B1. “well, the city does have it [funds]…….” (Wells, cited in Radio 2st, 2012) and then in the South Coast Register:

B2. “Those projects have been fully funded…..from the cash reserves in place” (Wells, cited in South Coast Register, 2012)

So which is it? Both statements A and B1/B2 can’t be correct. I mean the rate increase is either because of those significant projects or it isn’t. It turns out the rates increases are being channelled to new projects.

But then:

“We inherited this. We have only been here two months and we already have to make these decisions….” (Wells, cited in South Coast Register, 2012)

So what was inherited? A sound financial situation?

My godfather, anyone would have thought the worst financially and management wise for Shoalhaven City Council, given some of the statements above. And DECISIONS having to be made. Isn’t that what councillor’s do, make decisions and lead?

Or, after 17 years of handing over substantial amounts of grant funds as the federal MP, did the Mayor perhaps expect Council funds to be ready and waiting to carry out all that was promised prior to the local government election?

…..And so my mind drifts off to those Australian Government AAA credit ratings, low interest rates, you know that relatively good bill of economic health, and I wonder whether the same pattern seen in the Shoalhaven and outlined in this article will be repeated in Gilmore after the next federal election, should a Liberal Candidate be elected.

CUT JOBS AND INCREASE TAXES, like the current plan is in the Shoalhaven, but with rates. Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase Hope. Reward. Opportunity. For who? 

No wonder the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore didn’t want the Shoalhaven Council Organisation Review/re-structure story on her Facebook page. After all, Ann’s promoted as being mentored by Jo, and we know what Jo “intends” locally. 

 CUT JOBS AND INCREASE RATES.

References

1. Crawford, R, 2013, “Mayor’s doubts“, South Coast Register, 13th March 2013, http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/1360648/mayors-doubts/, Viewed 20th March 2013

2. Crawford, R, 2012, “Rates war of words – Mayor denies councillor’s claim subcommittee is a ‘secret society’”, South Coast Register, 28th November 2012, http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/1150347/rates-war-of-words-mayor-denies-councillors-claim-subcommittee-is-a-secret-society/, Viewed 20th April 2013

3. McGill, D, 2013, “WE DON’T RATE IT“, South Coast Register, 4th March 2013, http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/1338975/we-dont-rate-it/, Viewed 20th April 2013

4. Radio 2st Turf Talk interview, 2012, 14th December 2012 (authors own audio copy)

5. South Coast Register, 2012, “‘We’ve been hogtied,’ says Wells”, 17th December 2012, http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/1190333/weve-been-hogtied-says-wells/, Viewed 20th April 2013

6. T Corp NSW, 2012, “Shoalhaven City Council Financial Assessment and Benchmarking Report“, http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/tcorp/Shoalhaven%20Council%20Financial%20Assessment%20Report.pdf Viewed 20th April 2013

7. T Corp NSW, 2013, “Updated Benchmarking Section for the LIRS Assessment Report Dated 5th October 2012“, http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/tcorp/Shoalhaven%20Council%20Benchmarking%20Update.pdf, Viewed 20th April 2013

What’s up Gilmore?

What’s happened to Gilmore lately? I mean things have disappeared from the Gilmore website or the website’s gone plain “stale”.

The Parliamentary Sitting Calendar is still reading as 2012. The Gilmore Village Visit timetable has gone. No Gilmore media releases on the website since 18th February 2013. No tweets showing. It really is a mystery.

“The Gilmore Report” February 2013:

“Her new role will not slow her down. She has vowed to continue representing Gilmore to the last day with the same energy and commitment as she applied throughout her 17 years as a Federal “Pollie“.

Really? I thought, as I went looking for the Parliamentary Calendar but couldn’t find it; and the reason for this blog.

With an average monthly salary bill of around $54,437* for a small staff, I would assume productivity would be to the max on Gilmore activities which would include a simple one – updating the Gilmore website.

All tweets gone, that were frequent around August/September 2012.

And the Gilmore Village Visit timetable has vanished from the website. The last “Gilmore Village Visits” were in December 2012, but that October – December 2012 round was conducted by the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore. The last time our Gilmore MP was out at “Gilmore Village Visits” in earnest was July-September 2012. Check out the graph below now on a  “flat liner” in 2013.

And as for Media Releases on the Gilmore website, well, there mustn’t be much happening; check out the decline in Gilmore media releases as shown on the Gilmore website – also now on a “flat liner“.

So don’t mind me if  I quickly reach for the “bucket“, because if I read that line one more time “She has vowed to continue representing Gilmore to the last day with the same energy and commitment as she applied throughout her 17 years as a Federal “Pollie“, I am seriously going to…., well you know………

But, to be fair, perhaps its a funding issue and just like the Shoalhaven City Council restructure, there has got to be cutbacks too – a sign of the times and leading by example. Or, perhaps any available annual Printing and Communications budget of $131,640.06* is just being legitimately channelled into more effective communication methods with Gilmore constituents, who knows.

Lately we’ve seen active print Communication from the Gilmore MP. There’s been:

• The Gilmore Report“, (February 2013) – an update on Gilmore happenings. Not sure which is my favourite bit – perhaps where residents were encouraged to let our federal MP know about the cost pressures that people are facing, “especially now there is a carbon tax adding to the burden“…… I could add to that the extra special “intended” 8% Shoalhaven rates increase.
• The little book of big Labor waste” which was advertised in The Gilmore Report and you could phone the Gilmore office for your free copy. I received mine “With compliments”; very efficient.
• Leaflet – Costs are Soaring. Labor is making life harder…and harder” and saying, “It’s hard enough to make ends meet. The Labor-Greens Carbon Tax is making it even harder”. 
• Circular on Asylum Seekers, which one reader from the South Coast Register labelled as some type of scare tactic.

I’m wondering if the Gilmore website will ever get back to normal. Come to think of it, will Gilmore ever get back to normal, but then again, what’s normal these days? Is normal even good?

Note

*The Average monthly Salary figure was obtained from actual data from January 2012 – September 2012 including permanent and relief staff salary data, via the detailed Monthly Management Reports for the Gilmore office, January – September 2012, from the Australian Government’s Department of Finance and Deregulation.

*The Printing and  Communications budget entitlement was obtained from the September 2012 Detailed Monthly Management Report – Gilmore.

*All other data in graphs was obtained from the Gilmore website prior to any information being removed from the website.

Nooooo…it’s MY meeting

I think one of the saddest things happened on Monday night. It left me speechless, and more sad than anything.

Here’s Amanda Findley’s blog ”Mayor hijacks Ulladulla Community Forum” Tuesday 9th April 2013, on what happened at the Ulladulla and District Forum’s meeting on Monday night 8th April 2013. In short, a great community forum with a meeting focusing on youth which was great. But, it was then followed by a public berating by the Shoalhaven Mayor directed at the volunteer community Forum for raising a Code of Conduct complaint, which it turns out the Forum didn’t raise. But, who raised the complaint is besides the point, it’s the public behaviour and berating, “poor me/victim” emotional attitude that’s of significant concern.

I think its a very sad day indeed when a Mayor has a go at a community forum about the raising of a Code of Conduct complaint.

The whole idea about Code of Conduct complaints is that they do follow a process, and if the circumstances warrant, they are investigated by external review. Code of Conduct complaints are available as a stop-check mechanism to ensure policy is being followed and to provide some type of accountability for ratepayers. Shouldn’t we be striving for accountability? Don’t we want accountability for our roads and services? Ratepayers should always have the public confidence that should they need they can make a complaint and it will be handled appropriately. Councillors are integral to that process and those we elect to office should be championing the Code of Conduct as an available process for the community and giving the process the respect it deserves. We should be living in a democracy, and never be intimidated into not using available processes such as the code of conduct to question anything or anyone including the Mayor, Councillors or Council. Sometimes Councillors or community members  may not be happy with an outcome of a Code of Conduct complaint, or that it may have even been raised in the first place and warranted investigation, but like most things, there’s an appropriate way to deal with things. And, having a go at members of a community Forum, like the Shoalhaven Mayor did at the Ulladulla Forum on 8th April 2013,  is NOT one of them. Like Amanda said, it was “Poor form”, and I couldn’t agree more.

I sincerely hope the Shoalhaven Mayor formally apologises to members and guests present at the Ulladulla & Districts Community Forum.

Balance. What happened at the next Shoalhaven City Council meeting – Code of Conduct Part 2

Following on from my last article , I’ve decided balance, sure can be an odd thing, but, perhaps there should have been no surprises when it came to Item 71 and 72 Code of Conduct complaints, from Shoalhaven Councils Ordinary meeting 26th March 2013. Despite an attempt to provide “balance” and show that there were perceived inconsistencies in the Code of Conduct Review Reports between the statements and Findings of Fact, ultimately affecting the recommendations, it didn’t work and the Code of Conduct complaints were not upheld. From watching the proceedings, there was almost an eery silence as a Councillor explained the inconsistencies, with very little input from anyone else apart from Clr White. Perhaps in many ways, the silence was deafening.

Item 71 – Code of Conduct Complaint – Mayor, Clr Gash

This was in relation to the Mayoral letter dated 17th October 2012 and sent to the NSW Office, Liquor, Gaming and Racing, supporting the Clubs application on behalf of Shoalhaven City Council, on the proviso if the application was successful that the Club would provide a further $25,000 returned to the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation. It should be noted that Council’s position has been and is a position of “no comment” in relation to supporting Clubs applications for an increase in gaming machines. So, the Mayoral letter was supporting an application outside of the normal practice of “no comment”, and if the application was approved providing a further $25,000 to the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation.

In the case of Item 71, the temporary Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor said to Councillors after the Councillor discussion had concluded, to make their recommendation based on the “Findings” in the Report. So, the Deputy Mayor, from my point of view, looked like he was directing Councillors to rely on the Findings to make their decision on the Code of Conduct complaints, not any discussion that had occurred that centered around the problems with the Findings. The Code of Conduct complaints were not upheld.

Item 72 – Code of Conduct Complaint – Clr White

Item 72 went really along the same lines. The issue was raised why the Declaration of Interest form on the Council website showed a self declaration from Clr White signed on 8th October 2012, that she had an interest/association in “Administration” with the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation.  That declaration of “association” was made just nine days before the Mayoral letter dated 17th October 2012. That was the Mayoral letter which was at odds with Council’s position, was sent on behalf of Shoalhaven City Council supporting the Club’s application on the basis that the Club would contribute a further $25,000 to the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation if the application was approved, the very same organisation Clr White had declared an interest with just nine days before. From watching in the Gallery, there really didn’t seem to be a clear answer to that declaration, other than, Clr White referring to Gayle Dunn’s statement in the Code of Conduct Review Report that Patricia White had no association with the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation for over 2 years. Clearly, the statement and declaration of interest can’t be both right because they are at odds with each other. But, it didn’t matter, the matter was decided to not uphold the Code of Conduct complaint.

Well, that’s it in the short form. All for the most eerily quiet and predictable. Democracy in action. Getting the job done! Hard to argue with that.

Code of Conduct – Time to crack those eggs open!

Well, its almost Easter, and perhaps it really is time to crack those eggs open! ……. Anyone reading the recently publicly released Business Paper for Shoalhaven City Council’s Ordinary Council meeting set for 26th October 2013 should be warned well before getting to item 68, 71 and 72…… This one I’m naming a “Cracker of Crackers”. I think if Nowra’s famous Black Cockatoo’s, or white Cockatoos were to screech, they should screech very very loudly over the Shoalhaven Council Chamber Tuesday afternoon.

Item 68 provides a Status Report of Code of Conduct complaints received for Shoalhaven Councillors for the period 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2012. It shows a total of fifteen complaints involving eight different councillors. According to the Report, four were referred to a Conduct Reviewer (two of which are below), nine were dismissed and two were dealt with by alternative means ie, counseling conducted by the General Manager. So, just 26% of Code of Conduct complaints made it to external independent review. And, if the Recommendations for the two below go ahead as recommended, just 6% of Code of Conduct complaints in 2012 would result in a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Item 71 and 72 were two of the four Code of Conduct complaints referred to a Code of Conduct Reviewer and they have been included for review, consideration and determination at the meeting on 26th October 2012.

Item 72 Mayor, Clr Joanna Gash

The allegation was that the Mayor,

“Clr Jo Gash changed Council’s policy position and this is referred to as “Complaint 1″. The second was that the Mayor failed to make a declaration of significant non-pecuniary interest and this is referred to as “Complaint 2“

It states that the matter that gave rise to the complaints was:

“a Mayoral Minute submitted  to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 26th October 2012. In that matter Council’s approval was sought for a Mayoral letter that had been sent to the Director, NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing in regard to an application from the [Club] for an increase of a further 20 gaming licences and related donations to several local organisations, including Dunn & Lewis Youth Development Foundation” (underlining is my emphasis).

It is worthy to note that according to the Report the Mayoral Letter considered at the 26th October 2012 meeting had already been written on 17th October 2012 and forwarded to the OLGR. It was written with the Shoalhaven City Council logo and specifically stated:

“The Club has advised me they will contribute a further $25,000 to the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation should the OLGR approve the application…..Approval of their application can only benefit the community and it is on this basis that I lend my full support on behalf of Shoalhaven City Council” (underlining and bolding my emphasis).

There are some important points here and that is according to the Report:

[Code of Conduct Reviewer]: “The Mayor’s submission that she was not supporting the application but only the distribution is difficult to accept“ and

[Code of Conduct Reviewer]: “In the context of the Club’s application for additional gaming licences the use of the term “full support–” can only be interpreted as support for the application, not merely support for the proposed distribution.” and

[Code of Conduct Reviewer]: “The Mayor’s view that “No comment” is not a policy of Council and that Council did not have a policy is not a reasonable interpretation of the facts and the Council’s consideration of the issue. It is accepted that Council had a policy and that the policy was in October 2012,  and still is “No comment“; and also

[Mayor Gash to Code of Conduct Reviewer]: “I was asked by the Club to consider a number of options for distributing the community grants, if the club’s application was successful. The Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation was on the list of potential groups. I considered it was a good idea to support their inclusion on the distribution.”

Nevertheless the recommendation of the Code of Conduct Review was that Complaint 1 not be upheld.

Keep that in mind. Now consider, item 71.

Item 71 Code of Conduct Complaint – Clr Patricia White

The Business Paper reveals that item 71 is in relation to an allegation:

“that Clr White failed to make a declaration of significant non-pecuniary interest in considering a matter contained in a Mayoral Minute submitted  to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 26th October 2012. In that matter Council’s approval was sought for a Mayoral letter that had been sent to the Director, NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing in regard to an application from the [Club] for an increase of a further 20 gaming licences and related donations to several local organisations, including Dunn & Lewis Youth Development Foundation“.

