Council members to go back to school
By Bonnie Malkin Urban Affairs Reporter
SMH, December 9, 2005
ALL of the state's councillors should be professionally trained in their roles and responsibilities within six months of being elected, an investigation into local government has recommended.
The call is made in a damning report by the deputy director-general of the Department of Local Government, Ross Woodward, on the workings of Brewarrina Shire Council, published yesterday.
It follows months of concern over the ability of untrained councillors to properly assess development applications and understand complex planning guidelines.
The inquiry into Brewarrina Shire was carried out by Mr Woodward in May. In his investigations, he said, he found that some councillors did not understand what their jobs involved.
"They do not appear to be able to distinguish between policy-making and operational matters," Mr Woodward said.
"Councillors have involved themselves in minor administrative matters that should be dealt with by the general manager in the day-to-day operations of council."
Mr Woodward also found some councillors did not understand meeting procedure, and recommended the Department of Local Government provide councils with guidelines on how to conduct meetings.
"I am not satisfied that the procedures at council meetings are being conducted in accordance with the act and the associated regulation. There has been a failure of the mayor and the general manager in this regard."
The department should also investigate how to manage conflicts of interest between councillors and council staff who work as contractors for Brewarrina Shire Council, he said.
Mr Woodward has given the council six months to implement the report's 33 recommendations, which include reducing the number of councillors from 12 to seven. If it fails to enforce the recommendations in time the council should be sacked, he said.
The Minister for Local Government, Kerry Hickey, said it was unacceptable for such a small council to have so many problems, and the department would monitor Brewarrina over the next six months.
The president of the Shires Association of NSW, Col Sullivan, said compulsory training was a good idea.
"Most councillors struggle with understanding the Local Government Act, particularly in the matters of planning, and certainly some require training in financial management."
Hi,
Thought you might be interested in the whole report and why that particular Council was investigated.
It goes to show that if a Council is not working properly the Dept Local Gov. jump to the occasion
Steve
Ps if anyone would like a copy of the report, please email sevans@bigpond.net.au and I will email the pdf file (1.2meg) to you
Hi Steve,
Lovely to hear from you. And thank you kindly for the report attached.
But there were a few lines included in this report/article which related to NSW Councils generally:
Please bear in mind that the Department of Local Government cannot thoroughly investigate all naughty Councils at the same time. With the move to Nowra, the department was, I understand, 'downsized'. Some Council matters warrant a full independent and public inquiry, especially when it is evident that the DLG is involved in legal irregularities with a particular council (such as with the quarry purchase). Inquiries also usually take some time to organise, and their planning is usually a long battle - regardless how obvious the need for one is. Some investigations are even delayed for some time, as the foundations can rely heavily on an initial phone call to the General Manager - who can fend off the investigator for some time if he is convincing enough.
It was a pity you were not there on Wednesday night. I hope that all is well with you. Peter Waite was in his usual form, and touched on some of the problems raised in this report - and their similarities with our Hornsby Shire Council.
Yours in good faith,
Hi Lucy,
At Hornsby Council, we are well aware of the need for training and there are a number of us that continually do training sessions each year.
When it comes to DA's, yes, a greater understanding would be an advantage, for myself, I have worked with a lic. builder in the past, renovated an old home under his guidance, done courses in descriptive geometry and drawing, I have a better understanding of DA's than most, but am only to happy to say "I need more training".
Each Councillor has a unique ability that they bring to the chamber and, I believe, makes our Council, a cut above the others.
If the DLG only investigate "naughty councils" then they have no reason to come to Hornsby, It was a pity you were not there on the Wednesday night that the auditor gave his report to Council, no question went unanswered, and no one, not even our best financial critic could falter his report.
The report, I believe, showed us to in good condition, well balanced, and as the auditor hinted, in the top bracket of well run Councils. ( with over 25 years of experience in auditing councils, (several as i understand it), He is more than qualified to give us this rating). By the way, if Peter Waite was in his usual form, then I doubt if I missed much as I find very little of what he says, worthy of attention or retaining, I have very little respect for him and he has been told that by me to his face.
