PART 16: THE TOOLS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The City of Armadale Local
Government has long practised the following techniques for hiding its
activities from the public gaze:
16.1 COMPLICATION
"The act or process of
complicating; the state of being complicated; intricate or confused relation of
parts; entanglement; complexity."
The strategy is to make a simple issue as complex as possible so that any opposition to the issue must be directed at several streams of focus.
This ensures the issue cannot be dealt with simply in meetings via public questions because time constraints (2 minutes per question and response) prevent the public from adequately addressing each stream.
In some areas of governance, local laws address similar matters as do state laws, adding complexity to an already complex compliance environment
Most local laws do not contain definitions of terms used, thereby establishing opportunity for the local government to determine its own definitions on a case by case basis. This can lead to prosecutions on fine technical grounds, placing a hapless public in dire straights before the courts.
The City of` Armadale has a track record of "win at any cost".
Don't believe it ?
See: SUPREME COURT APPEALS CASES:
MERRICK -v- CITY OF ARMADALE [2013] WASC 175
CITY OF ARMADALE -v- MERRICK [2014] WASCA 125
CITY OF ARMADALE -v- MERRICK [2014] WASCA 125 (S)
CITY OF ARMADALE -v- CHAPMAN [2012] WASC 423
CITY OF ARMADALE -v- HENDRY [2013] WASC 422
LIBERAL
PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (WESTERN AUSTRALIAN DIVISION) INC -v- CITY OF ARMADALE
[2013] WASC 27
16.2 OBFUSCATION
"Obfuscation is the
obscuring of intended meaning in communication, making the message confusing,
willfully ambiguous, or harder to understand."
Agenda papers often leave out vital information, which is not then recorded in meeting minutes
Agenda item numbers change to different numbers when dealt
with by Council. Minutes of Council meetings often refer to business by
item number only, with supporting detail remaining buried in Agendas or Minutes
of Committee Minutes under a different item number- i.e. to an ordinary reader,
the Council Minutes are fairly meaningless without the corresponding Committee
reports.
Justifications recorded in reports and minutes are often irrelevant and lacking in detail – e.g. references to vague policies
In many cases the origin of an item of business is not disclosed – i.e. "why is this expenditure essential" or "who sponsored this item" ?
Apart from land-use rezoning applications, the process by which items of business are dealt with by the executive and thence put as submissions to Committee thence Council are never revealed.
16.3 AMBIGUITY
"Something, particularly words and sentences, that is
open to more than one interpretation, explanation or meaning, if that meaning
etc cannot be determined from its context."
Local laws and policies often overlap and say the same thing but in different ways arising to different meanings
Language used in local laws is unclear and vague. Most of the City's Local Laws do not contain "objects" - vital to interpretation and application.
Directions to ratepayers for
waste disposal via tip passes, rate notices, tip-site signage and the City's
website all say different things
16.4 TIME
Issues may be put on hold until the public forgets
Dissenters die, relocate to a different local government jurisdiction or simply fade away while an issue is mothballed until the time is right to reprocess. Some of the issues have been current for up to 35 years and may re-emerge at any time with 72 hours' notice.
The current Mayor, Henry Zelones AO JP, can demonstrate service on Council in roles as Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Committee Chair and Councillor since 1990 – i.e. 25 years.
The CEO, Mr. Ray Tame, was appointed in 1998 and prior to that was Executive Director Technical Services.
Their most outstanding visible achievement - construction of the five story landmark building "Orchard House" - is recorded for posterity in a video presentation hosted by the political lobby group NGAA (National Growth Area Alliance) at http://ngaa.org.au/about/
This building underwrites the City's claim to be the dominant regional local government (which it is). During its short history, it has morphed from an intended regional local government administration centre to a "business investment" property.
In terms of "time" this yet another short notice project that emerged from nowhere and completed without community involvement.
One other such short notice project emerged in the late nineties, when Council unexpectedly announced it intended to rezone and "urgently" sell a parcel of land known to the community as a "park". The affected community was given the minimum statutory 72 hours' notice of the matter being put to Committee.
However on this occasion, the community reacted against the proposal, believing they had been swindled by Council, and called a Special Electors Meeting – the first under the Local Government Act 1995.
That meeting eventuated out of frustration
by several dissenting Electors being muzzled/dismissed in Council when asking
Public Questions on the issue.
The questioning sought rational
justifications for the decisions of Council.