The Findings of the Conduct Review were:

“In the circumstances that Cllr Patricia White’s had no association with the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation for a period of over 2 years I consider the private interest had been extinguished. In the circumstance it would be unreasonable for Council to uphold the complaint….It is recommended that the complaint not be upheld. The complaint should be dismissed.

Now, all that’s very well, but what if there was and is evidence to show that there was/is an Association? Did the Code of Conduct Review check and verify the facts or statements given? Will Councillors check the facts before making a determination? It seems already that the Recommendation from the General Manager is clearly relying on the Sole Code of Conduct Review Recommendation.

Not many details are provided in the Report, so I checked to see what I could find; on the surface whether there was ANY association with the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation in the last two years, after all the decision to recommend to not uphold the complaint was clearly based on the 2 + years absence of association from the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation.

One of the starting points for declaring interests is the Disclosure of Interest form that Councillors fill out. The declarations are publicly available documents and can be found on Council’s website. The Disclosure of Interest form for Clr White can be found here. It should be noted that the declaration in section 187 “Positions in Trade Unions and Professional or Business Associations”, p. 10,  shows Clr White declared an interest in the “Dunn and Lewis Foundation” for the position description of “Administration”, with the declaration signed on 8th October 2012, just ten days before the Mayoral Letter dated 17th October 2012 and sent to the OLGR providing “full support on behalf of Shoalhaven City Council” and on the basis that the Club “will contribute a further $25,000 to the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation should the OLGR approve the application“. The return is for the period 1st July 2011 – 30th June 2012. The Dunn and Lewis “Association” was significant enough to be placed on the Declaration of Interest along with other interests in other organisations including as a Licencee and Executive Member.

Therefore, if the declaration is accurate, as you would expect it to be in compliance with section 449 of the Local Government Act 1993, then surely there must have been an Association with the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation within the last two years, raising questions with regards to the facts in the Findings of the Conduct Review in relation to that specific matter? Either way it certainly leaves questions unanswered and requires further review and investigation.

No other details regarding “Association” have been provided in Item 71, nor it seems the full Code of Conduct Review Report made available to the public, but a quick check of the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation website as at 24th March 2013 shows:

• Patricia White is listed as the Fundraising Contact
• Patricia White is listed as Foundation Administration support
• Patricia White is listed as Administration for the Youth Steering Committee
• and Joanna Gash MP is listed as a Sponsor

Just from the above, it would seem reasonable to gain a public perception that Clr White has an association with the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation.

With Patricia White in the position of “Administration” for the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation, there may also be a reasonable perception that someone in the role of Administration would have some oversight over the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation website and such details on the website would be correct.

They are all questions worth further review. I suggest from a community members perspective that Item 71 and 72 raises further questions that need to be answered, and I sincerely hope that Councillors will have the nerve to ask the hard questions and remember to “crack those eggs open” – it is Easter after all. 

Defending to the death your right to say it, and next thing, deleted

Remember the article I wrote What to do when you’ve been deleted – censorship in the federal election for Gilmore ?

Finally emerging from a giant research project which had sapped out all my blogging of late, and turned my office into an absolute frenzied state of madness. I began to re-enter the real world and opened my piles of mail. The first letter I opened turned out to be an Ann Sudmalis Letter 15th March 2013. Well, it did make me laugh big time – just what I needed. It’s a letter “To the editor” about “Free Speech”, you know how the Government shouldn’t be “gagging” the press. The last paragraph said:

“Most people I know love the freedoms we have as Australians, and

treasure them dearly. I might not always agree with media

commentary, but, in the words of English writer Evelyn Hall, “I

may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death

your right to say it“

(Ann Sudmalis Liberal Candidate for Gilmore) (the underlining is my emphasis)

AND I GOT DELETED!!!!

Not just once or twice, three times. Once perhaps unlucky, twice a coincidence, but three times. Yes, I was well and truly deleted, gone, gone, gone….. And you know what I think of that…..

But, never one to let anything get me down for too long, it didn’t take me too long to pick myself up off that floor with all that laughter. And, just to be in the true spirit of sharing and caring, here are some web links to all the candidates in the federal election for Gilmore. I’ve also put the links into the right hand column of this blog/website:

Ann Sudmalis, Liberal Candidate for Gilmore, Facebook Ann Sudmalis Liberal Candidate for Gilmore

Neil Reilly, Labor Candidate for Gilmore, Facebook Neil Reilly Labor for Gilmore and Neil Reilly Labor for Gilmore website

Terry Barratt, Greens Candidate for Gilmore, Shoalhaven Greens website

And just to finish; I hope I’m not the only person to notice this. If anyone, wants to read something with a good dose of irony, read the Ann Sudmalis letter and Council media release both dated 15th March 2013. The Council Media Release is in response to the South Coast Register front page story “NO ONE TOLD US” 15th March 2013. While different people, the Letter espouses free speech, while the Mayor’s statement in the Media Release seems contradictory (and resourced by us ratepayers): “I was very disappointed to see today’s media article critical of Council for not engaging with local residents over a report, that Council did not in fact commission“, said Clr Gash.” News check. It WAS Council that decided to release the Report WITHOUT Consultation with affected residents; in fact the very same media release goes on to say that “the release of the concept plans by Council was not formally authorised by Roads & Maritime Services“……… I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (lordy the list just keeps on getting longer) – Consult properly Shoalhaven City Council.

The one thing universal is consultation – Shoalhaven City Council

When I went to the mechanics Tuesday afternoon, the mechanic said the problem was the “universal joints”. I was really thankful that the problem had been found and was fixed. But it got me thinking, if only everything was so easily fixed in one day! “Universal“, I thought. That probably explains a lot, and is a good way to understand why and what I wrote Monday night in response to the South Coast Register Editorial 4th March 2013 “Staff and Councillors need to get out among the residents“. Monday night things just made sense to me, so I checked older articles, cross checked, and wrote and wrote. The one “universal” issue is “consultation”. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, whether people necessarily agree with a particular view or not, the “universal” issue in the examples below is consultation.

Here’s how my reply went:

Great editorial, but I’d take it further and amend slightly. There is an increasingly consistent theme emerging, backed by evidence, being a lack of consultation and communication with the [Shoalhaven] community, and it starts with the position of Mayor. The following South Coast Register headlines tell the story:

14th Nov 2012 “Residents furious over Husky backflip” and that five years of community consultation had been undone.

26th Nov 2012 “Woolies lodges new DA“, “Cr Gash said she was shocked when she heard council had asked for $9 million in developer contributions and admitted she would have probably walked away from the project as well” – highlights the lack of consultation/communication when the figure was closer to $250,000. Staff were aware of the correct figure, had they been consulted.

18th January 2013 “Missing Link Road option resurfaces” – The Moss Vale Road Link that had clearly been mentioned in the North Nowra Link Road Professional Reports, and its ramifications and  conflicts with the Northern option. The following statement should have been read, and all options gone to briefing/consultation:

“Because of the adverse traffic impacts associated with option 3 [northern option] and because of the close proximity to the Moss Vale Road Link it is likely that if option 3 [northern option] were approved no link road would be built (other than Moss Vale Road Link” (JBA Planning Report, p.33).

These Reports were available at Council for viewing by the Public and Councillors. A detailed briefing on all the options which would have easily showed the conflict between the Northern option and the Moss Vale Link Road, was voted down by Mayor Gash/Team Gash. It only surfaced publically later, after the Planning Commission had only approved the Northern Option, of the conflict with the Moss Vale Link Road.

It is clear that Council influenced the Planning Commission’s approval of the one northern option. Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show a letter from the NSW Planning Commission’s Executive Director Chris Wilson dated 13th November 2012 referring the matter to the Chair Gabrielle Kibble of the Planning Assessment Commission, with the letter clearly noting “Council now maintains its support for the Northern Option“. The limited stance and the failure to consult regarding all the options, effectively ruled out the other remaining option, the Southern Option. And hence, the Northern option now in conflict with the Moss Vale Road Link. Again, staff were familiar with the Reports and the the Moss Vale Road Link, but consultation/briefing led by the Mayor was lacking. Then the comments by the Mayor in the media, and also in the letter to North Nowra residents which was funded by ratepayers, saying that at the time they weren’t aware of the fourth option. No kidding. The irony being if it had gone to briefing on all the options, the consultation would have occurred and all the issues would have been known. The very sad fact now, is residents of North Nowra will more than likely miss out on a viable solution for the North Nowra Link Road. Yes, lack of consultation can really hurt.

27th Feb 2013 “Mayor vows to improve the flow of information” – emphasised the need to have new procedures to ensure clearer communication in emergencies.

1st March 2013 “Axe Falls” – the announcement of the complete restructure of Shoalhaven City Council where it is clearly evident that a good number of staff and their families first heard of the “Axe Falling” via the media.

4th March 2013 “We could have done better, mayor tells Falls Creek” – where the Mayor said “better communication and consultation were needed.

4th March 2013 “We don’t rate it” in relation to the intended additional rate increase and the comment by Mr Blain “Many people were not aware that council was increasing rates….Mr Blain did not think people were even aware the discussion paper existed. They said well publicised community meetings would have been a better way to go.” And also “Shoalhaven Mayor Joanna Gash said the community would be consulted as the process continued“.

The reality being that no face to face consultation had occurred regarding the intended rate increase and Council had already notified of its “intention” to apply for the additional rate increase. The Mayor could have easily led by example and facilitated face to face consultation sessions in towns and villages back in December 2012, but that didn’t occur. The comment by Mayor Gash “Clr Gash asked how she could have gone to the people with plans for a rate rise when before being elected mayor she was not even aware of council’s financial situation” is interesting. Had Joanna Gash gone along to any of the many face to face public consultation meetings regarding the Council budget and operational Plan (that staff willingly attended and provided ample consultation), she would have been able to hear first hand about council’s financial situation, with the opportunity to ask questions and engage in discussion with both staff and the community. The information was/is also available via Council’s website.

(Added in on 6th March 2013 – yes, still more examples……

6th March 2013 “Rates hike campaigner gagged by council” – denied Deputation to Extra-Ordinary Meeting re the special rate increase.

6th March 2013 “Rates Battler gets his say” – now welcomed to give a Deputation at the Extra-Ordinary Meeting re the special rate increase.)

While a consistent theme, there are conflicting messages. On the one hand, the Mayor seems all for consultation and good communication which is great, which I fully support, but when it actually comes to carrying out that consultation/communication with both the community and staff, and most importantly leading by example, my perception is she fails. I sincerely hope that staff will not suffer because of that. All for staff getting out more, but it needs leading with good consultation/communication from the Mayor as well.

Leaner and Meaner – Shoalhaven City Council

(Designed to be a thought provoking article of clearly a difficult situation. The “Leaner and Meaner” concept used here came from a quote in Council’s media release. The use of Coach “Johnny H” is fictional in an attempt to bring some humour/send up, to the “leaner and meaner” idea)

The Legendary Johnny H: [C'mon everybody; TTF ! Turn the music up  - "Rocky" - Here we go". Let's get these weights pumped!; We want Lean and Mean!]

Well, it seems the iron’s been “pumping hot” at Shoalhaven City Council! A desire from the “Community” prior to the Shoalhaven election, to get “leaner and meaner” has seen Shoalhaven Council announce it intends to “save” a net $6.5 million. How? By a complete organisational restructure, reviewing services, including potential outsourcing of jobs, and other cost saving measures. The “battle of the bulge” has begun, getting downright “lean and mean“.

If you’re having trouble remembering when the “Lean and Mean” demand was made prior to the last election, you’re not alone. Did Joanna Gash or anyone on Team Gash say, look we can save $6.5 million but 70 jobs would need to go, jobs outsourced and services reduced? Was that made clear? What about that extra rate increase bringing in $2.3 million? All in the past now. “Getting the job done!” is in full pumping action. Even my dollar symbols are getting in on the action to be “lean and mean“.

The Legendary Johnny H: [Shout it out class TTF: Lean and Mean; $6.5 million!!!!, up, up, up, harder, higher. $8.8 million. Up. Can we do it, yes we can!"]

The Transformation Task Force (TTF) (move over Gashlings and all other Councillors) has been set up to implement the Plan and they seem “pumped”, primed and ready for the challenge. They are, the first female Shoalhaven Mayor Joanna Gash; her Deputy Mayor John Wells; the due for Performance Review, Council’s General Manager; and an “unidentified consultant” that’s brief was perhaps scoped by the first three. Those four people will significantly influence how many and which jobs will go, if jobs will be outsourced and services will be reduced. No Community input. Closed, lean and mean. No surprises there, the whole $6.5 million Plan, plus the extra-ordinary Rate increase bringing in $2.3 million has pretty much been off-limits to the public. Not even all Councillors knew of the $6.5 million figure until just before it was released to the media; asking to know the figure was a waste of time. And for most staff, and their families, hearing it from the media, really was “lean and mean“.

The Legendary Johnny H: [But that's what we're training for TTF - Lean and Mean! Repeat after me: We're not gonna let a battle of the bulge worry us. Suck it in team. We can meet our Performance Reviews. We control. We can do it!]

We already know courtesy of the Deputy Mayor on 14th December 2012, as stated on Radio 2st’s Turf Talk, that job losses would be in “multiples of 10“, but it doesn’t need being a rocket scientist to determine that some pretty radical job cuts will be needed, to achieve the ultimate lean and mean  $6.5 million in net savings. That same interview by the Deputy Mayor said job losses would be by “natural attrition”; small comfort just before Christmas 2012, but now it’s changed and Retrenchments are firmly on the agenda. How many? 10? 20? 30? 40? 50? 60?

The Legendary Johnny H: [Up, Up, Up! TTF! Sacrifice. Blood, sweat, tears. "Control" it all the way to the top! It will hurt. Total force! Total domination! Yeah! Hope. Reward. Opportunity. First Gilmore - steady, steady, don't want to hurt anything with this new clean and jerk, steady as she goes (17 years steady really). Now Shoalhaven, next Australia and the world! Let's shout it out  H.....R.....O....what do we want? Yeah!  Hope, Reward Opportunity! We're pumped TTF Let's go. Get----that--- job--- done!]