The statements like "it is evident that", "legal irregularities", need to be answered, I need a copy of the legal irregularities, the name of the person who determined the legality and the information that was supplied to the law firm that was used to identify these "legal irregularities", without this information, no one can say "it is evident", however, one can say it is my opinion and that's all it is, till proven otherwise, an opinion.
The remarks about the GM... This may supprise you, I was determined that when I became a councillor, I would work hard to remove the GM from office, this was based on the letters to the Advocate and articles in the paper, it didn't take long to realize that one would have to be an idiot to continually take the print in the paper as gospel, in other words, get the truth and weed out the fiction. I would have to say that I am very happy with our GM.
Below is part of an email sent to a councillor, this is a good example of how one tries to word things to twist the meaning of what is actually stated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Dear Councillor
Thank you for responding to my concerns.
The quarry acquisition is complex and I really appreciate having some dialogue on this issue.
You state
Sthe Quarry site Swas not purchased for the purpose of Open Space.
Attached is a copy of the NSW Government Gazette No. 189 of the 25 October 2002 which very clearly states that under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms compensation) Act 1991S.Hornsby shire Council declares that the land described {currently standing in the name of CSR Limited as registered proprietor}Sis acquiredSfor the purpose of open space .
There are many Council documents that state that the CSR Quarry site was acquired by Hornsby Council for the purposes of open space but the Government Gazette is the most legally binding.
I agree with you that the Valuer General valued the site as 3best use2 and that is how he arrived at this unfair $26 million to compensate CSR. However the Valuer General when making a valuation has to assess what is in the minds of both parties .
"Resident"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply is below,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It took a while to work it out, I now realise why your remarks don't make sense, you cannot take words out of context, you must state the whole lot.
Councillor Findlay is correct in saying it was not purchased for the reason of open space, it was a forced acquisition and as I read it, the land being zoned "open space" meant, it has to be stated, for that purpose, also the Valuer General in valuing it at it's "best use" does give us an avenue to explore our options on what to do with this land.
With the statement below, as you claim it is in the Gov.gazette, we get the impression that council just made a deal, purchased the land for open space and there was no force put on us to do so.
"Hornsby shire Council declares that the land described {currently standing in the name of CSR Limited as registered proprietor}Sis acquiredSfor the purpose of open space ." this is certainly NOT the full story nor the way it is actually written.
To believe the statement below,
"There are many Council documents that state that the CSR Quarry site was acquired by Hornsby Council for the purposes of open space but the Government Gazette is the most legally binding ."
the correct wording must be used, not a revamped statement with a different slant on it.
The NSW Government Gazette No. 189 of the 25 October 2002 very clearly states (note! all the words back in their proper position with the main points as I see them, underlined and bold)
"Notice of Compulsory Acquisition of Land
THE Hornsby Shire Council declares, with the approval of Her Excellency the Governor, that the land described in the Schedule below, excluding mines or minerals within such land, is acquired by Compulsory process in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 , for the purpose of open space."
Now, lets look at the word "Compulsory" - Collins Dictionary - "you must do" "you will do" "you have to do" in other words, with our situation of CSR approaching the Council to off load this land, "Council must acquire" "Council will acquire" "Council have to acquire",... whether we like it or not - FORCED TO ACQUIRE in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.
I am now even more convinced with the information you have supplied , that
1. It was definitely a Forced Acquisition .
2. The Valuer General made a poor decision which we more than likely will have to accept (although miracles can happen).
3. Get the investigation over and when finished, accept the outcome.
4. Stop the winging of what happened in the past, it cost money and is getting us know where, and
5. Get on with the job and resolve what we do with the hole in the ground, if we stay in the past, it is hard to go forward.
The Valuer General when making a valuation has to assess the information that is presented to him, the Valuer General cannot read minds and should not even try.
As to the time taken by Mr Robinson and his report (thought I would get in before the complaints start) this is the response I gave to one person as it has been approx. 21/2 months in the waiting although that's not long, if your patient.
(Patients is a virtue, seldom found in humans, never found in fools)
Do we look for someone else? possibly, we need to look at this if Mr. Robertson is snowed under, but we also need to be careful as certain residents will more than likely attack with " what are you hiding? didn't you like Robertson's answers" "how much longer?" "how many are you going to go through till you get one who will give you the answers you want??"
