The shire have made much about their information leaflet and responses to the questions asked on social media. But have they really given any answers?
Why won’t the Council fix the potholes on Bussell
Highway?
Bussell Highway is
the jurisdiction of Main Roads. The Shire has logged a request to conduct road
repairs with them.
This is
not necessarily an adequate answer. It merely confirms the AMRTimes reporting of
Cr Colyer’s comment, “I can advise that Bussell Highway is the responsibility
of Main Roads, not the Council.”
Is this
the Walcliffe weasel speaking? And is he saying, “Not my fault, not my problem.”
Giving
us a flaccid phrase intended to distance the shire from all responsibility is
inadequate. Are we supposed to be satisfied that ratepayers have received the
service they deserve because a request to conduct road repairs was allegedly logged.
Was it
just the one request?
When
was that request lodged?
Before
or after that pesky social media nonsense kicked in?
Do Main
Roads have any service levels? Are they adequate, are they being monitored by the shire on our behalf?
None of
this would matter if we had confidence in the shire administration. But many of
us don’t have confidence, and in such times we need explanations that are more
informative and professional; and less like a truculent adolescent sloughing
off criticism with, “Not my fault.”
We need
to be assured that the administration has followed up on any request, and that
any necessary evaluation of the priority for the repairs has been undertaken,
and if necessary pressure applied to Main Roads.
This
shire does not have an effective and efficient administration, the checks and
balances that any business organisation of a similar size would implement in
order to remain viable are apparently absent. When the
Commissioner comes to review our shire he can cut and paste comments from his
Waneroo report;
“There emerged from
all the evidence of council staff before the Commission a clear picture of firm
resistance to change and any criticism of their collective actions or
procedures. ........ over the relevant period the administration was relatively
large. It was nonetheless very set in its ways and very inward looking. Very few
of the staff would readily admit to a mistake or the possibility that the way
in which a matter was approached was the wrong way. .....There was no evidence
to suggest that senior staff learned from the problems that arose. ... in
general sloughed off the criticism as of no consequence or relevance. It is
apparent from indicators of that nature and from this investigation that the
administration at ... was rigid and self-protective. ...Perusal of the officer’s
findings and recommendations could only induce in anyone who has heard the
evidence given to this Commission a strong feeling of deja vu. It is evident from the report that lessons from past
mistakes and experiences have not been learned. For example, references in the
report to a lack of written procedures, unwritten departmental practices, a misleading
report containing factual errors and omissions, unwillingness to take
responsibility for a report, lack of record keeping and a general failure of
management are all problems that have been encountered by this Commission. They
all require to be firmly addressed.”
Back to those questions;
Why is access to
Surfers Point closed for so long during construction?
It was originally
proposed to do the works in two separate sections allowing 12 weeks for Surfers
Point and 12 weeks for Rivermouth, new Rockpools carpark and Rivermouth Road.
We could not continue with this approach due to the lack of cooperation we were
receiving from the public including people driving through and parking in
closed areas.
Why is the Surfers
Point project taking so long to complete?
Incidents of
vandalism and unfavourable weather conditions have impacted the project time
period. The project will still be completed before Christmas.
The
Walcliffe weasel speaks again, with another “Not
my fault,” answer.
Using the linguistic device of, "It was originally proposed...." creates a cognitive distance from the project. Our brains resolve the meaning as neutral, as though "It" just happened, or was proposed by an unknown agent operating outside of their control. A clear unequivocal response would be presented as;
"We planned the project in two separate sections ....."
This makes the weasel words more meaningful;
“We failed to plan the project
adequately. The public relations element was badly handled. We are an inward
looking organisation and we make our plans with no consideration of the
psychology of human behaviour. We expect the outside world to fit with our view
of reality. We are not a learning organisation and are constantly surprised when reality does not adjust to our vision of the world. We did not understand the local weather patterns here in the SW of WA. We have no capacity
to identify risks and threats when planning projects.”
Why is the toilet
block at Riflebutts so big for two cubicles?
The toilet block
located in Riflebutts provides two toilet cubicles, fresh drinking fountain and
the roof provides shade which will be used frequently in summer.
Does
anyone think that there was a genuine attempt to answer the question here?
Have we
become so used to receiving no answer at all that we can be duped into
believing that nonsense words randomly strung together are all we are entitled
to? Remember this is an information leaflet being published to assuage the angry social media mob. But still the shire could not manage to have their copy proof read to ensure it made sense.
English is such a wonderful language that to see it abused in this way is distressing.
I have
no idea why the question was asked. Maybe the person was concerned about the
size of the development footprint, maybe the cost of building. I do know that the
shire has made no attempt to answer the question.
As
obfuscation goes this is a cracker, a text book example, to be shared as widely
as possible.
Previously
my favourite was probably the following. Which took 8 months, and many follow
ups, to obtain;
Q Are there
currently any operational controls within the Shire administration to protect
our Councillors from potentially misleading statements, and references to
obsolete reports, being used to support planning directions and decisions?
A The adoption of the Karridale Hamlet Strategy as a draft
would mean that it has had the same status as concept plan, recently Council
adopted the revised settlement strategy as a final strategy, thereby making it
the relevant document. Any reference to previous or other strategies are now
purely as planning history and should not be considered as policy any further.
This question was sent to Mr Evershed.
Not
good enough at all.
The shire is in such
a bad state now that I doubt anything less than a Commissioner’s Review will
satisfy the local residents, but in the meantime Mr Evershed and his executive team could do worse than spend a little time on a study of psychology, with
special attention to the psychology of language and computer mediated
communication.
No comments:
Post a Comment