Not a shred of evidence?

We all read the CEO’s explanation in the local press last week, about how someone has lost their job because they were critical of the CEO and possibly suggested all was not as it should be in Wallcliffe House. 

Most of you will not have read the detail, but the CEO made it clear that such gossip was not to be tolerated, and he thought it prudent to employ an investigator to inquire into the source of the letter in terms of its production and distribution.

He must have been relieved when his appointed investigator found that there was not “a shred of evidence”.

I doubt if any of us would have any reasons to think that this well-respected consultant was anything other than thorough in her investigations. But should we be reassured by the CEO’s quick action and immediate appointment of an external investigator? Or could there still be other aspects of the administration that might benefit from a forensic review; that might shed more light on the missing shreds?

Is it time to call for an external auditor perhaps, someone capable of lifting the shadowy impressions from those eternal traces that remain on the hard drives?

Does finding “not a shred of evidence” mean that there never was any shred of evidence, or even any un-shredded evidence. No, of course it doesn’t. It just means that there isn’t any evidence available NOW.

My experiences in recent months indicate that the records the shire administration maintain in Wallcliffe House may not record the whole truth about many things.

I had damage done to my reputation, and accusations relating to my lack of integrity and poor judgement, were made to the media by the shire.

False statements, denying that my opinion was based on sound evidence, were emailed to the media by the Shire of Augusta Margaret River, Marketing and Public Affairs Officer.

At no time did she attempt to clarify any of the issues raised with me, and the shire made no attempt to advise me that they had corresponded with the media about me. The media comments were made covertly. Other community groups may well have had similar experiences.

I was advised by one of the recipients of the email and I then made contact with the shire to request sight of what had been said, this was then provided to me;

From: Tessa Dornan

Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2011 9:04 AM

To: Geoff Broad

Subject: RE: Karridale Planning - Briefing note sent to ABC SW

Yes, just the below. I sent it to Warren as well.

Please see below for some background information:

·       There has been no approval for holiday homes

·       There has been no approval for subdivision

·       What has been approved is a long term planning strategy that identifies land to the west of Bussell Hwy as an Investigation area.

·       A lot of pre planning and further community consultation is required before anything more happens. A District Water Management Plan needs to be prepared to determine sources of water and waste water disposal.

·       The land proposed for development is intended to provide for the growth of Karridale as and when required and for permanent residents including provision for some minor commercial expansion.

·       Heather Mathews assertions are providing a false indication of what is really required.

·       A Leeuwin Ward Planning Day is something the Karridale Progress Association is conducting and is not facilitated by the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River.

Tessa Dornan

Marketing & Public Affairs Officer

======================================================

To clarify one comment, at no time did I provide any indication of was required, other than community consultation, and a strategy that addressed the economic and social impacts of development.

This was in 2011 and I was not aware that a second Hamlet Strategy had been prepared and sent to the WAPC in February 2011, before this briefing note was prepared. This second strategy proposed development both sides of the Bussell Highway, and with no commercial development at all, it was endorsed in July 2011 and the demand for housing was predicated on “investment/secondary holiday homes”.

Most concerning was the fact that within the email the Marketing and Public Affairs Officer clearly stated that the Leeuwin Ward Planning Day was not something the shire was facilitating. In fact Paul Gravett, Community Development Manager, and his team, planned and facilitated the day, in conjunction with Jane Manning, from the SW Development Commission.

The Shire of Augusta Margaret River partially funded the event along with the Augusta CRC. The Karridale Progress Association had nothing to do with facilitating or funding of this event, nor had I ever claimed any involvement, our only interest was in getting the media to promote the event and get people to attend.

The Marketing and Public Affairs Officer stopped any media coverage. This was a deliberate attempt to suppress any news coverage of an event that the shire was funding and facilitating. This should be a matter of concern to all of us, not only those who live in the Leeuwin Ward.

Our rates were spent on shire staff organising an event that some other shire staff, we were also paying, were suppressing any media coverage for!

Can any of us understand why this would happen? Can anyone provide a plausible explanation?

Are we all comfortable with the value for money aspect of that?

How many similar instances are there each year?

Maybe a cull of Community Development and Marketing and Public Affairs could create some savings?

In response to my formal complaint regarding this matter the CEO expressed the opinion that this unfortunate email was merely “unintentional”. Can any of us imagine a set of circumstances that might give rise to such an unintentional email? And if we can then how many others might there be. How many other unintentional actions are we paying for?

However, to return to the basic concept as to whether not having a “shred of evidence” proves anything at all.

I made a FOI application in order to obtain the full text of the original email. The response was that it could not be found. I requested that a search be made of the back-up computer files, and was then told that any document or email within the shire administration will only be retained if the originator expressly requests it is archived. A thorough search was made of the mailbox concerned and no trace remains in Wallcliffe House.

No record retained means; not a “shred of evidence.” Voila – in the clear!

The same strategy was attempted by Richard Nixon and much later by the executives at Enron.

No shreds of evidence doesn’t always mean no shredding of evidence, and no retention of evidence doesn’t mean that an action wasn’t taken.

Before we relax and become mesmerised by the swift actions that the CEO has taken to protect his reputation we must be confident that the records the investigator had made available to her were in fact a full set of records. Without a full set of records any investigator will require significantly more time than Mrs Anne Lake has spent in order to reconstruct the truth.

Administration is such a dull word, but even whole nations can have scams perpetrated against them if the administration is not conducted with proper checks and balances, if every document is not recorded, every email retained.

Having no evidence does not prove that an event or action did not happen.

So what was the motivation for the Marketing and Public Affairs Officer to act this way, to deliberately reduce the potential for the Leeuwin Ward Planning Day to be promoted through the media?

Anyone care to speculate as to why she did this? 

Maybe the former Marketing and Public Affairs Officer might read this and comment for herself.

Why our rates were being spent on staff and resources to host a planning day that the shire spent more resources denying?

If Mrs Anne Lake was called to investigate she would find not a shred of evidence that such an action occurred, but on other computers, outside of Wallcliffe House, the evidence remains and it isn't going away.