What a turmoil and nightmare in the making. Shoalhaven, where the blazers are you? Staff morale and productivity will plummet negatively affecting services provided to the Community. Job descriptions crazy and perhaps unachievable as more is dumped on retained bright and talented employees. Mismatch of skill sets. Structural imbalances in service delivery affecting residents. Spare a lot of thought for employees and their families during uncertainty. Families that have a pivotal role all over the Shoalhaven: kids, school, sporting groups, friends, entertainment, shopping, voluntary work and a whole lot more. People, with their knowledge are the key to an organisations competitive advantage over time. Lordy, massive compensation payments to staff as they are retrenched, paying out for lengthy years of service and sick leave, eliminating much of the savings. Don’t touch that Reserve for Workcover either, because you’ll need every cent. But, go, you good thing, go!

Will the Unions step in and protect members and not roll over to Team TTF?

Will the Federal Member for Gilmore, who is paid around $4 grand/week to work on Gilmore issues (hello, Gilmore, where the jolly well are you, lately?, you’ve been lost into oblivion with all that Council business), actually support Gilmore taxpayers including addressing this potential massive increase in unemployment which will add to the economic woes of the local economy? Surely anyone leading such a significant change should lead by example and be “lean and mean” in their Gilmore role?

Will Candidates in the upcoming federal election actually show how pro they are for employment and the local economy? What will the Federal Member for Gilmore’s well mentored protege Ms Ann Sudmalis do? Yes Ann, unemployment is a federal issue and you can’t delete, censor and ignore the problem here, (workers are real) as much as you have chosen to “take down whoever you like” on your own Facebook Ann Sudmalis Liberal for Gilmore site! Will Ann finally step in, show potential economic leadership, show she supports taxpayers on the issue of employment and fight for the economy of Gilmore? Or, does she fully support TTF and negative multipliers? Perhaps a secret TTF training partner? – trained and mentored by the best? What will the Labor Candidate for Gilmore Neil Reilly make of all this (NB: Neil has provided comment via Facebook Neil Reilly Labor for Gilmore), and the Greens Candidate for Gilmore, Terry Barratt?

The Legendary Johnny H: [Discipline, TTF. You've trained! You've been mentored by the bbbbest. Network. Loyalty. Tactics. Get it out there. Use your Media Advisor - damned well go and find an extra if need be. Look good. Be  positive..... Censor. Delete the negative. Shake hands. Hand out freebie's. Rosie, rosie, rosie! and reap that pure crystal blue  Hope, Reward, Opportunity]

But, how will the $6.5 million “savings” affect Services for ratepayers and residents? Job cuts may mean potentially less services being provided and poorer service. Oh, the irony of Savings! Will we see the off-shoring of engineering design, financial control, accounting, and customer service to India? Will we see outsourcing of outdoor jobs? Will this mean the dumping of Child Care, Immunisation, closure of village and sea pools, loss of donations for things like the Shoalhaven Business Awards, New Years Eve Fireworks Displays, etc. Will it be mainly all “business” now for Shoalhaven Council, despite local government needing to provide services?

Then there’s the Keynesian multiplier effect on the local economy, in this case a negative multiplier. Less jobs leads to less spending injected into the local economy. Together with the “intended” extra-ordinary  rates increase, as well as other local job losses at HMAS Albatross, means the multiplier effect is even worse with higher Shoalhaven and Gilmore unemployment, less disposable Shoalhaven household income, less consumption and investment, a lower marginal propensity to consume which leads to a higher negative multiplier effect and lower outputs in the local economy. The pattern goes on but the spiral gets worse, affecting towns and villages. Savings “bean counters”  may typically be oblivious to the negative multiplier effect, as they just want to reduce spending and increase rates (as is happening now in the Shoalhaven), that is until “whack“, it hits big time, and it takes longer to recover because of the time lag effect. Although on a larger scale, just look at the example of Greece! So, has an economic analysis been completed on the economic impacts of the “Savings” on the Shoalhaven economy? And also, the social impacts?

My fave shorthand: *  ↓G → ↓J → ↑U  (+ ↑T_rates ) → ↓Y_d → ↓C and ↓I → ↓MPC → ↑k_negative → ↓GDP

and repeated but the effects are magnified by the increased negative multiplier “k”, which causes the negative spiral.

And suddenly that weight’s feeling a whole lot heavier! – just look at my poor sore dollar symbol – noooooo. You see I would never wish that on TTF, ratepayers or anyone!).

The Legendary Johnny H: [Cut, cut, cut TTF. Don't look back, whatever you do. Stay strong. That's what I've trained you for. Hope. Reward. Opportunity]

Seriously, 

For the record: Hang your heads in Shame Financial Strategy Sub Committee with the way this change activity has been carried out. Am I surprised? No. While I will always accept that change is inevitable and needed, change needs to be continuous, incremental, and involve  all major stakeholders.

The dangers of a poor approach will lead to long term systemic structural imbalances in service delivery making the changes unsustainable; and completely  disruptive which will be detrimental to services for the community, business, and for staff.

 Need to get it right, otherwise that friendly old $6.5 million in savings might just go:

Speaking of “Lean and Mean“, don’t miss my next article which takes a look at whether Joanna Gash MP’s Gilmore office follows the example of the Shoalhaven Mayor, and is truly “lean and mean”.

*

G = Government Spending

J= jobs

U = Unemployment

T= Taxes_Rates

Y_d = Disposable household income

C = consumption

I = Investment;

MPC = Marginal Propensity to Consume

k_negative = negative multiplier effect

My question finally answered – what to do when you’ve been censored – the election for Gilmore

As a follow up, from last night’s story (below), someone suggested I ring the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore to see if I could get an answer to my question. Great idea I thought. So I rang, did get through, and the response was as follows:

1. The Liberal Candidate for Gilmore advised me she had taken down my Posts about the Shoalhaven City Council restructure, because the Posts related to a Council decision and did not relate to Gilmore. I questioned that saying that I thought “Unemployment” was very much a federal Gilmore issue, and this was and is happening in Gilmore. The Liberal Candidate for Gilmore questioned why I had not raised similar instances with other organisations (a legitimate question I thought). I said that I live in the Shoalhaven and Shoalhaven City Council is one of the largest employers in the Shoalhaven so it is relevant to me and I was seeking to find out the Liberal Candidate’s view. Thinking about it, I guess you could say I have a fondness for Shoalhaven City Council issues.

2. I was then advised in relation to the Facebook page, that “It’s my site, and I can take down whoever I like” – ouch I thought, guess that’s me! I’ve been taken down (facebook, that is)!

All the answers I needed, I guess. My impressions. Unemployment perhaps not the highest priority it needs to be. If elected, would a Liberal Member for Gilmore really assist Gilmore taxpayers if affected by potential and actual retrenchment? If elected, would a Liberal Member for Gilmore consult with management of the organisation restructuring to see what assistance can be offered? Anyone can be “taken down” (facebook). And, censorship seems alive and well with the hard questions being seemingly avoided, allowing the rosiest of pictures, I guess to encourage more people to vote for you, perhaps?

To be fair, the Labor Candidate for Gilmore did reply to my Facebook question. His response is available via Facebook Neil Reilly For Gilmore :

“In the Shoalhaven Council, this move is a predictable and tragic strategy employed by Liberal governments the world over. We saw it with Thatcher, we saw it with Howard where Gash voted six times to implement WorkChoices. We saw it with O’Farell and with Cambell Newman, it’s Abbott’s plan and Gash’s reality right here in the Shoalhaven. These people hate to see working people in jobs.
Council workers were given contracts in the morning, only to have them withdrawn in the early afternoon. Services will suffer and jobs will in the nation’s area of highest unemployment. God help us if Gash gets her trusty side-kick elected.”

Similar posts were made on other media forums during the day by the Labor Candidate for Gilmore.

I’ll need to think about all of that before I decide who to vote for. Mmmm.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, tonight’s been a new experience. I’VE BEEN DELETED, not once, but twice by Ann Sudmalis’ Liberal Candidate for Gilmore’s Facebook Page! I asked a legitimate question to both Ann Sudmalis and Neil Reilly, both candidates in the upcoming federal election, via their Facebook Pages.

The link was given to the following story that appeared as Breaking News on the South Coast Register website 27th February 2013. It relates to the news this afternoon that Shoalhaven City Council would embark on a major restructure resulting in jobs going and other cost saving initiatives totalling $6.5 million:

http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/1330380/huge-shakeup-at-council/?cs=202

with my heading relating to the story: $6.5 million in savings = how many jobs, around 70?

and the question: I’m wondering what the Labor and Liberal Candidate for Gilmore think about this? And let them know as a courtesy I’d also posted the same on the Ann Sudmalis facebook/Neil Reilly page.

First my Post was deleted, so I posted again just asking if the Posts were moderated. Then I Posted the same article again, and after a bit it vanished a second time. Then, other individual comment that I had made in relation to another comment, which I thought was quite fair – well it all got deleted and then the permissions for Posting were completely taken away. Talk about censorship – right here in Gilmore – who’d have thought?

A simple legitimate question and link. Either the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore doesn’t like that particular story at all (which I’m guessing is the case). Or, perhaps she’s under instruction from someone to take that story down? Perhaps someone else is monitoring the Facebook site? Also taken away was the ability for anyone else to comment on the Facebook site. I guess that’s so I couldn’t re-post it for a third time. And also deleted were one or two individual comments I’d made in response to someone else’s Post, which weren’t unreasonable. Is the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore afraid of the question? Unemployment is a legitimate issue for the electorate of Gilmore after all. I would expect that the Federal Member for Gilmore would consult with one of the largest employers in the Shoalhaven if there was going to be a significant impact on jobs. But, I guess in this case they are one and the same person. I didn’t think the question was unreasonable at all.

And here I was trying to work out if I should vote Liberal in the upcoming election!

What to do when you get deleted – censorship in the federal election for Gilmore

Well, tonight’s been a new experience. I’VE BEEN DELETED, not once, but twice by Ann Sudmalis’ Liberal Candidate for Gilmore’s Facebook Page! I asked a legitimate question to both Ann Sudmalis and Neil Reilly, both candidates in the upcoming federal election, via their Facebook Pages.

The link was given to the following story that appeared as Breaking News on the South Coast Register website 27th February 2013. It relates to the news this afternoon that Shoalhaven City Council would embark on a major restructure resulting in jobs going and other cost saving initiatives totalling $6.5 million:

http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/1330380/huge-shakeup-at-council/?cs=202

with my heading relating to the story: $6.5 million in savings = how many jobs, around 70?

and the question: I’m wondering what the Labor and Liberal Candidate for Gilmore think about this? And let them know as a courtesy I’d also posted the same on the Ann Sudmalis facebook/Neil Reilly page.

First my Post was deleted, so I posted again just asking if the Posts were moderated. Then I Posted the same article again, and after a bit it vanished a second time. Then, other individual comment that I had made in relation to another comment, which I thought was quite fair – well it all got deleted and then the permissions for Posting were completely taken away. Talk about censorship – right here in Gilmore – who’d have thought?

A simple legitimate question and link. Either the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore doesn’t like that particular story at all (which I’m guessing is the case). Or, perhaps she’s under instruction from someone to take that story down? Perhaps someone else is monitoring the Facebook site? Also taken away was the ability for anyone else to comment on the Facebook site. I guess that’s so I couldn’t re-post it for a third time. And also deleted were one or two individual comments I’d made in response to someone else’s Post, which weren’t unreasonable. Is the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore afraid of the question? Unemployment is a legitimate issue for the electorate of Gilmore after all. I would expect that the Federal Member for Gilmore would consult with one of the largest employers in the Shoalhaven if there was going to be a significant impact on jobs. But, I guess in this case they are one and the same person. I didn’t think the question was unreasonable at all.

And here I was trying to work out if I should vote Liberal in the upcoming election!

..and I thought a MOP was just that, a MOP..

I always thought a MOP was just that, a MOP, you know to clean the muddy patches off the floor, like when the kids have come running through the house. But, like in life, there’s an acronym for just about everything. A bit “slow off the blocks” myself (yes, that’s the swimming blocks and other blocks as well), I found “MOP” is an acronym for Member of Parliament, and MOP(S) refers to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984….

Fast forward to 15th January 2007. That was the date of the Determination regarding the employment of electorate officers signed by the Special Minister of State at the time Gary Nairn relating to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, also known as the MOP(S) Act.

It states:

“I GARY NAIRN, Special Minister of State, for and on behalf of the Prime Minister determine under subsection 20(2) of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (the Act) [MOP(S)] that, with effect on and from 11 January 2007:

…..

2. Electorate Officers work under the sole direction of the employing Senator or Member and are employed to assist the Senator or Member to carry out duties as a Member of Parliament, and not for party political purposes….“

All makes sense of course.

Then, the Australian Governments Department of Finance and Deregulation lists on its Ministerial and Parliamentary Services page of its website The Role of Employees During Election Periods. It states:

“MOP(S) Act employees are employed to assist the Senator or Member to carry out duties as a Member of Parliament and not for party political purposes. Accordingly, employees may undertake activities in support of their employing Senator or Member’s re-election but not in support of the election or re-election of others at the Federal, State, Territory or local government levels.”

Again, makes sense. Anyway, gotta go, just a quick thought; back to practising getting off those blocks quicker, and contemplating things lap after lap.

BTW last night, in trying to teach me to tumble-turn, my swimming coach gave me this great advice; Fiona, just go in hard to that wall – there’s nothing to be afraid of – what’s the worst that could happen?, have a go, go hard. I so do enjoy my swimming sessions!

Getting the job done?

You wouldn’t believe it, but after my last blog article about the sign on the back of the school bus on 31st January 2013, that said “Joanna Gash Liberal Candidate Gilmore – Getting the Job done!”, well, I haven’t seen the sign on the bus again since – now that’s really what I call “Getting the job done!”

Oi, I’m left, you’re right. No, I’m right, you’re left.

When someone I hadn’t met before bailed me up in the “dead dark of the night” around seven months ago and said to me, “I picked you as a  a moderate left“, I thought “a what?” The truth was I didn’t even know exactly what a moderate left was. Perhaps I was really thankful it was pitch dark, and besides I really had to go, you know, the nearly midnight thing…….

But, it got me thinking. What does really make someone Left, Right, mid this or that? I mean, who has time for that? Did I miss something along the way? And, does it really matter? My nanna told me the story once of her father who was a very strict minister and his daughter married a Jewish man. I said hesitantly: “Well, how did that go?” “Easy, she said; he said on the one hand, we have a thumb and four fingers, and they all work together well.” Makes sense I thought at the time.