For the full story see Special Meeting
of Electors 23 March 2000
Significantly, current Mayor Zelones, being the official who formally led the recent draconian changes to Standing Orders between 2014 and 2016, was recorded in the minuted record as "Chair - Development Services Committee" – i.e. the chairperson of the Committee who recommended the rezoning and sale of the land.
It is a matter of public record that Mayor Roger Stubbs AO JP, who presided over numerous Council meetings where the public questioned this matter, and presided over that Special Electors Meeting, consequently sponsored urgent changes to City of Armadale Local Law Standing Orders 2000 (supported unanimously by full Council) to bind the public with threats of criminal prosecution with heavy fines if they chose to "speak adversely" about Council or its officers or their actions.
Significantly, demonstrating "attitude", the Person Presiding (Mayor Stubbs) ruled (before the Special Electors Meeting even started):
thereby cutting the Electors off at the pass.
Notwithstanding this was an entirely reasonable request by Electors to a Council claiming "openness and transparency", this "ruling" from the Chair was designed to prevent Electors introducing spontaneous RELATED matters that might arise during the meeting but for which the City was not pre-prepared. This information could have been provided to the sponsors earlier, who could then have Amended their Form 1 appropriately. But that was not to be.
Later in that same meeting the following motion was put by Ian Blackburn, Mayor and Freeman of the City.
To this day Council has consistently denied it was ever a park yet, in response to Q5.10 (4), Mayor Stubbs stated: "Though Lot 60 was zoned for a park....."
Significantly, the
will of the Electors and Public (vox populi) was ignored.
Even the then
Minister for Planning could not encourage Council to initiate action on this
matter.
The recommendations
from the Special Electors Meeting sat on the table for many years with no
action.
The whole site
remained vacant and undeveloped.
Demonstrating sound
town-planning principles, Council arranged for the subdivision to include a
service road (now Benson Court) to an adjoining block – just in case someone
might want to develop that land in the future.
In September 2004,
the City declared "Council agreed in May 2003 to subdivide the lot to reflect the Special
Use and Parks and Recreation division. Steps are currently being taken to
subdivide the property and a proposal to develop the adjacent Lot 100 (to the
north) with access through the SU zoned part of Lot 60 has been approved by
Council."
At that stage both
the "park" portion and the developable portion (Lot 60) had sat in
limbo for four years – despite originally intended to be sold
"urgently".
Council in its
wisdom also decided to instal a turning area for service vehicles at the end of
Benson Court, with the required land coming from the "park" portion.
The development site
(the Lot 200 portion of Lot 60) was finally sold recently (2017) under the
management of CEO Tame and Mayor Zelones – with unanimous support from Council.
(Note:
Both of these leaders were there at that Special Electors Meeting in 2000, and
at that time directly involved in town planning and directly involved in the
proposal to sell the land.)
The "park" portion – now Lot 201 - remains as it was in 1998.
The saga of this project has been quite complex, involving numerous procedural steps - mostly hidden from public gaze.
One can only speculate as to Council's motives that kept this project alive for 18 years or so and as to why the land was not sold quickly as per the original proposal.
A party subsequently applied for and was granted development approval for Lot 201 for the purpose of constructing a non-conforming medical centre. Full details are at the relevant Development Assessment Panel DAP Agenda and DAP Minutes (29 November 2017).
Significantly, the Chairman advised that it was not a function of the DAP to consider any impact the development might have on either the adjoining Lot 201 or Lot 100 Albany Highway, serviced by Benson Court. In other words, the DAP did not need to consider either any consequences of high vehicular traffic volume in a narrow street servicing a block of twelve residential units or adjoining a quiet park, or that that traffic volume and attendant risk might prevent Lot 201 of ever becoming a park.
Significantly, the Traffic Impact Study considered by the DAP made no reference to traffic volume in Benson Court at all.
This application was formally considered by the City's skilled Executive Administration, Development Services Committee, full Council then the DAP.
It was preceded by a rezoning process specific to Lot 60, that also involved the City's Executive Administration, Development Services Committee, full Council
Such is the system of "checks and balances".
The following questions were put to the Annual Meeting of Electors in December 2017. Official responses are shown in italic:-
Note the explanation "ceded
free of cost to the City" translates to this:-
The City owned Lot 60 in freehold title. It subdivided that
parcel to create Lots 200, 201 and a road reserve to service Lot 100 Albany Highway
(the 12 villa unit development), Lot 200 Carawatha Ave. and Lot 201 - which it
still owns.