Whatever we do, we must do in a cool, calm, collective manor, it's the 99.95% of residents that don't speak out but entrust the 10 of us to to do our best on their behalf that we owe it to, to get it right.
I'm not happy with the time taken, no one is, but I do have patience, I want the best result and outcome for that 99.95%, the other 0.05% will never be satisfied no matter what the outcome.
Again, Thank you for the info, it's been a great help
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, we are learning, especially in the area of identifying fact, fiction and twisted "truths".
What we really need is a copy of all the "alleged legal information" that certain people claim they have plus a copy of the documentation that this "alleged information" is based on so that our legal people can go through it, you never know what might occur, just think, if this information does exist, and we see it, there may be something that no one has thought of before, the chances are 1 in a 1,000,000 but miracles do happen .
The fifth point mentioned above is to me the most important one of all, what we do with the hole in the ground and how do we pay for what ever we do if we don't do some form of development?.
It would be very refreshing if we started to receive emails with well thought out ideas on what we could accomplish and ways of financing the ideas
Keep the emails comming, I read them all, answer some and hope that that some day we will resolve the Quarry issue in a way that is good for all
Cheers
Steve
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your reply. What can I say, except that we are on different wavelengths, again!
I am not anti-Council. We are very lucky to have many very experienced, hard-working and honest people in our Shire. And I agree that 'each Councillor has a unique ability that they bring to the chamber'. But every organisation can be improved. Any organisation which sees itself as not needing improvement should be a worry. With regards to 'legal irregularities', one only needs to consult the current legislation regarding compulsory acquisition, and compare it with what actually happened during the quarry purchase (according to Council's internal records). And auditors - serious questions posed to the auditor last year (I understand) still have not been responded to. This is very naughty indeed. Just for the record - I did not make a remark about our own GM in particular. I'm sure our GM seems to be a really nice guy. I just commented about council GMs in general - and how some of them handle the DLG Investigations and Review branch (a reference to some paperwork in my possession).
In response to some statements which you have made:
Hope you're having a great weekend - the weather is really lovely!
Lucy
Hi Lucy,
But every organisation can be improved... just repeating the first line of my last email,
At Hornsby Council, we are well aware of the need for training and there are a number of us that continually do training sessions each year.
I know that the supreme court dealt with the GST, however,
the supreme court did state, concerning the original acquisition the following opening remarks
(The Supreme Court Act 1970, s 65) In my view the Council had a duty under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, s 44(2) to pay CSR compensation in the amount determined by the Valuer-General. That amount was $25,099,500 . That was the only amount determined by the Valuer-General whether inclusive or exclusive of GST. The Statute required the Council to pay that amount . CSR has made out a prima facie case for the relief it sought.
For the purposes of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the Council was an authority of the State in terms of s 4(1). In terms of s 4(2)(a) it was authorised to acquire land by compulsory process since it was so authorised under the Local Government Act 1993, s 186(1). Section 19(1) provided that an authority of the State authorised to acquire land by compulsory process might, with the approval of the Governor, declare, by notice published in the Gazette, that any land described in the notice was acquired by compulsory process . That procedure was followed with respect to CSR¹s land.
I have no doubt that if the supreme court says that it was a compulsory acquisition and that council had to pay the determined amount, then it is as stated.
Yes we are on different wave lengths, I prefer to deal with facts, not opinions.
Your first point is totally wrong , the other five points may come into play IF the first point was correct, do you have the qualifications or any genuine legally proven documents to prove the Supreme Court Judge wrong or that the advertisement in the Gov. Gazette was incorrect ???..
Note the words " Council had a duty ......", " The Statute required.... " the word " COMPULSORY" used three times in the second sentence.
There is a procedure that must be followed when an owner of land zoned "open space" wishes to sell , and unless you can supply legal documentation that says otherwise, not opinions, then, I believe, the only action is that, Council has a duty to compulsory acquire such land, whether you like it or not, "Council had to acquire" "Council must acquire" "Council will acquire" "Council have to acquire",... - FORCED ACQUISITION. My evidence, not my opinion, is the statements by the Supreme Court Judge that is in blue " Council had a duty under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991" " The Statute required the Council to pay that amount" " that any land described in the notice was acquired by compulsory process"
I do believe that no matter what inquiry takes place, there is a small group of people who will never accept the Supreme Courts statements
" It was definitely a purchase, and not a 'Forced Acquisition' " this is your opinion as no legal proof has yet been supplied to me to the contrary. Lets say I have an opinion the earth is flat and no matter what you show me I will maintain that opinion even though I can not prove it. What is common with both opinions? just that, they are both opinions.