Another conversation in daylight months later with this same person, and another comment something about “some people just knowing they are Left, Right, etc, and not sure how because as they learn in life, well things can change” – now that comment did make sense. But again it got me thinking. Why do some people from a young age just know they are committed to say being a Liberal, Labor, Green, etc. I mean some people go to Uni, join a political party, get absolutely engrossed in the Party, stand as a candidate for the party, campaign, get elected and “wa-la” (okay, so there’s a lot of hard work in there). Not me though – forget that plan. I wasn’t interested. Wouldn’t have even known where to find any political party at Uni. The only “Party” I knew was the Waterski Club, and how to get that boat, and all those happy little vegemite pairs of feet out on the River, over the waterski jump, up parasailing, where they worked together pretty well. I had loads of other things on my mind, like Fun, unlimited waterskiing in every spare moment, and uni and the world of economics, well, it just fitted in.

Then I was talking with someone else and he was talking about Left and Right within the party, and fighting factions. Factions? My godfather. Way too complicated. Can’t they just get along?, I mean they belong to the one party? But that’s a really interesting point; often they don’t get along, but when it comes to the Party in front of the Media, they for the most get along amazingly well. Yes, I was truly learning quickly in Politics 101. “But?” I would say when I saw something odd and it was explained as “A day in the life of politics is a very long time – all can be forgotten in a day“. “Really?” I thought.

Clearly I have much to learn.

A very belated message to my parents, thanks for NEVER labeling me and always letting me find my own way – as left, or as right, as it might be, mistakes and all – sure will get there in the end. To all the people that have given me generous and much needed advice and support – a big big thank you.

Happy Birthday Fiona Phillips, don’t let anyone label you too soon – keep them guessing. Enjoy your 43rd year!

In an Award Winning Time – the record goes to Shoalhaven City Council – Your rates

“Straight off the blocks, and in Award Winning Time, the record goes to Shoalhaven City Council.” The news this weekend, that Shoalhaven residents will have just less than 20 days to comment on whether Shoalhaven City Council should apply to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to  increase rates by a total of 8% in 2013/14.

I reckon that’ s got to be some type of Record, with feedback due in to Council by 1st March 2013.

And with no General Rate Increase Discussion Paper yet available for download on the Shoalhaven City Council website as at 10th Feb 2013, there may be even less time to consult with the community.

But why consult, the opening line in the Discussion Paper in very small print states “Shoalhaven City Council is intending to apply to the Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for permission to increase General Rates by a total of 8% in 2013/14 (which is 4.6% above the rate-pegging limit of 3.4% set out by IPART” (my emphasis is underlined).

If that’s what Council is “intending” to do, then why consult? And, if they were really consulting it would take more than 20 days to get an accurate gauge of what the community really thinks about it.

But fear not, in an email from Shoalhaven City Council’s Director of Finance & Community Services dated 8th Feb 2013 (perhaps they were hoping to just sneak in one month of notification before the 11th March 2013 deadline) it states “Council are considering applying for this increase” (again the underlining is my emphasis).

So which is it? “Intending” or “Considering“? They are actually very different. My money’s on “intending“.

It makes me wonder if someone somewhere already has been beavering away writing the Application for the General Rate Rise – and its ready to “rock-n-roll”. No doubt it may mention the extensive consultation [NOT] that has taken place:

• a telephone survey in 2009 (how times have changed since 2009!)
• community engagement for the 2012 review of the Community Strategic Plan (180 submissions – that’s around .002 of the Shoalhaven Population)

The graphs and data included in the Discussion Paper are hard to read so apologies if out by a fraction (perhaps that’s the point from the small print!), but from squinting I can see that of those 180 responses just 48% or 86 people out of 180 people were in favour of increasing rates above the norm for Roads. For Paths the figure was higher with 58% or 104 people out of 180 agreeing to increase rates for that purpose. Were respondents asked if they were actually in favour of a Rate increase? NO – I can’t remember it when I completed the survey on-line. But, across the board according to that one graph – graph 5, just 29% of respondents were in favour of increasing rates for the items listed. Mmmm  29%? and they are “intending”?

So I guess all eyes will be on that wizz bang consultation over the next 20 days. Don’t blink or you seriously may miss it….and perhaps an Extra Ordinary Shoalhaven City Council meeting….., and……well you know what goes next.

I’m all in favour of genuine consultation re rates, but sorry, this current process is bordering on the absolutely ridiculous.

Ring ring, anyone home? – are these federal mobile phone numbers?

I’ve been mesmerised since about June 2012 with two mobile phone numbers that keep “ringing” and “ringing” in my mind 0427 160 170 and 0427 160 172. Ring ring, anyone home? – but, are these federal mobile phone numbers? i.e, taxpayer funded phone numbers? Is one paid for by Shoalhaven City Council? Is one privately paid? It all seems confusing.

The more I look, the more advertisement of the phone numbers I see “popping up” around the Shoalhaven in different forms.

I first discovered the phone number 0427 160 170 way back in the Gilmore Newsletter of Autumn 2010. Check out Page 2 – 0427 160 170 is shown as the mobile phone contact for the Gilmore Media Policy Advisor at the time, Jemma Tribe.  Presumably then the mobile phone belongs to the Gilmore electorate office which would make sense; I mean every electorate office and Media Advisor would need a mobile phone you would think.

A look at the latest publicly available Parliamentarians’ Expenditure on Entitlements paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation (1 January – 30 June 2012) for Joanna Gash MP (and the Gilmore Office), available via the Department of Finance’s website, shows one mobile phone and a supplementary mobile phone, paid for via the Department of Finance (by taxpayers) – all makes sense.

The Senators and Members Handbook clause 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, p. 49, also confirms the Entitlement of two mobile phones “are provided to Senators and Members’ electorate Offices“ and that “costs relating to ……the mobile telephone appear as a separate line item in the Senator or Member’s monthly management report (like the above publicly available report, but the detailed ones provide further information and seem not available to the public.”

That very same Handbook also states the Entitlement is to “facilitate the conduct of their duties and responsibilities as elected representatives of the Australian public” (clause 1.1, p. 13)

Fast forward to the Shoalhaven City Council election

The Team Gash election brochure bore a similar phone number, this time 0427 160 172. Are both the 170 and 172 mobile numbers federally paid, i.e, taxpayer paid phone numbers? Is one privately paid?

There was the Team Gash campaign office, with the 0427 160 172 mobile phone number:

The Team Gash website, which from memory also had the 0427 160 172 phone number displayed. That website is now hidden from public view, marked as “private”, and only accessible by invitation only.

I even received two interesting letters sent to me by Registered Mail on Joanna Gash for Mayor/Team Gash letterhead, also with the 0427 160 172 phone number. This is the second letter that threatened “further legal consideration”. Perhaps that’s why the mobile phone number has remained in my mind so much!

Then once elected as Shoalhaven Mayor, both the phone numbers

appeared at different times (sometimes together) on various

communication material

There is the Shoalhaven City Council website that again shows 0427 160 172 as the contact mobile phone number for the Shoalhaven Mayor.

There was a Shoalhaven City Council Councillor Contact Information sheet provided to organisations in the Shoalhaven community. This one contained the 0427 160 170 mobile number for the Shoalhaven Mayor.

There was a personal Joanna Gash Shoalhaven Mayor media release with the Shoalhaven City Council logo, referring people if they had any enquiries to contact 0427 160 170, but also with the mobile number 0427 160 172 in the footer.

Media Release – ACCUSATIONS OVER AUDIT COMMITTEE VACANCIES MISLEADING SAYS MAYOR

There is the jazzy new (used) Mayor Joanna Gash SCC4U vehicle seen around town which has the 0427 160 172 phone number on it, again with the Shoalhaven City Council logo.

When the Gilmore Office was closed for the Christmas Break, it was the mobile 0427 160 170 phone number on the sign on the Gilmore office door.

And you couldn’t really miss the new sign at the roundabout on the corner of Kinghorn and Worrigee Streets Nowra, which has the 0427 160 172 phone number right up there with the logo of Shoalhaven City Council.

Ring, ring, anyone home? …….are both the 170 and 172 mobile phone numbers paid for federally, i.e, taxpayer paid mobile phone numbers? Is one paid for by Shoalhaven City Council? Is one privately paid for? It is all very confusing. I don’t know what the answer is, however I sure wish I did. 

References

Australian Government – Department of Finance and Deregulation, 2012, “Parliamentarians’ Expenditure on Entitlements paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation” 1 January to 30 June 2012, http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/docs/T30/GASH_Joanna.pdf  , accessed 2nd February 2013.

Australian Government – Department of Finance and Deregulation, 2012, “Senators and Members Entitlements 2012“, http://www.finance.gov.au/parliamentary-services/docs/senators_and_members_entitlements.pdf , accessed 2nd February 2013.

Craddock, E, 2012, “Letter from Team Gash Campaign Manager on Joanna Gash for Mayor/Team Gash letterhead to Fiona Phillips”, 7th August 2012 (recipients own letter).

Gash, J, “Media Release – Accusations over audit committee vacancies misleading says Mayor“, Media Release – ACCUSATIONS OVER AUDIT COMMITTEE VACANCIES MISLEADING SAYS MAYOR” , accessed 2nd February 2013.

Gash, J (MP), 2010, “Gilmore Newsletter Autumn 2010″, http://www.joannagash.com.au/pdf/GilmoreUpdate_Issue1.pdf , accessed 2nd February 2013.

Phillips, F, 2012 and 2013, “Various other photo’s” (authors own).

Shoalhaven City Council, “Councillor Contact Information“, http://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/MyCouncil/CouncillorsMayor.aspx , accessed 2nd February 2013.

Shoalhaven City Council, “Councillor Contact Information”, (provided to organisations – authors own copy).

Team Gash, 2012, “Team Gash Shoalhaven City Council election brochure” (recipients own).

Team Gash, 2012, “Team Gash Website“, http://teamgash.com/ , accessed 2nd February 2013.

Hang on, there’s a sequel to all this, I’ve just discovered

You know that article I wrote about the Gilmore Village Visits, and how it was Jo Gash MP on the radio advertising to come and meet Jo Gash MP at the October-November 2012 Village Visits, but when you got there it was really always cleverly mostly Ann Sudmalis. It turns out now a similar strange thing is happening with the bus signage. I mean school drop off had never been so interesting as this morning. One bus “rocks” on in with the big Ann Sudmalis sign as Liberal Candidate for Gilmore on the back of the bus (photo tomorrow I promise – gee those buses run like clockwork!), and then the very next bus, like in some sort of strange perfect synchro, had the Jo Gash sign Liberal Candidate for Gilmore. Blimey, both advertising as Liberal Candidates for Gilmore – perhaps Gilmore’s going to be job-shared?

New Candidate for Gilmore? – “Let’s do the Time Warp again”

Seen on a Shoalhaven bus this morning. With an Australian election now set for 14th September 2013. Is there something perhaps we haven’t been told? Where’s the music blasting to this huge great song when you need it?

It’s astounding;
Time is fleeting;
Madness takes its toll.
But listen closely…

Magenta:
Not for very much longer.

RiffRaff:
I’ve got to keep control.

I remember doing the time-warp
Drinking those moments when
The Blackness would hit me

Magenta:
And the void would be calling…

Transylvanians:
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

The first 2013 Shoalhaven City Council meeting – next time remember popcorn!

The first Shoalhaven City Council meeting for 2013, and I thought any issues with Mayoral Minutes were a thing of the past – lesson number two for 2013, apparently they’re not!

Mayoral Minute

I was surprised and disappointed to see a last minute Mayoral Minute put to the meeting with item 1 in the Mayoral Minute being used to seemingly clarify what a Councillor had said in a newspaper article and to effectively thrash out some type of team collaboration. “Is that for real?”, I thought. From my perspective as an observer, I see it as a clear attempt to intimidate by using the privilege of being able to put forward a Mayoral Minute to publically question and chastise a Councillor – yes, perceptions really are important. I mean, I’ve heard of “informal counselling” (lots lately) but none of that ever seems to make it into a Mayoral Minute. It’s certainly a unique method – getting the job done! – essentially a bizarre attempt to force some type of team collaboration. What happened to earning trust the old fashioned way? – it would be much easier and effective no doubt. Talk about Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning – this Council is well and truly stuck in that good old “storming” stage. Time to move out and on guys.

Anyway, just about to faint towards the end of item 1 of the Mayoral Minute (glad there was a wall behind me) of the meeting (and giving me nightmares all night long), I had flashes of other incorrect statements in the media eg, the comments made by the Mayor re the $9 million that Council sought in development contributions for the Woolworths development at Vincentia when it was actually closer to $276,000. But, no, strangely that wasn’t put in a Mayoral Minute either. Really, really strange that. I mean don’t get me wrong, none should be in a Mayoral Minute. I don’t know, go on a team bonding session, something, anything.

Regardless, anyone could be left in little doubt with some parts of the meeting what was happening, and little wonder after that fantastic unexpected thriller opening. I began to think I’d unexpectedly walked into a movie. I just wasn’t sure if it was at times a Comedy, a Drama, Horror, an Action or perhaps even a Thriller – next time I’ll remember to take Popcorn.

North Nowra Link Road

…..and then, the North Nowra Link Road. Forget the “link”, the love-locks are well and truly rusted on this project, the Northern option, which is now being deferred – that’s what I call sharing the love around! Words cannot comprehend the absolute disaster of not reading all the Professional Reports with regards to the Northern option (and all the options) and of failing to be  briefed on all the options before making a recommendation that would ultimately influence the Planning Assessment Commission’s decision. For the Deputy Mayor to say in Tuesday nights meeting that he was not aware of the Moss Vale Link Road is unbelievable. Wasn’t the Deputy Mayor in a senior position at Shoalhaven City Council when the Nowra/Bomaderry Structure Plan was in place, which discusses the Moss Vale Link Road? There were so so many “plea’s” to have a full briefing on all the options before any decision was made, but no, it was voted down. I even wrote the very quotes out of the JBA Planning Report that referred to the very problems with the Northern Option and conflicts with the Moss Vale Link Road, and emailed to Councillors, in one last desperate plea, but no – who needs that information right?