It will collect thereby created perpetual rates liabilities
from properties surrounding that land, so what appears to be generosity is in
fact a smart business strategy. One might describe the ceding as a small
capital investment guaranteeing a disproportionate extremely high rate of
return.
A further oral question was submitted to Council via the
Mayor at that meeting regarding the future of Lot 201. The question sought a
commitment to retain Lot 201 as park. The response was in the affirmative.
However neither the question or its response were referenced in the Minutes,
implying Lot 201 is still up for grabs.
Significantly no Councillor sought to represent the
community interest at that meeting and no Councillor challenged the validity of
those Minutes when confirming them in a subsequent formal Council meeting.
Whilst this core leadership team, supported by their hand-picked executive officers, can demonstrate long experience, continuity and stability in the City of Armadale Local Government, it is reasonable to suggest their continued presence blocks new blood and opportunity to revitalise the local government, its policies and its practices. As a consequence of their influential political and administrative leadership, action on issues they do not support is unlikely.
Council is well aware of the major issues and challenges within the City's scope of responsibility, however there are many matters which become prioritised to the bottom of the list simply by omitting them from agendas, plans and budgets. To an unsuspecting public, "ignorance is bliss".
The methodology of Council and Committee processes has not changed since 1998 when many of the issues raised here were been presented to Council as opportunities for improvement.
Issues are typically processed in-house behind closed doors
until ready to present to Council or Committee. Not more than 72 hours public
notice is given - which includes weekends. This requires the public to
diligently watch out for unexpected issues arising that may impact or affect
them.
Once Council has made its decision it normally refuses to
re-examine that issue. Councillors are prohibited by law to speak publically
against Council decisions once those decisions are made.
Hence "time" is the enemy of the public.
16.5 MYSTERY
Agenda items appear on Committee and Council agenda papers by a system of smoke and mirrors
There is no process defined in the City Procedures Manual for this process.
The agenda business process works like a carnival shooting gallery - the targets are not seen until they pop up.
Councillors are captive to the Agenda for their meeting and have no role to play in its preparation. They can only discuss and vote on issues that are on the Agenda.
Council is thereby open to manipulation by its executive and person presiding.
Minutes of meetings do not normally record who said what and who voted for or against, leaving the public open to manipulation of information and accuracy of record.
There is no documented evidence
to show how each ward Councillor voted on a particular matter. This advantages
deception of Electors and Ratepayers - i.e. a ward Councillor may pledge to
Electors that he or she will vote in a certain way to support their concerns
but may in fact vote contrary. Unless the public is present to witness the vote
there is no record of what actually transpired.
(Some Councils do record this information for community information)
16.6 DECEPTION
Deception is practised by minuted records being manipulated to tell a different story to what actually transpired or was actually said. This is designed to advantage the City.
Deception is practised by downplaying the importance of
issues and obscuring facts from publications and agenda papers.
Elector meetings have always been advertised in obscure
places using bland language to comply with law but not to encourage Electors to
attend. Minutes of Elector meetings have been hidden and repressed for many
years
Important public information documents are often missing from the City's website
The longstanding DISCLAIMER applied to Committees means asking questions of Committees is a futile and pointless task.
This Disclaimer is not published on the City's website as a
public document but is attached to Committee hard copy agendas for notice to
attendees at Committee meetings. The disclaimer is read by the person presiding
at the commencement of the meeting. Nonetheless a person reading written
Committee minutes at a later time would not be aware of the effect of the
Disclaimer because it is not included with the minutes - i.e. what you see and
hear is not what you get.
On the other hand the minuted
record shows most reports and recommendations from Committees are accepted by
full Council without debate, meaning that although Committee reports are
"provisional" they mostly become in fact reality. So again, unless
and until Council accepts a Committee report or recommendation they have no
standing whatsoever - but then once accepted they become firm and binding on
the public.
16.7 DISCRETION
This is the greatest and most powerful tool of all
Council, Councillors and Officers are given a wide range of SUBJECTIVE discretional powers by various Acts and Regulations - open to abuse and personal bias or agendas
In addition, they also inherit further powers from local laws, policies and delegated authorities
Unlike the Rules of a Court of Law they do not have to give rational or factual reasons for their discretional decisions.
