Special Meeting of Electors

Were the Ratepayers & Residents treated with contempt?

Full PDF of the Special Meeting of Electors Agenda with Questions and answers.

Copy of the Shire Agenda Here

Words from a Ratepayer Present at the Meeting

I went to the ratepayers meeting tonight with an open mind albeit not happy about rates heading for sustained high increases over the coming years.

It is obvious that the group of over 100 ratepayers that constitutes the DBRRA was the driving force that led to this “meeting”. As such the 15 questions and 6 motions submitted by them were likely the most, considered, researched and relevant to be addressed.

For these to be dismissed on the basis that DBRRA “ is not an elector of the district” is a blatant insult to Donnybrook ratepayers present and to the 344 that signed the petition. It was literally astonishing as was reflected in the walkout of most people just 10 minutes in.

DBRRA (I’m not a member), could have been advised in the spirit of transparency and cooperation, that an electors name must be substituted for DBRRA questions and motions for them to be addressed. This could have happened in plenty of time. This technicality would have been known as soon as the submissions were collated.

Those that have put their time into these questions on behalf of the wider community must now take a different action and work around and outside of the shire to bring about the accountability that everyone deserves.

I believe this meeting will be seen as an attempt to subvert the process of accountable governance by the most PRIMITIVE methods of evasion. I suspect that when the outcome of this meeting is communicated to the community it will be seen for what it was and that will lead to a review of options going forward.

For councillors (to the degree that they were aware) to endorse this dismissal of substantial ratepayer concerns in this manner is in my opinion an indication that NONE of the endorsing councillors are fit for office. I no longer have an open mind about the trust that can be placed in these operatives. When you see a card coming from the bottom of the deck, it changes your perspective. I don't see how anyone could come away from such a fiasco with anything but contempt, distrust and lack of confidence in the Shire of Donnybrook Balingup.

If tonight was any guide as to the question of probity within the governance of the subject matter of ratepayer concerns, I’m now sure we have a serious problem. I’m up for DBRRA membership as of tomorrow. It doesn’t get much worse than what we saw tonight. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t even have a handle on the subject matters in question.

But for those on fixed income or retired, good luck paying your rates in future years if this is an indication of respect for ratepayers interests. We get the management we deserve. It’s up to the people of Donnybrook to take up the challenge.

Comments from a member of the public - not a DBRRA member.

Questions submitted by DBRRA

NOTE: These questions were disallowed at the meeting as DBRRA is not an elector of the district.

1. Why - after Minister Murray urged careful ‘due diligence’ be done before committing ratepayers to this costly project - were some members of the stakeholder group asked to “PRETEND” to support the project FIRST and do due diligence LATER?
2. Was the stakeholder group shut down because some of its members insisted on due diligence being done first and not later and if it wasn’t shut down because of that then why?
3. Why was the original preferred “Plan A” in the master plan substituted after months of volunteer stakeholder group work for “Plan B” and who made this recommendation?
4. Was Plan B proposed by the Donnybrook Football Club (DFC), Shire President Piesse, Shire CEO or others?
5. Was/is Plan B supported without appropriate ‘due diligence’ by DFC, Shire President, Shire CEO and the current Minister for Sport?
6. Why weren’t the public, Shire Councillors and Minister Murray properly informed that the projects long serving Stakeholder Group had been disbanded after indicating their concern for appropriate ‘due diligence’?
7. Will the Donnybrook CEO call on the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Sport to instigate departmental inquiries into the actions of officials of the Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup to ensure that due processes, procedures, compliances, accountability and transparency have been followed through the process thus far in seeking upfront funds and onward commitments for this project and to ensure the future integrity of all projects being managed and or committed to by people in positions of trust on behalf of ratepayers?
8. Why were the Men’s Hockey club and the Ladies Hockey club forced to relocate from Egan Park to VC Mitchell Park against their will?
9. Troy Jones from the DLGSCI stated at the Donnybrook Balingup OCM 22/09/2021 in his deputation to council “The $6M funding was WA Covid Recovery money and there was no requirement for the DB Shire to co-contribute towards this funding” Why have the Ratepayers and Residents of Donnybrook Balingup not been told this before?
10. The Donnybrook Community Sporting Recreation Events Precinct master plan was presented to minister Mick Murry as shovel ready. What does shovel ready mean?
11. The Donnybrook Balingup CEO engaged Mr Peter Kenyon from “The Bank of Ideas”, who is an expert in governance, why has his report not been made public?
12. When did the CEO receive the Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) for the $6M Covid Recovery Funding and when was this agreement presented to council for approval?
13. When did the CEO sign the Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) as instructed by council at the 23^rd September 2020 council meeting - Agenda Item 9.3.1?
    
14. At what point in time or date, did the CEO, or the Shire President, or the council know that the $6M Covid Recovery Funding from the state government had no requirement for the Donnybrook Balingup Shire to co-contribute $3M towards the funding.
    

NOTE: Why DBRRA has asked these questions on behalf of our members.

• Some members felt that they would be vilified or bullied by asking questions in public.
• This has happened in the past to DBRRA members.
• DBRRA has been threatened by members of the public since the electors meeting.

Motions submitted by DBRRA

NOTE: These motions were disallowed at the meeting as DBRRA is not an elector of the district.

Motion - “We the people gathered here tonight request the Presiding Member of the Meeting (the Shire President) to allow Questions and Motions be submitted from the floor as per the previous Special Meeting of Electors held in September 2017”.

FACT: At the previous Special Meeting of Electors held in September 2017 questions were allowed from the floor by the President.

Motion - That Council move a vote of no confidence in the CEO for misleading council on the funding requirement for the Donnybrook Community Sporting Recreation Events Precinct as there was no requirement for ratepayers to co-contribute $3,000,000 to the $6,000,000 WA Covid Recovery Funding.

Motion - That Council move a vote of no confidence in the Shire President for misleading council on the funding requirement for the Donnybrook Community Sporting Recreation Events Precinct as there was no requirement for ratepayers to co-contribute $3,000,000 to the $6,000,000 WA Covid Recovery Funding.

Motion - That Council accept reasonability for misleading the public on the funding requirement for the Donnybrook Community Sporting Recreation Events Precinct as there was no requirement for ratepayers to co-contribute $3,000,000 to the $6,000,000 WA Covid Recovery Funding.

Motion - That Council move a vote no confidence in the Management Team of the Donnybrook Community Sporting Recreation Events Precinct. The information required by the Sporting Stakeholder groups and the public has not been forthcoming regarding a Feasibility study, Business Plan and Governance Model.

Motion – “That Council investigates the implementation of live streaming of council meetings to YouTube on the basis of open and accountable governance.” Not all members of the public can attend council meetings at 5:00pm and some people have large distances to travel, in some cases more than 100km.

Motion – That Council instigate an independent investigation into the CEO for making misleading recommendations in council agendas regarding the Shires $3M co-contribution towards the state governments $6M Covid Recovery Funding. Then report the findings back to the council and community by the November 2021 ordinary council meeting.