Review of Guidelines for Community Consultative Bodies

Another item I found interesting was item 6 the Review of Guidelines for Community Consultative Bodies. I was at the Policy and Resources Committee meeting on 22nd January 2013 and heard the discussion at the meeting which seemed clearly aimed at reigning in Community Consultative Bodies (CCB’s) (seemingly one in particular) with not many members/and or people attending meetings and then commenting on behalf of that CCB/community, you know the whole, questioning whether really representative of the community. While I can certainly understand the queries raised by the Mayor at that meeting, I think the last thing CCB’s need is some type of archaic system which mandates a list of attendees at each meeting. I wanted to shout out at the time, but alas, I probably would have been thrown out, but I think they are missing the point. I think the real “guts” lies in the mechanisms of how CCB’s work. CCB’s can have small numbers attending meetings, but as long as there are mechanisms in place to communicate with and gain feedback from the community, then that is by far more important. In my mind there would be much more benefit of taking a positive approach and working with CCB’s to assist with setting up those mechanisms if they are not there, such as Facebook, Twitter, annual community planning sessions with greater numbers of people within the community setting goals and priorities for the year, newsletter, website, and other methods of feedback. Whether we like it or not, we do operate in a more decentralised way and the days of everyone attending meetings is gone, gone, gone and there would be much greater benefit to help CCB’s with that process, all who do a fantastic job. And, not that Council doesn’t help in that regard – I’ve always found Council to be quite helpful, but I don’t think we need “big brother” to mandate and force (just like that attempt in the Mayoral Minute). An educative and positive leadership approach in my view will always bring better outcomes in the long run. The recommendation thankfully was amended slightly but the tone from the Policy and Resources meeting in my view was a concern.

Finally….

Stripping the shenanigans out of the meeting (as many as there were), there were some really great issues on the Business Paper, lots of good notices of motion, debate and lots of good decisions made. The really good thing is that for every one or two things that make it to the media, you can always count on there always being at least around 60 more issues, all affecting the community in perhaps subtle but important ways. It’s a credit to Shoalhaven City Council, particularly its staff (yes, they deserve a medal to even sit through the interesting meetings too), that so much business does get carried out.  Okay, so there’s always room for improvement, but when’s there not room for improvement?

What ever happened with that Mayoral Minute bundling?

Well, one things for sure, the bundling of items in the one Mayoral Minute, at Shoalhaven City Council seems to thankfully be a thing of the past. Councillors as our elected representatives, making decisions for ratepayers and residents, will now be able to vote on “individual items” put forward by the Mayor in a Mayoral Minute based on merit - who said “democracy” was mean’t to be easy? – so wrong, its damned hard and continually needs to be worked at.  But, it just goes to show if you keep nibbling away at something you will always get there in the end…… But, perhaps not so fast, friends in the jungle….

I need to be clear here, the bundling of items in the one Mayoral Minute had the possibility of affecting everyone in the Shoalhaven. It’s really easy to turn a blind eye until YOU or someone you know could have been next to have an item that impacts them, put forward to Shoalhaven Council in a Mayoral Minute, without notice, without staff input, with no opportunity for you to respond before the decision is made, and for the item to be “bundled” in with other items, forcing Councillors to vote for “all” or nothing and denying voting based on individual merit. How would you feel?   

Rewind to an article I wrote in September 2012 that briefly mentioned the issue, an article I wrote in November 2012 on the issue, and another related article showing repercussions of decisions made under Mayoral Minute Bundling in December 2012,  and after following this issue up, I was advised by email 23rd January 2013 by the General Manager of Shoalhaven City Council:

“Clause 4.4 is a key principle and not a separate enforceable standard of conduct under the Code.”

Clause 4.4 of the Code of Conduct afterall refers to the Key Principle of “impartiality“, and that Councillors decisions should be based on merit, etc – not a biggy I would have thought, seems commonsense. However, Council doesn’t “enforce” decisions being based on merit, unless they are connected to something enforceable, like statutory provisions. In other words, the “Principles” by themselves mean “diddly squat“.

Well there was my first major let down for 2013. Here I was thinking that Principles actually mattered – lesson one and reality check for 2013 – THEY DON’T – welcome to the real world fiboydphillips! So, forget all those “guidelines” out there, or even any of those really great Principle mantra’s out there like “Honesty, Integrity, Openness and Commitment, and Getting the Job Done!” – apparently as Principles they don’t carry any weight at all, not when it comes to the “actual crunch”. (In researching this article to find the Team Gash Principles which I love, I was devastated to find the Team Gash Principles were no longer available via the Team Gash website – NOoooooooooooo, which seems to have gone missing in action, with the website now marked Private and accessible by invitation only)

Then the comment:

“Your view in regard to the meaning of cl.243(1) of the LG Gen. Regs 2005 is acknowledged however that is open to legal interpretation…..notes the DLG advice of their being no precedent on this matter” (General Manager, Shoalhaven City Council 23rd January 2013)

Ouch. That Reg’s the one that refers to a “Mayoral Minute”, which I argue is one matter for each Mayoral Minute matter so Councillors can vote on each matter based on merit, not all lumped in together. The good news is that apparently if anyone doesn’t agree with Council, it looks like they could challenge that in the courts “somewhere” to get a “legal interpretation”. Good one, I mean who has the money to challenge Shoalhaven City Council?; its a bit like putting up your own money for the challenge, and then for Shoalhaven City Council to fight it with your rate money as well; and lets face it, there’s very little recourse through public legal channels as caseloads are always pretty full (believe you me I have plenty of experience at that, despite “legitimate legal concerns”). But, perhaps that’s just the point, encouraging a confrontational stance, when there was a much simpler solution. And as for precedent, is Shoalhaven City Council afraid of setting a positive example, showing good leadership and adjusting its policy accordingly? Would that really be so hard, so much of a dent in pride? Surely not – integrity?

But hang on, isn’t cl.243(1) of the LG Gen. Regs 2005 a statutory obligation anyway? – then surely the principle of “impartiality” and that decisions be based on merit, should apply?

“Notwithstanding this conclusion it is intended to separate individual items within future Mayoral Minutes to facilitate ease of consideration”. (General Manager of Shoalhaven City Council, 23rd January 2013)

Ease of consideration – really?

Yes, a thankful conclusion, but it would have been much easier to allow that Procedural Motion in the first place to allow voting on individual items in the Mayoral Minute in September 2012, and for Council to show some leadership, set some precedent by updating its policy and not pulling the, what seems, “legal” get us if you can argument.

And, just what would happen to all those decisions made under items bundled in Mayoral Minutes, if successfully legally challenged?

Welcome to 2013, for Shoalhaven City Council, the federal seat of Gilmore, and what the heck, the NSW seat of South Coast (yes, we really can get a police station at Sanctuary Point, Shelley), as well; the spotlight’s firmly and positively on you. Looks like its going to be a great year. Cheers!

Let’s go global Shoalhaven! – now, fireworks from WordPress – 2012 in review

Let’s go global Shoalhaven! Thank you WordPress! The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for my blog. I had no idea a wee little blogger like me could get the Shoalhaven out to 56 countries across the world, all while having total fun of course.

Don’t forget to come and visit now – the Shoalhaven, the place to be in 2013 and beyond.

C’mon Shoalhaven City Council, South Coast and Gilmore, nothing is impossible.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 7,900 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 13 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

Time 4 a boycott – Hands off Nowra Pool upgrade funds Mr Sewell…..

Now, where are those T-shirts stored?…….3 years and four months later…..

(I could even contribute to helping solve the car parking issues……)

Hi Lance,

I am writing to you as I know from South Coast Register articles and Radio items, you are an advocate for increased parking/multi-storey car park in the Nowra CBD.

Firstly, I am in favour of muli-storey car parking in the Nowra CBD and I did sign the previous petition, albeit I thought the car-parking would have been closer to the CBD and be for shoppers. I wouldn’t even mind if we had a large private shopping centre near the CBD that brought underground or above ground parking, with a mixture of free and paid parking, with good and easy overhead pedestrian linkages with Junction St; freeing up all day car spaces for workers in outlying car parks. I have always proudly supported the Nowra CBD by retaining my families shopping almost exclusively to Nowra.

Now, where are those T-Shirts stored?….

However, I CANNOT and WILL NOT support the current stance in the advertisement placed in the South Coast Register, yesterday 16^th January 2013, p. 18, as the advertisement shows a clear negative implication that money should be re-directed from current funded priorities, which the upgrade of the Nowra Pool is a part of; ie trying to take money away and STOP the Nowra Pool upgrade.

As a citizen, I am appalled that you, and whoever else is involved with the advertisement, would even consider trying to take money away for the upgrade of Nowra Pool, a community facility that urgently needs an upgrade (56 years after it was built) before imminent failure and tens and tens of thousands of school children and children, learn to swim programs, school swimming carnivals, adults, waterslide usage, birthday parties, a wide variety of sporting groups (including swimming, waterpolo, dive training), community groups (including scouts, surf-lifesaving, etc), sporting events which bring people into Nowra, etc, from all over the Shoalhaven, the highlands and NSW would not have access to.

The upgrade of the Nowra Pool was recognised as part of the Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan/Nowra CBD Masterplan, an extensive publicly consulted process, with a huge amount of public support (yes, they are shoppers) to retain and upgrade the Nowra Pool. The Elton Study also culminating from the Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan consultation process, involved a wide number of business and community representatives and also recommended to Council that the Nowra Pool needed upgrading. The Shoalhaven City Council budget also allowed public consultation with regards to funding priorities. The Nowra Pool Advisory Committee was established, again with community and business representatives (with public expressions of interest advertised in the paper) and has been working on the most cost effective way to upgrade the Nowra Pool amongst many given priorities.

Both Joanna Gash, Mayor, and John Wells, Deputy Mayor, have given a firm undertaking that the Nowra Pool will be upgraded this year, and together the Nowra Pool Advisory Committee have been working on those plans, working towards a construction start date of April/May 2013. I believe that if anything changes with regards to those plans, I know from my perspective that nothing short of a war will well and truly break out.

Personally, I am so appalled and disgusted with the advertisement in the Paper, that I will now be boycotting every business named in the advertisement [Priceline Pharmacy 102 Junction St Nowra, Ray White Real Estate 112 Kinghorn St Nowra and Aquatique 121 Junction St Nowra]; having already indicated so to each owner of the businesses today. I hope that thousands more will soon not need to do the same.

Fiona Phillips

17th January 2013

Goodbye snow – way too much fun in the “Hello Shoalhaven”…..

Yes, life really is one long beach and Summer fun in the Shoalhaven. The snow has now gone from my website and the weather in Oz Land is really heating up. And, I’ve been having way way too much fun recently to blog at all.

Around 300,000 visitors come to the Shoalhaven in the holiday period and the Shoalhaven is now right up there as the holiday tourist destination in NSW outside of Sydney, and why wouldn’t it be? – it is after all paradise. No matter how much we may go on at times about the standard of some Council facilities, the crap state of some of the roads (a really popular one at present), the lack of development, the lack of jobs, etc, I am often asking myself the same question, just why are there so many people  coming to visit. I mean, it’s not like we have a Westfield’s, Big W, multi-storey carparking or many of the facilities of our larger cities. But, still people flock to the Shoalhaven, so what is the giant magnet?

Take where I live as an example; there are way more holiday houses than residents, and some would say, that’s just how we like it. As a resident I know I live at what I call the best place on earth and I’m quite happy that everyone can enjoy it, and that I can raise my family here. A crystal clear beach, the sparkling and beautiful water of Jervis Bay, a multitude of beaches in close proximity to go to depending on which way the wind might be blowing, the most amazing walks in bushland and also to get to some of the more remote beaches for some snorkelling, paddling up creeks, etc. Then there’s a whole lot of activities like kayaking, cycling, swimming, fishing, surfing, whale and dolphin watching, scuba-diving, running and a whole lot more.

At Christmas I watch as the cars stream on in like clockwork. Lots of  cars, families, and sometimes even a pigeon pair - one for him and one for her. But just like clockwork, the cars roll out again, and I have the last smile because I know we’re still here and can always live and work in paradise. Its great that we get to share it and spread the message. And yes, our towns and villages are quite self sufficient shop wise – can usually find everything you need either in the village or close by; for me I think the Shoalhaven also has all the great features to raise a family in a great healthy environment.

Take the popular Honeymoon Bay at Jervis Bay for example. It is always absolutely packed at holiday time with campers, with only porta-loo’s and the basic of facilities. So, why is it packed? The majestic Jervis Bay of course, which has that many different beaches and walks to explore. Yes, its true, some are a bit of a walk, but the longer walks are WELL worth it in the end. My ideal day would be just going with my family on a remote as possible long day walk at Jervis Bay, taking a packed lunch, and just exploring and snorkelling. The kids love it, it gets them outside exploring and keeping them healthy……

Someone asked me once in the IGA at Callala Bay, how do we get to the nearest ‘Picture Theatre”. I said, well, you could take a short swim or paddle across Currambene Creek to the Huskisson Pictures and it wouldn’t be far away at all, or you could drive right around to Huskisson or to the Roxy Cinema in Nowra - not sure what he did. Thankfully, there is now the Husky Ferry service operating from Myola across to Huskisson and return, so we have the best of worlds. Yes, dinner at Huskisson is now a great close option by water, I don’t even need to take the canoe at night now!

But my families crossing of the creek is a tad more out there. In case anyone sees people swimming and hitching a ride with the current from Myola across the creek at Huskisson and making their way up to the Huskisson Sea Pool for another quick dip, walking around Huskisson and then swimming with the current back across the creek further up, chances are I may know them (not to be tried for the faint hearted – I knew all those swimming lessons would come in handy).

Which brings me to the Huskisson Fireworks. Again, just a small (5km return) enjoyable stroll up the beautiful Callala Beach to Myola for a truly great fireworks spectacular. While the majority of people are on the Huskisson side, watching it from Callala is pretty spectacular too.

Speaking of the great small village of  ”Myola“, my youngest son used to call it ”Dad’s-ola”, “Mum’s-ola”, “Nan’s-ola”, etc. It took us and many others a long time to convince him it was actually “Myola“. He just wanted to share it with everyone of course, which is probably not a bad way to look at it……

Yes, there are plenty of other great things to do in the Shoalhaven; like heaps of great towns and quirky villages which have their own character with great local shops, great cafe’s and eateries. The Shoalhaven has the best of all worlds, beach, bush, mountains, farmland and everything inbetween, and with the lifestlye is a great place to work as well. 

And lots of great events too, this year’s there’s “Ice Escape” at the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre - yes, I can still get my cold fix and I’ll be putting my ice-skates on soon. And then, I have a date with the “Monster Trucks” at the Nowra Showground, much to my boys delight. There are also lots and lots of great markets, fairs and exhibitions as well. So much to see and do……

I tell this story, firstly because it’s true and I will always love and promote the Shoalhaven, but also because it does present one of the greatest challenges for the Shoalhaven going into the future; how we move forward encouraging sustainable development to help with business and jobs, while at the same time protecting our villages and towns so that people will ALWAYS want to live and come here for the very many reasons I have described. And that, will require some very innovative thought indeed, but nothing is ever impossible.

That’s it, way too much blogging for me…..off to explore.