Now, where is the documentation I requested, or,, are you telling me, it's the way you have read some documents and have interpreted the information to show irregularities? I am not interested in "one only needs...." as your evidence, as that is again, an opinion. I am talking about your statements and the legality on which you base your opinion on, you did get legal advice to back up your opinion, didn't you?
Glad you seem to like the GM, he is the right man for the job, if that paragraph is a generalization of all councils, then it is sad to think that all councils have had forced acquisitions concerning quarries.
Now, more documentation requested, I want a list of these alleged "serious" questions that have not been answered about last years report, I make no promises, I can only ask, but I will try, ( if questions do exist that have not been answered ), to find out, and also any documentation that can legally prove that - Council did not have a duty under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, - The Statute can not require the Council to pay that amount and - there was no compulsory process, it was just a purchase.
The last three will be impossible (but we must realize that miracles can happen), the first one, if questions do exist, may be possible
Yes it was a great weekend, hope you enjoyed it as well,
On Saturday I had my first breakfast and dinner and my first lunch on Sunday at the Hornsby Dog Training Clubs Christmas party since Tuesday night.
Kind regards
Steve
Hi Steve,
What a detailed response! But I shall not write in length, or we could be here forever!
In reference to your comments about a Supreme Court Judge, the Supreme Court did not make a declaration on whether the quarry site was lawfully compulsorily acquired or not - they just reiterated information supplied to them by both CSR and Council in this regard. They only made a declaration in relation to the GST component in a situation as described by CSR and Council. But there are so many irregularities with why this acquisition was not according to the book, and as yet, I still have had no response to my letter (addressed to each councillor in July) regarding Council's handling of this very expensive purchase.
Just three things (from a long list) which I would love to hear what your opinion is:
To quote from Guidelines for the Compulsory Acquisition of Land by Councils by the Department of Local Government (DLG), Part 4, Applying for the Approval of the Minister and/or the Governor,
'There is no special form of application for the approval to the Minister and or the Governor for a council to acquire land by compulsory process.
Applications, which may be made by letter addressed to the department, must however include the following information and documentation:
1. a copy of the relevant part of the minutes of the council meeting at which the council approved -
a) of the land being acquired by compulsory process; and
b) of the making of the necessary application to the Minister and/or Governor .' (etc.)
And to quote from the Local Government Act,
' General power of the council to delegate
377 General power of the council to delegate
(1) A council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following:
€ the appointment of a general manager
€ the making of a rate
€ a determination under section 549 as to the levying of a rate
€ the making of a charge
€ the fixing of a fee
€ the borrowing of money
€ the voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations
€ the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment)
€ the acceptance of tenders which are required under this Act to be invited by the council
€ the adoption of a management plan under section 406
€ the adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report
€ a decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6
€ the fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on private land
€ the decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work
€ the review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
€ the power of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194
€ a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons
€ the making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister
€ this power of delegation
€ any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.
There was no resolution made by Council to compulsorily acquire the quarry site. Does Council operate by their own rules? Does the DLG ignore state legislation?
The Shire Clerk had no authority to write to the Minister without Council resolution in this case.
Could you please provide me with a copy of the 'judgement' for the compulsory acquisition if it exists.