In addition they assume discretional powers they do not have but to correct require appeal to a court, a tribunal, the WA Ombudsman or to a Standards Panel etc
This operating environment creates an unequal power relationship where the public become open to bullying, abuse and manipulation as victims of the system.
16.8 RESOLVE
AND PERSEVERANCE
Linked with "Time" above, the City of Armadale Local Government will not accept defeat.
It has shown time and time again it will sit on controversial issues for as long as it takes to win - i.e. get its own way against public opposition.
It has also demonstrated resolve and perseverance in the courts, where it has spent huge sums of Ratepayer money to defend ridiculous prosecutions.
Consider the case of MERRICK -v- CITY OF ARMADALE where the City issued an Infringement Notice alleging a resident/ratepayer deposited "litter" at the Armadale Waste Disposal Facility - i.e. "The Tip". The core charge was that he put a small amount of clean household junk material in the wrong pile. This was after he had paid the prescribed fee upon entry, received no specific instruction from tip staff and there was no visible evidence of signage directions.
The City sought a $2,000 fine and $7,000 costs in the Armadale Magistrate's Court. He was convicted and fined $150 with xxxxx costs.
Mr. Merrick appealed the conviction to the WA Supreme Court MERRICK -v- CITY OF ARMADALE [2013] WASC 175 and succeeded. The conviction was quashed.
The City could not tolerate being beaten in law by a lowly aged pensioner, so appealed to the WA Court of Appeal - CITY OF ARMADALE -v- MERRICK [2014] WASCA 125. The three judges decided the term "litter" as used in the Litter Act 1979 applies to any place, including the tip face - certainly not the intention of the Litter Act but now enshrined in case law.
However in determining costs the Court determined the City should pay its own costs - CITY OF ARMADALE -v- MERRICK [2014] WASCA 125 (S)
The entire process took around three years and cost the Ratepayers around $200,000
That case has never been publicised by the City to deter other prospective litterers, so what was the point of it all ?
Consider also the case of CITY OF ARMADALE -v- CHAPMAN [2012] WASC 423
EHSAN -v- CITY OF ARMADALE [2010] WASC 369 - the City lost its appeal.
LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (WESTERN AUSTRALIAN DIVISION) INC -v- CITY OF ARMADALE [2013] WASC 27 - the City lost its appeal
PERRY -v-CITY OF ARMADALE [2004] WASC 167 - the City lost its appeal
CITY OF ARMADALE -v- KIRALY [2009] WASC 199 - the City lost its appeal
Consider also the case of a lot of land in Carawatha Avenue, Mount Nasura.
This land was the subject of a Special Electors Meeting in 2000, the result of which was a commitment to create a park on portion of the land.
Sixteen years later the land remains a vacant block and the park is still yet to materialise.
Consider also the case of the Neerigen Brook Reserve in Mount Richon.
A Management Plan was approved by Council in March 2009
Eight years later it is still in draft form and, despite
earnest representations from concerned residents, not progressed beyond draft status.
16.9 BULLYING AND
COERCION
The Local Government Act 1995 prescribes individual Councillors are subservient to their elected leader, the Mayor and to the CEO.
The City's Local Law Standing Orders 2000 ensure this situation is further enshrined in law. They give the Mayor absolute control over meetings - with money penalties for non-compliance.
The
Local Government Act 1995 prescribes at S2.8. Role of mayor or president
(1) The mayor or president —
(a) presides at meetings in accordance with this Act; and
(b) provides leadership and guidance to the community in the
district;
2.10.
Role of councillors
A councillor —
(a) represents the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents
of the district; and
(b) provides leadership and guidance to the community in the
district; and
In other words, in law, the Mayor is given no greater leadership role than any other Councillor
However in practice, Councillors are 'spoon fed" by the Executive and are kept busy by the sheer volume of paperwork before them for processing.
It also suits some Councillors to fall into line
behind their chosen Mayor and take a passive role in decision making. The
absence of debate demonstrates this point.
16.10
ALL
CARE AND NO RESPONSIBILITY
Unlike ordinary mortal citizens, who are personally responsible and accountable in law for what they do or not do, local governments dismiss the notion they might be responsible for what they do or not do, or the consequences of their decisions or actions or inactions.
Translated this means they consider they do not have to clear vegetation or instal firebreaks to comply with the firebreak notices they issue annually to all landowners under the Bushfires Act 1954.