Shoalhaven Council “rates”, a “whirlwind” path

What a whirlwind path it’s been recently with Shoalhaven City Council resolving on 13th December 2012 to notify IPART and the Division of Local Government of its “intention to apply“  for a Special Variation to increase General Rates by a total amount of 8% in 2013/14.

The recent seven business day “speed” with which this process gathered massive momentum, (starting on 6th December 2012 with the notification of the Financial Strategy Sub-Committee meeting, through to the Ordinary Meeting on 14th December 2012) and occurred, is nothing short of amazing. There was NO  stated “resolution” at the 13th December 2012 Extra-Ordinary meeting to “consult with the community“; there was a complete knock-back of releasing the “modelling” to the public to justify the intention to apply for the rate increase for 2013/14; and a refusal to make further meetings of the Financial Strategy Sub-Committee “open to the public“. This was despite attempts by Clrs Findley, Guile, Kitchener and McCrudden for Council to undertake comprehensive community engagement before determining any application for above-ratepegging the following year in 2014/15; for Council to provide the “modelling” and to make further Financial Strategy Sub-Committee meetings open to the public – but it was a “no-go”, even the recission motion lodged and considered at the Ordinary Meeting the next day was voted down by all Councillors present from Team Gash, and Clr Watson.

These were changes to our Council Resourcing Strategy, a Strategy which according to the Business Paper of the Financial Strategy Sub-Committee, is intended to establish a “high level, strategic view“. The recommendations of the Financial Strategy Sub-Committee were moved by consent and agreed on by a group (not open to the public) of members including just three councillors, two directors and one General Manager. To cap that all off, the specific changes outlined in the Recommendations were only made available to Councillors with less than 24 hours notice before the Extra-Ordinary meeting on 13th December 2012 and without providing the modelling justification. How is anyone to make a well informed “strategic” decision without the modelling and without adequate time to consider the Recommendations?

To me this seems the most bizarre of processes, and hard in my view to understand, because of the seemingly hasty and ad hoc method and quickness of time, how it could be high level and strategic at all. I mean, where were ALL the stakeholders, you know, like community, employee reps, independent experts, etc? Where is all the modelling including negative multiplier effects on our community? And, where are the feedback  mechanisms that are normally there to ensure a well thought out high level strategic review is actually taking place?

And if you were a member of the Public or Council staff member (yes, there were recommendations that would most probably affect staff), well, the message went out even later. If the public or staff, due to the tight timeframe, missed the Extra-Ordinary Meeting on 13th December 2012, fear not, they could catch up with all the latest (and more) on Radio 2st’s Three Way Turf Talk where the Deputy Mayor, Clr John Wells was a guest, and part of the discussion went like this:

“John Hanscombe: How many jobs are you going to  cut?

John Wells: We don’t have a number in mind but we will be looking at staffing, and staffing levels, and we will be looking through natural attrition to waste the size of the organisation to effect some savings; I’ve already said that the Treasury Corporation has found that the cost of staffing and running the operation is at least 1, if not 2% higher than the state average.

Graham French: John, have you got a ball park figure on the number of reductions that may be necessary?

John Wells: I have a ball park figure, but I don’t think I’m prepared to share that this morning.

Graham French: Why not?

John Wells: Because it hasn’t been settled upon by the Council and hasn’t been agreed upon by the administration.

Graham French: Are we talking 10, 20, 50?

John Wells: It would be in multiples of 10.”

I sure hope that line of discussion had previously gone to Shoalhaven City Council’s Consultative Committee before it was announced in public on Radio 2st?… noting there was no actual mention of staff reductions in the Recommendations.

“Getting the job done!” – yes, but how and will it bring the best outcomes for the Shoalhaven?

No more political meteorites – “please”

There’s been a lot said in the Shoalhaven media about Shoalhaven Council’s decision to seek an application for an 8% rate rise. From my perspective as a listener and reader, it seems the “political meteorites” (aka blame game) are (unfortunately) in full swing – please, I beg, no more……

Take the comments on Radio 2st’s turf talk by Deputy Mayor John Wells on Friday 14th December 2012 in relation to the 8% rate rise application and surrounding issues:

“The Treasury Corporation recently reviewed Council’s finances and there were three primary things in my mind…secondly, whilst Council has been fairly well run financially……” (my emphasis in bold)

and then a bit later it was:

“The outgoing council, nine of whom didn’t stand for re-election, splashed out in the end having achieved very little over the four years of its term and, committed to a number of significant projects and set up the processes to get the tender work going on those.” Mr Wells said” (my emphasis in bold)

noting John Wells comment in relation to the funds for the significant projects:

“well, the city does have it, it’s using the funding from the North Nowra Link Road to fund those projects, together with loan funds.“

Just incidentally, was that a slight laugh, cough or sneeze by someone during Radio 2st’s turf talk when it was mentioned that “the city does have it” [the funds]?

But what I really want to say is: what an absolute insult I take that as, for the Deputy Mayor to state in public that the outgoing council had “achieved very little over the four years of its term“. What an absolute insult that could be taken for anyone, including community, staff and councillors, that has “worked their heart out” on projects and plans for the community; many projects and plans, because of that hard work, will be delivered in “this” term of Council. I mean who really cares what term of Council it is? How demoralising and demeaning. Is that what sort of Council we are really going to have? – I hope not.

Perhaps the Deputy Mayor may like to stop the “political meteorites” blame game (it is nearly Christmas after all); start actively practising and showing the “team” component from  Team Gash but for the whole of Council; and start leading by example in that regard – a good start would be being publicly a lot more positive about the many great capital projects in the Shoalhaven.

Credits

Image credit: benchart / 123RF Stock Photo

Image credit: komissar007 / 123RF Stock Photo

Image credit: vician / 123RF Stock Photo

Image credit: liusa / 123RF Stock Photo

How high will your Shoalhaven Council rates be?

How high will your Shoalhaven City Council rates be?

Don’t miss all the action at the Extra-Ordinary meeting this afternoon, Thursday 13th December 2012, starting at 4pm at Council, Bridge Rd, Nowra, where your Councillors will be discussing and voting on whether to apply for a special rate variation beyond the rate pegging limit; aka a higher than normal rate increase.

The revolving door, a clever succession plan and the Gilmore Village Visits

The latest round of Joanna Gash’s  Gilmore Village Visits seems to have come to a close for the year and those Village Visits, may have a bonus, to introduce the new Liberal Candidate for Gilmore. The idea should work well – credit where credit is due – to the Liberal Party.

I need to point out that the following are just my observations. You draw the conclusions, I couldn’t possibly comment. 

As background information, in the lead up to the Shoalhaven City Council election, which was 8th September 2012, the federal MP for Gilmore appeared to be at the Shoalhaven Village Visits, pretty much all of the time, often handing out promotional bags – all totally legitimate of course - in total 102 Gilmore Village Visits scheduled for the three month period between July to September 2012 - an impressive feat? A new record?

After the Council elections however, the Gilmore Village Visits give the distinct appearance about being ”all about [promoting] Ann” as Jo’s successor as shown with all the Ann Sudmalis political signage, like sign – with “authorised by Mark Neeham” from the Liberal Party and Ann Sudmalis Liberal for Gilmore car or bus clearly parked near the Village Visit. Even the invites were printed and distributed by Ann (with no taxpayer funds for printing or distribution) in the very friendly and familiar format that we are accustomed to from the Gilmore office. At first the invites showed the Australian Coat of Arms, but then they were modified for later releases, dropping the Australian Coat of Arms without any given reason.

The radio ads for the Village Visits, for the most, have been our Federal MP in prime time just before the 7.30am and 8.30am local news on Radio 2st saying:

 “Hi, I’m Joanna Gash and as part of my program to visit as many villages as possible, today I’ll be in [venue] at [address] from [time to time], and then at [venue] at [address] from [time to time] and then at [venue] at [address] from [time to time], do come and see me, I’d love to meet you.” (my emphasis added)

But, when you get to the Village Visit, as can be seen by the photo above at Worrigee on 23rd October 2012,  it seemed to be ”all about Ann“, with not too many Jo sighting’s at these Gilmore Village Visits at all. It raises a query as to these meetings, how much is promotion of someone as your successor.

Now, on Jo’s website, it indicates that Jo will be at these Visits unless “urgent parliamentary business” or “other unforseen events” makes it impossible. So one must assume that Jo is not there because of unspecified urgent parliamentary business or unforseen circumstances. What other reasons can there be?

Occasionally the wording of the ads on Radio 2st were amended slightly, like the following on 29th November 2012, when a scheduled Parliament session was on, and naturally our Gilmore MP could not be at the Village Visit:

“Hi I’m Joanna Gash and as part of my program to visit as many villages as possible, today, Thursday, Ann Sudmalis from my office, will be in Huskisson, from 10-11am at the Huskisson Bakery Currambene St Huskisson; and then in Vincentia from 12-1pm at the Appetite Plus in the Burton St Mall in Vincentia; and then in Tomerong from 2-3pm at the Tomerong General Store Hawken Rd Tomerong…. Do go see Ann, she would love to meet you.” (my emphasis added)

And there was Ann at the Huskisson Village Visit, complete with Ann Sudmalis for Gilmore signage and Ann Sudmalis promotional vehicle. It’s interesting, the change in wording for the ad, noting that at the Village Visits on 23rd October 2012 at East Nowra and Flinders there was a Gilmore staff member there dressed in official Gilmore/Parliamentary uniform, but not a mention of their name on radio that morning – perhaps the ad had been improved since then? Nevertheless the signage that the staff member had (in contrast) was the normal  Jo Gash - Federal member for Gilmore signage.

So, all in all, according to the Gilmore website, 40 Gilmore Village Visits from 18th October – 6th December 2012, all along similar lines, with the added bonus of introducing Ann Sudmalis as the Liberal Candidate for Gilmore.

The last day of the Village Visits and the Visit at Sussex Inlet on 6th December 2012, the radio advertising was the standard:

 “Hi, I’m Joanna Gash and as part of my program to visit as many villages as possible, today Thursday I’ll be in Sussex Inlet from 10-11am outside the Sussex Inlet SPAR in Jacobs Drive Sussex Inlet; and then in Wandandian from 11.30-12.30pm outside … Princes Highway Wandandian; and then in St Geroges Basin from 1.30-2.30pm at…… do come and see me, I’d love to meet you.”

But again, it gave the impression about being ”all about Ann” as can be shown from this photo below. You could nearly call a movie that “All about Ann” – it has a real ring to it.

Round one to the Liberal Party? “Village Visits” that segue ino a career succession plan?

All totally free advertising of course; guaranteed to go around the world via stumbleupon, reddit, digg, pinterest, tumblr, twitter and facebook.

Credits

Image credit: Revolving door photo  svlumagraphica / 123RF Stock Photo

Image credit: Plane photo: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/photo_13611939_giraffe-elephant-zebra-and-lion-in-red-biplane–vector-illustration.html’>anikakodydkova / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

Image credit: All other images are authors own.

Nowra CBD – could this issue make me even more mad?

If there’s one thing that I get really really MAD over, its the issue of the Nowra CBD. I’m forgetting all the niceties in this blog article – guaranteed, and no apologies either – take it or leave it - furious Fiona here I come – words cannot convey my fury as I tap heavily away at my keyboard!

This goes way back to (can’t remember the exact date) but when there was all the talk in the media, particularly by Radio 2st via Graham French and also reported in the South Coast Register, with how tired looking the Nowra CBD was, you know, how much it needed fixing up; the graffiti, just the general appearance of it.

One morning Graham French, out of the blue rang me and said words to the effect, Fiona, you’ve lived in the Shoalhaven a long time (yes, I really feel so so old at 42 and being born here!), what do you think about the appearance of the Nowra CBD? I’ve no idea why Graham French rang me at all, but I was glad he had and I can suspect it was because I was so vocal on upgrading the “tired” Nowra Pool and Riverfront area, and perhaps I really did care about improving the area for our community. So, I commented, as did various people. One thing led to another, and I guess you could say there was a bit of a minor uprising in the local media about the state of the Nowra CBD; for which there was a bit of a roasting by the Member for South Coast one Friday morning on Radio 2st Turf Talk – yes, “rose coloured glasses” anyone? Not for me, thanks.

The real “kick in the guts” came when  a certain Councillor, came out and said words to the effect about how this item shouldn’t be made political, and then there was this magical, seemingly by invite only “group”  set up to take a walk through the Nowra CBD and see what needed taking action. Even though I was mad about it, I didn’t really mind. I would rather put away my thoughts away anyday, for the benefit of improving the Nowra CBD. (The Youtube clip of the Nowra CBD Walk-a-Round can be found on the Facebook Page – Everything Shoalhaven (thank you Michael Pignataro for reminding me again recently of this issue).

Now, I kept quiet about that, but no longer. Council then established again, by what seemed invitation, a Nowra CBD Working Group to take “action” with the Nowra CBD, and again, the makeup of this group, seems extraordinary. I’m not doubting the people on the group at all, but why the blazers can’t Council “think outside the square”. I spend half my life working with adult students and getting them to “think outside the square”, the benefits of including stakeholders, etc, and then, Council? Where are the shoppers? the teenagers? the disabled, etc? Before anyone thinks I’m bias; this was the “old council“.

During that process, I had written a number of Posts about the Nowra CBD and some idea’s to consider, and the most refreshing thing, was the everyday comments from people about simple idea’s that could improve the Nowra CBD – I loved the comments. I think its fair to say that the people I talked with were genuinely frustrated that the simplest of things couldn’t be done. Yes, it does come down to money, but there are other ways as well. But, my hands were tied. I was not a member of the Walk-a-Round, the working group, and later did not get onto Council.

There was something else happening at the same time, which I have written about before – a very subtle thing but very important. I just wish the new Council had the “leadership” to recognise the issue, before its too late.

Shoalhaven Council, about 18 months ago, decided to merge the two masterplans together; ie the Nowra CBD Masterplan and the Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan. A Committee made up of community and business representatives had already been set up for the Nowra CBD Masterplan and from what I read of the Reports, I’d have to say that Committee was probably a good example of consultation. Naturally when Council resolved to bring the two Masterplans together, I put in an application to Council to join that group, as I wanted to have input into the Nowra CBD Masterplan/Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan (the later, remembering that I had fought so hard for and in doing so recognised the linkages between the two).

Fast forward around 12 months, and the new Council disbanded the Nowra CBD Masterplan Committee. They also combined the Car Parking Committee and the Graffiti Committee (as a cost saving & efficiency measure) to be now known as the Nowra CBD Action Committee and the memberships effectively transferred over. The new Council was in the perfect position to get this Committee right, but I don’t think they have  - if they (Team Gash) are all into the “team” thing, great – live by that rule and bring a good mix of stakeholders in that covers the entire scope of the project. Cost savings may be one thing, but getting it right is far more important.

