Missing clause?

Are we all comfortable that after our shire have invited us all to comment on a plan or proposal they can change the supporting documents? Alter the records after we have commented. Do any of us spot a flaw with such a dynamic system? It does leave a gaping hole in our controls, an opportunity for a mischievous weasel to get to work perhaps?

Those members of our community willing to give up their time can read an advertised document and make their submissions, and then later the shire can alter the document? Is that right or wrong?

I found something very wrong with such a system.

I reported my fears to the shire CEO, Mr Evershed. Told him that documents sent out for public comment by his planning staff contained misleading and factually incorrect statements. His reply was, “That’s OK, and perfectly normal.”

His argument was that I should read these proposals and as I do so I should note all the facts that are wrong, then write to the shire and they would then correct them. Well, apart from the fact that the documents have already been sent out to over a hundred people to read and his “correction after publication” policy is rather wasteful of everybody’s time, there is the not inconceivable possibility that many of the readers will not know that they are reading something inaccurate.

If the CEO wishes to use the community as proof readers he should be honest about it, and request their help before advertising for public comment. He could also maintain an online schedule of comments from the community so that we all know what errors have been spotted by others.

As examples; a document says, “letter drops were done to ensure renters were notified.” But in fact no letter drops were done. How could say, Jenny MacGregor know that such a statement was factually incorrect? Only those living in Karridale and the planning officers know the truth.

“Workshops were held with the community,” another misleading statement, as the consultation mechanisms outlined in the shire minutes were not followed.

“A local developer, Michael Hale,” he is in fact a member of a Sydney based development corporation.

The documents sent out to support decision making for Karridale planning were so riddled with errors as to make them devoid of any utility as support documents.

If we all comment on a document and then the shire alters it after our submissions have been made should our comments be considered valid? The shire are apparently quite happy to do this, the professional staff see nothing at all strange with such a sequence of events, presumably taking their lead from their leader.

I was concerned about a clause missing from the WAPC endorsed strategy for Karridale, a clause the councillors had specifically requested ;

How many emails about this would Nick Logan have received?

Would every councillor have contacted him, wondering where the missing clause was?

Remember the WAPC endorsed plan doesn’t have the additional wording the councillors requested.

I’ve no idea how many emails Nick received, but he did reply to me.

So that’s all Ok then?

Or is it?

After the plans “currently under consideration” have been commented on then Nick will slip the clause in, amend the records, and he might even remember to mention it at the Council meeting, but those people who have considered the plans and written their submissions based on the strategy that the WAPC have endorsed won't know this.

Do you all feel comfortable that the people spending their time reviewing documents and making submissions did not know that this clause was left out?

Anyone looking at the endorsed strategy supplied by the WAPC today would find “not a shred of evidence” that our councillors had ever requested additional wording. After the council decision is made, the deal done and dusted, the clause can be inserted, the public records changed, and there will be “not a shred of evidence” that anything was altered. (unless we do a forensic review of the hard drives)

Would it make any difference to the outcome? We’ll never know.

Would anybody care at all, it’s only Karridale?

Or is it?

Most of our public records are about small things, trivial local matters; but if they are inaccurate and misleading then our decision making will reflect those qualities. If this is the quality of the documents produced for Karridale then other plans throughout the shire are probably being progressed with similarly misleading paperwork. If an experienced person reviewed the documents thoroughly how many other errors and omissions might be found? If a business ran its administration in this way how long would it survive?