It
means they can conduct a high-level fireworks display in the Armadale CBD on
Australia Day 26 January in the middle of a total
fire-ban imposed upon the public by the City.
Note: The fireworks display is legal though because
the State Government grants an exemption. Fortunately, to date, FIRE has
complied with that decision and the CBD remains intact
It means they can construct roadworks and signage that are inherently dangerous to motorists and pedestrians, ignoring the effect upon driver behavior under the official Road Rules (law).
It means they can construct obstacles on roadways that are inherently dangerous to motorists under the umbrella of “traffic calming devices”.
It means they can design and construct roads that are too narrow, too twisty, too congested. Reference to maps show road reserves are often straight lines – but not the road carriageways constructed by the City. Ranford Road, Forrestdale, is a case in point. Albany Highway from Perth to Armadale is also a good example of making a straight road twisty, creating untold hazards for road users.
They like to be creative in bitumen and concrete.
It means they can construct “roundabouts” at intersections that are too small to support that concept.
It means they are not accountable for what they spend or what they do.
It means they can avoid responsibility on the grounds of not being able to afford it – i.e. not do what should be done - an excuse not available to the public, who are often prosecuted for non-compliance.
16.11 CONTROL
Council and Committee meetings are formally and
rigidly controlled under City of Armadale Local law Standing Orders 2000.
Standing Orders are generically intended to maintain
order in meetings but have the added advantage of preventing free expression of
ideas and suggestions.
Councillors may only contribute when speaking for or
against a formal motion arising from a matter presented in the Agenda business
papers.
This has the effect of muzzling Council and Committee
members for the purpose of preventing dissent.
Because Standing Orders are (unnecessarily) a local law, they MUST be complied with – under sufferance of penalty
For further reading on this subject see Section 17: Standing Orders
16.12 INTIMIDATION
The psychology of "intimidation" is complex
but its intent is to create fear and trepidation.
In
the case of the City of Armadale – and others - the way it is effectively
applied in Council and Committee and Elector meetings is via the room layout
and seating arrangements – supported by the threats to behavioral breaches
created by City of Armadale Local Law Standing Orders 2000 and Policies EM6:
Public Question Time and Policy EM12: Orderly Conduct at Meetings.
The
meeting room is arranged as in a Court of Law, with a prominent elevated bench
at the front facing those present.
The
bench is populated by the Person Presiding and CEO – indicating the joint power
sharing of the leadership.
The
Council or Committee, together with Executive Officers, is seated in a
horseshoe shaped configuration such that all are facing the Person Presiding.
This
creates a one to one dialogue between the Person Presiding and the
second-party, or a one to all between the Person Presiding and all those
present.
This
creates an environment where the Person Presiding is in total control of all
activities and dialogue during the meeting.
In
the case of Public Question Time, the questioner is limited to ONLY
"asking" a brief question, with no right of reply to an
unsatisfactory response.
In
this environment the public is expected to remain silent throughout proceedings
and to show respect in oral interfaces and behavioral conduct.
i.e.
the public are expected to symbolically "kow-tow" to the meeting
"Kowtow, which is borrowed from kau
tau in Cantonese, is the act of deep respect shown by prostration, that is,
kneeling and bowing so low as to have one's head touching the ground"
Note: City of Armadale Local Law Standing
Orders 2000 as amended December 2014
prescribes:
3.4
(2) Every petition shall be
respectful and temperate in its language and shall be presented
to the Council by a member only, who shall acquaint himself with the contents
thereof and ascertain that it does not contain language disrespectful to the
Council.
Penalty
$5,000
(1) Any member of the public addressing the
Council or a committee is to extend due courtesy and respect to the
Council or committee and the processes under which they
operate and must take direction from the person presiding whenever called upon
to do so.
Penalty
$1,000
Public
participation in considering matters is prohibited.
The
"them" and "us" mentality also prevails. Anyone attending a
Council meeting will see the atmosphere immediately before the meeting is like
a sporting team celebration after a winning match.
That
is to say, before the event, Councillors are happy little beavers. But upon
meeting commencement submit themselves to a set of self-imposed intimidatory
rules that are designed to cast aside their rights and obligations.
The
public however are excluded from the happy family but included in the rules.
FEAR:
The Oldest
Tool of Power - "If you are distracted by fear of those around you it
keeps you from seeing the actions of those above"
Source: X Files - 20 March 1996
16.13 NON-FEASANCE
Misfeasance, non-feasance, and malfeasance are types of failure to discharge public obligations existing by common law, custom, or statute.