My immediate concern was, well who considers (that largely forgotten) Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan? – it seems it’s all been merged into one, so people that initially came onto the group for say, car parking, will now have full capacity to have input into the wider scope, presumably also the Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan. Now, I am ticked off, my application got thrown out with the disbandment of the Nowra CBD Masterplan Committee (yes, I received my official letter from Council recently over one year after putting in my application). But what really annoys me more, is:

What’s happening with the Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan?

Where is the community representation with the Shoalhaven Gateway Masterplan? 

Where’s the feedback for the public?

………and now reports in the media about not much being visible since that last six month walk-a-round of the Nowra CBD. No kidding and any wonder?

While CBD Ratepayers are always great, Council needs to urgently bring a good mix of other stakeholders onto that Committee (representative of the entire scope of the project) and fast, or it may just be another six months before much happens. And, I will be even more mad in six months time.

My thanks to a number of recent media reports about the Nowra CBD and what’s happened and what’s not happened that has made me re-visit this issue.

I will gently calm down now, off to do some therapeutic Christmas shopping in the Nowra CBD of course.

Credits

Image credit: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/photo_2160578_tired-santa-claus.html’>piksel / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

Image credit: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/photo_11386310_happy-santa-claus-running-shopping-cart-with-deer-and-gifts-on-white-background.html’>huhulin / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

One big gamble…..but its never as easy as who wins and who loses…..

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog article on items being “bundled” in Shoalhaven City Council Mayoral Minutes, and how in my view, this stops individual Councillors from being able to vote based on “merit” on individual items, bundled and brought forward to Council urgently by the Mayor.

Well, here’s a bit more to the story, “One big gamble….but its never as easy as who wins & who loses”…….

Anyone that was present at the Shoalhaven Council meeting on 31st July 2012 would have seen a large number of public present to consider whether Shoalhaven City Council should “support” or “not support” the Milton Ulladulla Ex-Servo’s Club application to the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, for an increased number of pokie machines. There were deputations supporting both sides of the argument, so from a bystanders view, it seemed quite a significant issue for the community. To cut a long story short, Shoalhaven Council decided at that meeting to not comment and let the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing determine the application.

That was the end of it until, a Mayoral Minute was presented for approval at the Ordinary meeting 26th October 2012, with a signed letter from Mayor Joanna Gash, showing Shoalhaven City Council supported the Application for the increased number of poker machines, on the understanding of the Club donating $50,000 to the West Ulladulla Sports Park and a further $25,000 to the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation should the Application be approved. The item was again, bundled together in a Mayoral Minute with four major issues and ten sub-issues, including also the upgrade to the Ulladulla Civic Centre. I think its fair to say that because of the nature of the way the matter was presented at the last minute, it was a significant change, that perhaps some were not expecting.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the argument for and against the increased pokie machines (or the recipients – which are great community causes; and the club a great business), I think some serious questions need to be asked about the process:

1. Why did Shoalhaven City Council change its position significantly from “no comment”, to one of active support?

2.Given that there was clear community interest in this matter, why was the item rushed through, and not included as an item on the Business Paper/Agenda, so that the public and Councillors could consider the item beforehand? This would also allow deputations and individual Councillor voting on the item based on “merit”; noting the Division of Local Government’s Councillor Guide which states:

“Mayoral minutes should not be used to introduce, without notice, matters that need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision. These types of matters would be better placed on the agenda, with the usual period of notice being given to councillors.”

3. Were all stakeholders that were involved with the issue on 31st July 2012, advised of the Mayoral Minute prior to the Mayoral Minute being presented?

4. How were the recipients chosen?

5. Given one of the recipient organisations, if the Application is successful, could be perceived to have a close association with Clrs Gash and White of Team Gash, due to two founding members of the organisation being on the Team Gash election ticket for the Shoalhaven City Council election, as well as a federal grant of $4 million going towards one of the grant recipients, should a declaration of significant non-pecuniary interest have been made?

Just something to consider. While this issue may not be relevant to you, think, could it, if it was the same circumstances, same process, but a different matter; and even, mixed in with a whole lot of other matter/s at the last minute?

And, just while I think of it, where the jolly well, is the Shoalhaven Mayoral Allowance being donated to?……..anyone know? Some transparency would be good.

Getting the Job done! – yes – great; but perhaps it doesn’t hurt to ask every now and again, how?; that’s the real test.

Otherwise, you never know, it may just come around and hit us for a….

Credits

Image credit: sivanova / 123RF Stock Photo

Image credit: coramax / 123RF Stock Photo

Image credit: tomwang / 123RF Stock Photo

I’m loving this new “snow”

Things are really “hotting up” in the Shoalhaven (and in the land of Oz), so I’m really loving playing with this new “snow” on my website.

So “much“ to write about, and so little time…….perhaps next WordPress could bring some “elves”?

btw: Talking about the weather, the other day I finally climbed the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It was a day of extreme heat, followed by darkness, a bit of rain, lightning in the distance, the magical Sydney Opera House was lit up red for World AIDS Day, and then you wouldn’t believe it when at the top of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, it was topped off by an impressive fireworks display – that’s what I call timing – all totally unplanned of course.

So, time for the “snow” now, definitely, and some more writing.

Credits

Image credit: dariusl / 123RF Stock Photo

Image credit: dariusl / 123RF Stock Photo

Now, what could be in that Shoalhaven Mayoral Minute “bundle” of joy?

It seems a new phenomenon has emerged at Shoalhaven City Council which I’ve affectionately named – “Mayoral Minute Bundling“. It’s sort of like a “lucky dip“, you never know what you’re going to get; it might be one “matter” or it might be five or so very different “matters” – all possibly suspenseful, particularly if you are a Councillor (or perhaps staff) and you really didn’t see the matters coming on behalf of your constituents, and also for members of the community that might be affected by the Mayoral Minute.

Going back to the first meeting of the new Shoalhaven Council on 25th September 2012, a Mayoral Minute was introduced at the last minute, which covered five different matters and eighteen different sub-matters. Some of the things included, use of the Ulladulla Civic Centre for a great community event, calling for a GM Report re the use of the Electoral Company that ran the recent election, the proposed meeting date changes to Friday afternoons/evenings, calls for various review and status reports for some specific capital projects, as well as calls for ten councillor briefings. The Mayoral Minute read as one motion to be passed in entirety and that provided a quandary as some Councillors wanted to support some of the individual items, but not all matters. A procedural motion was moved in an attempt to have the items voted on individually, but independent (Team Gash) councillors, apart from Clr Baptist, denied that procedural motion - it was the entire Mayoral Minute “bundle” or nothing.

Mayoral Minutes have been around for a long time. Don’t get me wrong, they are a legitimate way for Mayors to put any matter to the meeting without notice. The NSW Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 - Reg 243 (1) states:

“If the mayor is the chairperson at a meeting of a council, the chairperson is, by minute signed by the chairperson, entitled to put to the meeting without notice any matter or topic that is within the jurisdiction of the council or of which the council has official knowledge“.

Seems simple enough; in fact so simple (and perhaps eerily silent), that the Regulation 243 (1) is mirrored in Shoalhaven Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, 3.5.

The only slightly additional comment that I could find on Mayoral Minutes was in the Division of Local Government’s Councillor Guide p. 46, and the Division of Local Government’s Meeting Practice Note August 2009, 2.7.1, p. 14,  which states:

“Mayoral minutes should not be used to introduce, without notice, matters that need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision. These types of matters would be better placed on the agenda, with the usual period of notice being given to councillors” – makes sense.

But perhaps the biggest thing I have been wrestling with is, if we elect Councillors as we have, why, with bundling of matters in Mayoral Minutes, are Councillors essentially being denied the opportunity to vote on individual items, for us as Shoalhaven residents? Democracy?

The Shoalhaven City Council Code of Conduct section 4.4 is quite clear, that decisions should be based on “merit“. But, being forced to vote “holus bolus” one way or the other, essentially denies Councillors being able to vote on individual items based on “merit”. And, we need to remember that these could be items that the community had no idea were coming, and that our Councillors are there to represent the community.

In effect, the Mayoral Minute, then can be the perfect way to “bundle up” a whole swag of matters that a “team” may be okay with (although caucusing is not allowed) and may provide the perfect platform to politically influence outcomes.  

A suggestion of a more transparent way, would simply be to de-bundle the items in the Mayoral Minute; ie; one Mayoral Minute per “matter” or allow individual voting on matters; and where possible, in the interests of “openness and transparency” allow the public and Councillors the opportunity to see the Mayoral Minutes with at least some reasonable notice prior to the meeting. Mayor Gash said in her first meeting as Mayor, that perceptions were so important and so was building trust; no arguments from me there – the actions just need to match the words.

I rang the Division of Local Government to get some preliminary advice regarding Mayoral Minutes, and it seems there is no precedent. 

A quick google search of “Mayoral Minutes” of about thirty different Mayoral Minutes from other Councils shows a definite trend to one Mayoral Minute per “matter”.

While Shoalhaven Council’s Code of Meeting Practice policy came up for Review at the Policy and Resources Meeting on 13th November 2012, Clr Findley raised the issue of multiple matters being in the Mayoral Minutes, and from the perspective of a public member in attendance (okay, the only one at the time), neither Joanna Gash or the General Manager gave the impression at all that there might just be a problem with the multiple items in the Mayoral Minutes, which I think is amazing.

Consider the following that was in a recent Joanna Gash MP Media Release “Gillard clearing the election says Gash“, on the Gilmore website. Note my emphasis is underlined:

“Mrs Gash said that even in the closing stages of Parliament this year, the opportunity for debate has been severely limited.

 “Just on Wednesday this week, the Fair Work Amendment Bill was introduced with just 24 hours notice to consider the far reaching and crucial changes of the Bill.

 “That’s not democracy – that’s manipulation and the government should be condemned for its cynicism towards the Australian people”, Mrs Gash said.”

Ahhhh, yes, the “D” word – democracy in action – love it.

Back to Shoalhaven land, where democracy should always be encouraged then…..In my mind, it could be strongly argued that the emphasis is on the singular “matter” in the Mayoral Minute, which also seems to fit with the Shoalhaven Councillor Code of Conduct, for Councillors needing to make decisions based on “merit” – afterall that’s what we’re after isn’t it – the best outcomes based on “merit” for the Shoalhaven?

In the interests of “merit” and openness, I think it’s definitely time for policy relating to Mayoral Minutes to be reviewed, both at the Division of Local Government level and for Shoalhaven City Council.

Note: The second Ordinary Meeting of Shoalhaven City Council, on 26th October 2012, also contained a Mayoral Minute with “bundled” matters. All in all, four matters concerning ten sub-matters. Check out some of the issues.

• changing Council’s previous direction of providing no comment to the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing with regards to an application to increase the number of pokie machines for a local club. (A bit of history – the issue was quite controversial at the 31st July 2012 meeting with a strong business, community and media contingent present to argue and hear the discussions – the case for Council writing and not supporting the application versus not writing, not interfering and letting the NSW OLGR decide the application)  The Mayoral Minute on 26th October 2012, changed to Council supporting the increased number of pokie machines, on the proviso that if the application was successful, $25,000 would be donated by the Club to the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation and $50,000 for the West Ulladulla Sports Park……..
• the decision to proceed with plans as discussed at the Councillor Briefing for the Ulladulla Civic Centre
• calls for Reports and requests for waiving of fees.

all “bundled”…….”democracy”? 

Just how big is that opportunity cost?

How much is your “time” worth? If you weren’t spending your time on something, what would you be doing, and what have you forgone to do X?

I’ve always been fascinated with “opportunity cost” and how it works. As an impressionable sixteen year old when first introduced to the topic in Economics, it just made sense. In fact, the whole world of Economics made sense, so much so, that I troddled off and studied Economics for a few years. But, I never ever forgot that first lesson about opportunity cost.

So at Shoalhaven Council’s Policy and Resources meeting 13th November 2012, when the Report showed that by Shoalhaven Council running the recent Shoalhaven local government election themselves, rather than the NSW Electoral commission, that it saved around $100,000 for ratepayers, I was thinking “I think there’s quite a few costs that were not being included in that comparison”. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great to have a saving to ratepayers, but if we’re going to compare figures, let’s compare apples with apples and make a rational comparison. Clr Findley was on the ball and “took the words right out of my mouth” – with words to the effect “have we costed for the provision of office accommodation even though the accommodation was at Council, or for Council staff time involved in the election?” A bit of a debate; sort of went like this – “no, we haven’t included those costs as it’s just part of what we do and we had the space” “Oh lordy”, I thought. “Opportunity cost“, I wanted to yell at the top of my lungs, but instead just had a few silent words under my breath.

At the start of the night, there was interesting debate about “how much” is appropriate for Councillor training with an actual example which appears to have been knocked back although well within the amount budgeted for Councillor training (but the meeting was reassured it wasn’t personal – thank goodness for that!). Councillor training is always a hotly contested issue in public, and yes, in these times of local government “doom and gloom” that we seem to keep getting told lately, the debate was interesting.  Clr Findley promoted the benefits of Councillor training, like knowing what questions to ask for example of a Finance Report, to ensure that the best decisions were being made for ratepayers; remembering that these decisions can have long lasting implications for the Shoalhaven’s future. Anyway to cut a long story short, the training didn’t get passed, and I think it was agreed (the small amount of Councillors that were present at the meeting) to limit the training to one or two day local government courses, or something similar.

The thing is, some of the one and two day courses can cost a “motza” , while some of the longer courses taught over a period of time can give a more sustained and applied benefit as people learn and go back and apply what they have learn’t at work. I see this most days, when new students start a subject and some will say “what relevance has this got to me“, but by the end of the subject students perspective can have changed dramatically; imagine over a period of years the change being more pronounced. But the best result by far, is the students ability to question why things are so, and then you know they have really learn’t. So, I think if Council is going to limit anything, they should limit with a dollar amount, even review the dollar amount if need be, but don’t restrict what and how people can learn, because everyone learns differently and we need Councillors with diverse skill sets able to get the best results for the Shoalhaven.

Anyway, back to the Report:

• How much did it cost Council for the office space? Did someone move out of the office space during the election and what impact did this have on others? How much were contributions for power, phone, etc.
• How much in staff time did it cost to run the election? There were numerous candidate sessions and liaison between the Returning Officer, the General Manager and no doubt other parts of the organisation. How much did it cost to have policies and procedures developed for the election as well as various reports after the election?