The valuation report prepared for the Valuer General by his contract valuer, Brian Nicholson, 14 February 2003, states,
³I have specifically enquired of Council¹s Town Planning Department with regard to bushfire identification in the latest map coverage for the subject property and in response I am advised the interim identification is ³bushfire prone² but that is yet to be verified/formalised by the Rural Fire Service. The question of bushfires with the envisaged development proposal is addressed in the most recent submission (Q) received on behalf of CSR Limited.²
³It was suggested by Council¹s Solicitor that I could receive both a further report from Drummond Parmenter in reviewing bushfire aspects and perhaps of consequence a revised valuation from K.D. Wood. Having received no further submission I pursued it with Lesley Finn who requested I speak with Malcolm Drummond. This I did and Malcolm advised he did not intend making further or expanded submission.²
To quote from Planning Manager¹s Report for meeting date of 18 June 2003 , PLN168/03,
³One critical issue is whether a Bushfire Safety Authority would be granted by the NSW Rural Fire Service for development on the quarry site. The Executive Manager, Planning invited a representative of the NSW Rural Fire Service onto the site to obtain informal advice as to whether such an Authority would be granted. After consideration by that officer and his NSW Rural Fire Service colleagues, the Executive Manager, Planning was verbally advised that the Service would not issue a Bushfire Safety Authority ... The representative of the NSW Rural Fire Service advised that this would be confirmed in writing should Council request the same .²
Why wasn¹t a statutory document arranged by Hornsby Shire Council for the Valuer General outlining why the site should never have a Bushfire Safety Authority? Did someone forget?
Kind regards,
Lucy
Dear Janelle,
Thank you for your time in reading my dreadful emails, and for sending me a copy of your questions.
The problem is that Steve (as a politician) and I (as a housewife) both wish to have the last word.
Yours in good faith,
Lucy Bal
Old Mans Valley Centenary Park
Providing passive recreation and relief from residential development.
A 40ha community park for Hornsby's Centenary in 2006
‹ and a lasting legacy for future generations.
Hi Lucy,
So you want to have the last say, in that case I won't answer your next email and I will keep this short.
!. A supreme Court Judge is a Supreme Court Judge because of his knowledge of the law and his ability to apply the law, I can understand your reasoning to twist his statements as you would not be able to continue the argument otherwise. I will accept his wording as is for that reason, he knows the law and how it's to be implemented.
It is hard for me to even think that a Supreme Court Judge would make reference to the various Acts and sections of those Acts without knowing or understanding the meaning of those Acts, the best you can do is twist facts to suit yourself, again, I will stick with the facts as is, not twisted facts or non legally supported opinions.
2. The guide lines you sent to me are interesting but do not alter the following, "There is a procedure that must be followed when an owner of land zoned "open space" wishes to sell , I believe, the only action is that, Council has a duty to compulsory acquire such land". and you still have not supplied legal documentation that says otherwise, in fact, I'm still waiting on all documents requested.
3, For the purposes of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the Council was an authority of the State in terms of s 4(1). In terms of s 4(2)(a) it was authorised to acquire land by compulsory process since it was so authorised under the Local Government Act 1993, s 186(1). Section 19(1) provided that an authority of the State authorised to acquire land by compulsory process might, with the approval of the Governor, declare, by notice published in the Gazette, that any land described in the notice was acquired by compulsory process . That procedure was followed with respect to CSR¹s land.
Again, A Judge does not make reference to the various Acts and sections of those Acts without the knowledge or understanding to be able to apply these Acts.
You can give as many opinions as you like and twist statements to your way of thinking as much as you like but until you can get legal advice that you can use to challenge and prove the solicitors, barristers and the judge wrong, I will only accept,
(The Supreme Court Act 1970, s 65) In my view the Council had a duty under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, s 44(2) to pay 
CSR 
compensation in the amount determined by the Valuer-General. That amount was $25,099,500 . That was the only amount determined by the Valuer-General whether inclusive or exclusive of GST. The Statute required the Council to pay that amount . 
CSR 
has made out a prima facie case for the relief it sought.
Council had a duty to compulsory acquire such land.
Cllr Steve Evans
email: sevans@bigpond.net.au
As one can see, there is alot of fiction thrown at Council, the question is, IF any of these people actually believed in any of the accusations to be true then why don't they act apon their own convictions. These few people who think Council is corrupt should take all their information to ICAC or the Premier's Dept and give this alleged information to them requesting for an "independent Public Enquiry".
I can imagine that this could be difficult to achieve as the "evidence" would need to be credible, not just accusations or fiction.
I don't believe Council is affraid of an "independent Public Enquiry", I believe it would be better for the small group of people wanting an "independent Public Enquiry" to initiate it so that their name(s) will be held accountable for their own actions.