·
Nonfeasance is the
failure to act where action is required—willfully or in neglect.
·
Misfeasance is the
wilful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.
·
Malfeasance is the
wilful and intentional action that injures a party.
At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with
reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the
discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an
action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in
discharge of the duty; but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by
action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed
by the statutes.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance
For a full explanation and legal
position re non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance see:
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council [2001] HCA 29; 206 CLR 512; 180 ALR
145; 75 ALJR 992 (31 May 2001)
BOCCE PTY LTD -v- CITY OF STIRLING [2014] WASC 4
NEILSON -v- CITY OF SWAN [No 2] [2007] WASC 278
MISFEASANCE:
Misfeasance in public office is a form of intentional tort. It is the only tort recognised by the common law that has an exclusively public law operation. It has been described as 'a very peculiar tort'.
Although the tort is over 300 years old, it can be properly described as an emerging and evolving tort. Despite being the subject of hundreds of decided cases, considerable uncertainty attends each and every element of the tort.
The elements of the tort are:
- the defendant must be the holder of a public office
- the defendant must have purportedly exercised a power that was an incident of that office
- the defendant's exercise of power must have been invalid/unlawful
- the exercise of power must have been productive of loss.
- the exercise of power must have been accompanied by one or other of the following forms of 'bad faith':
- the defendant must have exercised the power knowing that he or she was acting in excess of power AND with the intention to cause harm to the plaintiff (sometimes referred to as targeted malice)
- the defendant must have been recklessly indifferent to whether the act was beyond power AND recklessly indifferent to the likelihood of harm being caused to the plaintiff
- the defendant must have acted with reckless indifference to whether the act was beyond power AND there must have been, objectively, a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff.
Source: Australian Government Solicitor
http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/legal-briefing/br98.html
NON-FEASANCE
The law of non-feasance is a wonderful bonus for public authorities.
In simple terms it means public authorities, including
local governments, do not have to do anything at all.
That is to say, if a public
authority fails to pick up your garbage or repair the footpath or a road then
there is no recourse – unless provable harm (such as "injurious
affection") is caused to the person who commences legal action.
The way it works is that public authorities are given
POWERS by Parliament.
But, in principle, unless a
power is supported by an associated prescribed DUTY then the power is
discretional – i.e. does not have to be performed unless the public authority
decides to discretionally perform it.
16.14 CONTRIBUTION
Hanging
off "discretion" is the concept of "contribution".
This concept applies where a service is provided at cost to the ratepayer or resident but the ratepayer or resident pays only a notional portion of the real cost of providing that service.
Hence the service is deemed to be subsidised, with most of the cost being paid by the public authority, so there is no recourse for failure to deliver as is the case in contract law.
Thus the provision of such services is regarded as "benevolence" by the service provider – i.e. we are doing you a favour by providing this service – you should be eternally grateful". Thus you owe the provider an emotional debt for their benevolence and goodwill.
Furthermore, such services are always provided under terms and conditions that provide an "all-care no-responsibility" environment, such that there is no recourse for lack of or poor performance.
Contributed services are also often provided under a licence arrangement where the service is provided as a discretionary benefit or grant – the recipient is allowed to benefit from the service but has not direct ownership of that benefit.
Consumer laws do not apply to public authorities.
At state level public transport, TAFE and University fees are limited to a "contribution" by the service user. Thus if a bus or train is late, or you fail your exams, there is no recourse.
A typical example at local government level is the access driveway to most properties, where the local government refunds portion of the cost to the landowner. However since the verge is owned by the Crown and managed ("vested in") the local government, the crossover driveway is actually owned by the local government.
Hence if it is damaged by trucks or another public authority (e.g. a electricity, gas or water utility) the landowner has no right of recourse to demand repair. Repair is discretional.
Then there is waste disposal. Another cross-subsidised service. If the local government is not inclined to remove your waste , it will not.
Another is libraries.
If
you are a senior citizen may accept whatever concessions and facilities are
offered – if offered at all – but there is no right to any facility or service.
16.15
LICENSING AND REGISTRATION
Another important tool of local government is
licensing and/or registration.
Licensing and/or registration and is a process for monitoring
individuals, things, animals or activities, including usage and keeping.
Licences are required for a wide range of activities
within a local government district.