They are just a very small snippet of some of the costs; no doubt there would be many more, and we should always cost that in a comparison (just like the cost of training and the benefits it can provide). While staff are working on election issues, they are forgoing working on something else, and that could be to do with a road, a community facility or something similar.

“Chugga Chugga Choo Choo” – DCP99, Huskisson and Community Consultation

[TIC] As your Captain, I thank you for choosing to travel with us. Please ensure you take your boarding passes with you, and also all personal belongings are cleared from the overhead lockers. You will soon be departing through gate 99. We trust you have enjoyed your long and safe journey, enjoyed the company of your fellow passengers, and will choose to travel with us again soon. Next stop ………Chugga Chugga Choo Choo – moving right along! [TIC]

Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 99, has had a remarkable and interesting journey over the years. The issue of development controls and in particular allowable “building heights” in the beautiful and much loved Huskisson, part of the Shoalhaven, on the South Coast of NSW, was always going to naturally have competing interests, like residents, landowners, business, community and business groups. Despite some testing times, what evolved was a five + year journey  of community consultation with stakeholders to get DCP99 as right as possible.

Shoalhaven Council ”came to the party” with consultation sessions and workshops for stakeholders to provide input. In 2007, Council engaged Noni Ruker to develop urban design principles and community and stakeholder workshops regarding DCP 99 (Shoalhaven City Council, 2012, p. 2). The results, along with feedback from the consultation sessions, supported the 3 story (10m) height limit for Precinct 1 Fegan St. 

In 2010 a “Peer Review” of the Ruker study was conducted by Rob Purdon and Associates (RPA) in response to “representations from land owners in Fegan Street……that the proposed height and floor space ratio (FSR) controls would make redevelopment unviable” (Shoalhaven City Council, 2012, p. 2). However both the Ruker and Purdon Reviews supported the three story height limit as a “better design outcome” (Shoalhaven City Council, 2012, p. 7). After all that consultation and no doubt a long journey, DCP99 all seemed, well, settled.

So, what happened? That’s a good question.

Council had already publicly exhibited the draft proposed amendment to DCP99 in early 2012, and the issues of “height” and “FSR” were not for comment, as the 10m height had already been adopted. However, some submissions did comment on “height”, while others naturally didn’t, as height and FSR were not for comment. Some submissions were received supporting a 13m height and this was taken as support for the 13m height. Council then at its Ordinary Meeting on 31st July 2012, resolved to publicly exhibit a draft clause relating to a “bonus provision” for amalgamated lots in Precinct 1, where if certain criteria were met, then Council may consider a maximum height of 4 stories (13m). The bonus clause seems to be in response to submissions and a 4 storey Fegan St development application that was refused by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) on 1 December 2011 as it did not meet DCP 99 in regards to “building design, height restrictions and Floor Space Ratio” as well as a number of other issues (Shoalhaven City Council, 2012, p. 4). The bonus clause also seemed to fit with the supplementary advice provided by Rob Purdon and Associates (RPA) to Council in November 2011, which showed a 3 storey height to “be below the minimum levels of return for a developer to enter into the project” and “limits development opportunities under current and expected short-mid term financial circumstances” (RPA, cited in Shoalhaven City Council, 2012, p. 5).

Going back a bit, at the ”meet the candidates” session at Huskisson prior to the Shoalhaven local election, and I’m guessing again because the issue was such a contentious issue, the question was asked of candidates whether they would support the proposed  “bonus fourth story” for amalgamated lots in Precinct 1 in Huskisson. Several people have indicated that Joanna Gash, at the public forum, said that she would not support the bonus fourth story in the Fegan St precinct at Huskisson.

Then, the Development Committee meeting, Wednesday 7th November 2012, and the Addendum Report of the General Manager recommended “Council supports the inclusion of the bonus clause and adopts the draft DCP……” (Shoalhaven City Council, 2012, pp 1-2) albeit subject to certain restrictions; despite overwhelming submissions not in support of the 13m height. Community members were in attendance strongly opposing the amendment, particularly on the grounds of all the community consultation that had already occurred to get DCP99 over the last five years to the level that was accepted within the community, and based on  good Urban Design principles. The motion to accept the “bonus clause” however was moved by Joanna Gash, the very same Mayoral candidate at the time, that had said publicly she would not support the bonus fourth story. The motion went through, with strong support from Team Gash (apart from Clr Karen Anstiss); and Clr Greg Watson voting against the recommendation. A news item appeared on Radio 2st not long after, headlined “Locals Furious Over Council Support For 4 Storey JB Building“. Keep in mind, this was a decision made under full delegation; yes, Council at its first Ordinary Meeting decided to give delegated authority to the Development Committee, meaning items decided at Development Committee did not need to go to the Ordinary Meeting for approval, therefore, no automatic review mechanism  and one less option for community input (another whole news story coming up soon on delegated authority).

[TIC] So, that’s DCP99, done and dusted – thankyou very much everyone for participating; hope the journey was enjoyable!  Next stop………..Chugga Chugga Choo Choo – moving right along! [TIC]

 [TIC] This is your Captain again. Ground Control have advised we are experiencing turbulence ahead and our journey will be slighty delayed. You are advised to return to your seats and follow the safety directions from your crew. We will be still departing through gate 99, but a rescission motion has been lodged and the matter will be debated again! Seat belts on and hold on tight!” [TIC]

References

Shoalhaven City Council, 2012, Addendum Report of General Manager – Development Committee, 7th November 2012, http://doc.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/displaydoc.aspx?record=D12/264203 Accessed 9th November 2012.

The North Nowra Link Road – what the Public doesn’t normally see and why it’s important

In one hour, Shoalhaven Council will have an Extra-ordinary meeting to vote on a rescission motion about the North Nowra Link Road.

The new Council voted on Friday 26th October 2012 to essentially withdraw support for the Pitt/Narang Link Road option and have a Councillor briefing on the West Cambewarra Road parallel option and also how the Illaroo Road/Princes Highway intersection could be improved.

To put it plainly, the new Council has essentially voted to DUMP the central option, and according to the resolution ONLY wants to pursue the West Cambewarra Road option, and not the other options.

The rescission motion calls for Council to receive a detailed briefing on ALL OPTIONS including the cost benefit ratio for each prior to a final determination being made.

It seems that all is being asked for is for all the facts to be given to all Councillors before a decision is made. This is no “mickey mouse” decision. It is a huge capital project and it needs to be right………

It is difficult for the public to ever have all the information on particular issues like the Link Road. I know I was certainly unsure and would want to read every inch of professional reports, traffic reports, environmental reports, etc, before making any decision. Although I don’t need to make decisions regarding the North Nowra Link Road, I hope I have confidence in the elected Council that they have considered all the Reports (and vote independently). However, something got the better of me though so I decided to take a look at the reports this morning, particularly to do with traffic flow. So, this morning, I spent hours and hours pouring over the information, writing and writing and I was amazed at what I found. I was even more amazed that new Councillors may not have read all the Reports, before making a decision. I would have thought it a very firm responsibility of being a Councillor to consider all the options before making any decision – that line of thinking would seem to fit with the Councillor Code of Conduct, particularly in relation to “integrity”, “selflessness”, “impartiality”, “accountability”, “openness” and “honesty” – indeed a few of those terms came up on election brochures!

In no particular order due to time constraints, here are some direct quotes from the JBA Planning Report North Nowra Link Rd – Response to submissions Report submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure on behalf of Shoalhaven City Council December 2011:

Note: These are the three options:

Option 1 = Central Option Pitt St/Narang Rd

Option 2 = Southern Option

Option 3 = Northern Option – West Cambewarra Road parallel option

“both the TRACKS and Paramics models showed significant improvements to network performance, particularly for options 1 & 2 by removing a significant amount of traffic from that most critical part of the network”.

“The traffic modelling for the North Nowra Link Road was carried out in consultation with the RTA, the RTA is supportive of the methodology used, the outcomes of the model, and Council’s preferred option – being option one.”

“…also a fact (demonstrated through the TRACKS and Paramics modelling) that the NNLR project alone will contribute to improvements to the Princes Highway (particularly options 1 and 2)”.

“The traffic models prepared in support of the EAR are robust, having been prepared under review of a working party comprising RTA and Council technical staff and specialist (AECOM) traffic consultants.”

“Based on the full potential for new housing (greenfields sites and increased densities in existing urban areas) the TRACKS model has predicted a total demand of 39,000 vehicles per day will access the Princes Highway in future from North Nowra and surrounding residential area’s.”

“…and between 6,000 – 10,000 vehicles per day would use a North Nowra Link Road depending on option (in general 6,000 vehicles per day would use the northern option, leaving 21,000 vehicles per day on Illaroo Road; 9,000 vehicles per day would use the central option, leaving 18,000 vehicles per day and 10,000 vehicles per day would use the southern option, leaving 17,000 vehicles per day”.

“Council is keen to ensure that (like the RTA) the State Government will recognise the benefits of the North Nowra Link Road, particularly options 1 & 2 and will allow Council to complete these necessary works which are integral component of the transport provisions of the NBSP.”

“Whilst there may be some debate about whether the North Nowra Link Road is required now (Illaroo Road is currently 18,000 vehicles per day) there is not likely to be much debate when Illaroo Road gets to 39,000 vehicles per day as predicted will occur as consequences of the NBSP if nothing is done to further develop the road network.”

“The North Nowra Link Road Option 1 has been identified as the route option that would best facilitate the growth envisaged for North Nowra under the NBSP.”

“…however the close proximity of option 3 to the MVRDLK means that it is vital to consider whether it (option 3) would be viable considering that MVRDLK was considered a necessary link in the context of the NBSP. That is if option 3 was found to have some merit in traffic terms, would it still have merit if modelled in conjunction with the MVRDLK.”

“All three base options reduced traffic and overall average delays in the critical zone on the highway (Bolong Rd and Illaroo Road), which has a positive impact on the Highway. Option 2 resulted in the greatest reduction in traffic and overall average delay through the intersections of Bolong and Illaroo Roads, closely followed by Option 1. Option 3 showed least reduction in traffic and overall delay through the intersections of Bolong and Illaroo Roads.”

“In terms of new living area’s North Nowra has beed assessed to be able to accommodate 2 new living area’s at Crams Road and Bangalee Rd West, with a total of 1,280 new dwellings envisaged, providing for approximately 18% of growth in new dwellings across Nowra Bomaderrry.”

“Of particular importance under the State and Regional Plans is the expectation of increased densities in existing urban areas over time and this alone is also likely to lead to significant increases in traffic along Illaroo Road” (p. 26)

“The northern option results in the greatest extent of natural vegetation clearing required.” (p. 27)

“North Nowra Link Road options 1 and 2 will results in improved economic sustainability and social wellbeing, without significant environmental impacts.” (p. 29 and 30)

“North Nowra Link Road option 3 will result in limited or no improvement to economic sustainability and social wellbeing and results in unacceptable adverse impacts on the Highway at Camewarra Road”  (p. 30)

“The output Vehicles Kilometres travelled (VKT) and VHT parameters from the modelling of all options indicate that option 3 is the only option that leads to worse VHT conditions…” (p. 31)

“Option 3 results in the highest values of VKT and VHT, and therefore is least capable of all options in complying with the State Government Integrated Land use and transport objectives of minimising network values of VKT and VHT. Because option 3 results in the highest values of VKT and VHT, it therefore has the greatest indirect social, economic, and environmental impacts of all the options (highest overall network delays, highest overall network operating costs, and highest overall emissions) of all the options modelled.” (p. 31)

“Option 2 results in the lowest values of VKT and VHT, it therefore has the least indirect social, economic and environmental impacts of all the options (lowest overall network delays, lowest overall network operating costs, and lowest overall emissions) of all the options modelled, closely followed by option 1.” (p. 32)

“The northern option does not provide improvements to the Highway at Bolong Rd and Illaroo Rd to the same extent that could be achieved with Options 1 or 2, would results in less diversion of traffic from Illaroo Rd, and option 3 is the only option that results in unacceptable adverse impacts at the Highway/Cambewarra Road/Moss Vale Road interesection.” (p. 32)

“The modelling demonstrates that the Moss Vale Road link does not interact well with option 3.” (p. 33)

“Because of the adverse traffic impacts associated with option 3 and because of the close proximity to MVRDLK it is likely that if option 3 were approved no link road would be built (other than MVRDLK)” (p.33)

“This traffic modelling concludes that option 3 is the option which returns the lowest overall benefit across the traffic network and so is least capable of meeting the growth forecast in and around North Nowra.” (p. 33 and 34)

“Option 3 is the only option that leads to failure of an existing intersection (Highway/Moss Vale Road/Cambewarra Road) does not have spare capacity to accommodate an option 3 link road”. (p. 50″

“The traffice modelling does demonstrate option 3 least meets the objectives of a North Nowra Link Road”. (p. 51)

“Given the outcomes of the modelling, and with consideration of the project objectives:

• option 3 provides the lowest benefit to the level of service of the Illaroo Road/Princes Highway intersection
• option 3 provides the lowest benefit in regards to safety and environmental conditions on Illaroo Road
• option 3 has the lowest benefit in providing for access between North Nowra and Bomaderry in a way that satisfies the NBSP growth expectations
• option 3 should not be considered due to the adverse impacts on the highway
• option 3 should not be considered due to the higher overall environmental impacts (higher emissions) which is not consistent with the State Governments objectives to minimise VKT and VHT (option 3 has the highest VKT and VHT of all base options modelled).” (p. 56)

“Considering the very adverse impacts of option 3 (poorest performing of all route options…..” (p. 57)

“Cost estimates for clearing of vegetation are 67% higher for option 3 than for option 1″ (p. 60 and 61)

Very interesting reading indeed!

Bright new (used) vehicle for use on Mayoral duties

In case you haven’t seen it yet, this is the jazzy new (used and private) mayoral vehicle getting around town. It has lots of brightness with sign writing, lots of advertising for Mayor Joanna Gash as well as the Shoalhaven, and the personalised number plates SCC-4U – sure to be seen around town soon!

It should be noted this is actually a private vehicle. Under Council’s Policy “Council Members – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities 3.4:

“The Mayor may provide a vehicle of appropriate standard for use on Mayoral duties or alternatively Council shall provide and maintain a vehicle of appropriate standard for use by the Mayor to carry out the role, responsibilities of the Mayor….”

….with Councillors able to claim reasonable transport costs in respect of “legitimate business within the Shoalhaven and adjoining Local Government area’s on behalf of Council…..”. The rate is set out in the same policy.