Licensing enables a local government to regulate activity within its jurisdiction.
Some licences, such as Dog Registration, Cat
Registration and swimming pools, are issued under delegated authorities under
state legislation, but other forms of license are specific to and limited to
the local government district.
Land use and building are particular areas of intense
regulation under licensing and registration.
Licences are issued subject to application on the
prescribed form and subject to payment of the prescribed fee.
There is no right to a licence, hence licences are
discretional.
Breaching licence conditions may result in
cancellation – with definitely no refund of fees.
In the case of dog and cat registration licences there
is no refund upon the death of the animal.
Registration is a partner to licencing and are often
coupled together.
Registration merely means entering prescribed
information into a Register – subject to conditions of course.
In some cases cancellation of registration usually
means automatic cancellation of the attendant licence.
The tools of licensing and registration enable local
governments to discretionally decide where those governed will live their lives
and how they will live it.
16.16 FUNGICULTURE
"Fungilculture" is the science of cultivating fungi
– in particular "mushrooms".
Mushrooms are kept in the dark and fed on BS –
commonly described as "spin".
One of the tools of the City of Armadale is the media
unit, who feed the media with material complimentary to the City's
administration.
In particular, the glossy "City Views"
magazine is widely distributed.
The City is fortunately supported by a friendly local
press, who historically rarely – if ever – publish articles critical of Council
or its Executive.
http://epaper.communitynews.com.au/epaper/viewer.aspx
Articles tend to be "happy family" features
focusing on positive events in the community, general information, sporting
events or the City's new infrastructure projects – and lots of advertising.
http://www.yourlocalexaminer.com.au/armadale/
However despite articles about community crime,
accidents and state politics, it seems the City's local government itself can
do no wrong.
The local press has never crusaded against – or even
highlighted - overspending, excessive borrowings, reckless management or bad
planning decisions by the City of Armadale.
On the few occasions where ratepayers have risen to
collectively protest – such as the rebellion against excessive rates in Piara
Waters - the press blandly reports such events in a manner which downplays
their significance.
None of the issues raised in several Special Elector
Meetings held in the City of Armadale have been supported by the local press.
It is fact that details of crucial events leading up
to and consequent to the banning of myself have been reported in Council
MInutes but never mentioned in the local press – so much for protecting the
free speech which the press industry claims as a fundamental right for itself.
It is claimed by the media industry throughout the
world that a free press is a keystone of democracy, protecting and defending
civil rights to free speech and fair electoral representation.
It is noted that in recent years the Mayor's photograph
is often displayed alongside articles to which he has either little or no
relevance – a curious method of reporting.
It is also noted that despite free access to Council
and Committee Minutes and meetings, and opportunity to interview Councillors
and citizens at any time, those mechanisms appear to be ignored.
In other words, the reporting policies of the local
press are an extension of the policies of the City of Armadale and cannot be
relied upon for accurate or complete information to the community it purports
to represent.
Here is a recent example of how this works:
The statement; "They can do so at any time they
wish (myself excluded) by attending Council meetings" is pure,
unadulterated spin.
·
There is no
provision for any person to address Council during a meeting. Speaking is
prohibited.
·
Council will
accept a question during Public Question Time but a question is not
presentation of an opinion or argument supporting that opinion.
·
A questioner is
prohibited from speaking to the response
·
Council will not
respond to the same question more than on one occasion
·
A petition may be
discretionally tabled by a Councillor. Such petition may be discretionally
referred to a committee.
·
Petitions count
as one submission, regardless of the number of signatories.
·
The issue is
essentially a survey. If Council was really interested it would advertise for
public submissions.
·
The Mayor represents
only one ward and is entitled to one vote only.
·
The City of
Armadale Council refuses to allow a "Public Statement Time", which is
the proper forum for such submissions.
It may be speculated that given the substantial
advertising revenue paid to the local press by the City, silence is voluntarily
granted by the press as an expression of gratitude. Alternatively, they may
simply share similar political ideologies that include keeping the public in
the dark.
On the other hand, despite its considerable
advertising revenue contribution, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale has
received consistent adverse commentary from that same local press.
The lack of critique of the City of Armadale imbues
ratepayers and residents with a feel-good attitude of confidence towards their
local government, which assumes that because the press has no interest all must
be well.
The end result is an uniformed, ignorant Armadale
community, oblivious to the workings of their local government.
Meanwhile the show goes on.