Kangaroo Island Council, South Australia
Unexpurgated Personal Statement made at Kangaroo Island Council by Councillor Walkom, Graham, on the 13th of April 2011
Observations as a Ratepayer
1. Over the last few years I have been interested in several of Council’s Projects.
a. These were the
i. KIBRMP – hastily prepared, in part unworkable, and very costly now and future to maintain the works.
ii. American River CWMS – seriously overdesigned and requiring significant future ‘make good’ works for Council.
iii. Development of the Strategic Plan – materiel matters indifferently considered.
iv. $2.6m camping facilities – denial that these will have significant life cycle costs.
b. Meanwhile
i. KI roads (particularly those at American River which I was closely observing) were on fast track deterioration mode due to inadequate maintenance and indifference to contractor damage during the CWMS project.
ii. New subdivisions were developed and handed over to Council without footpaths, with landscaping destroyed by council’s spray drift, and with couch grass growing through the newly paved roads due to use of contaminated road base.
2. Having experience in local government works and remote areas engineering, it appeared to me that ratepayers were getting poor value for money. I sought further information from Council staff: that information indicates a significant lack of decision making information available to prioritise and justify much of the works council does.
3. To address problems such as these, it is necessary to acknowledge:
a. That the problems are real
b. That they need to be fixed – ie that although council is struggling financially, it is dealing with the problems. But what was most of interest was that whilst these issues were apparent to many ratepayers, council was in denial about them.
c. There were however, significant resources put to announcements about how well KIC was going: claims were;
i. Costs were coming down and
ii. Much airplay was given to unqualified audits which have no bearing on efficiency and effectiveness.
Reaping ‘Consequences’ as a Councillor
1. As a newly elected Councillor, I took the first opportunity that presented itself to ask just how well senior staff believed the various activities and departments of Council were going. The response was that I could not ask such a question.
2. My unequivocal obligation as a Councillor is to be properly informed, and to ensure that public monies are not wasted. I again asked how Council was going across its activities. In effect this was again not to answered. I suggested that if we did not know, we may be flying blind.
3. Outcomes from asking such an uncomfortable question were that:
a. The one and only local journal attacked me for asking questions.
b. Further to this, the editor advised me that our CEO was very good: I presumed that this advice was given so that I should do what Island councillors are supposed to do and not question anything.
c. An investigation was had at great expense into, basically, having asked that question in an unpleasant tone. Council engaged a professional investigator and four solicitors to produce a report that said I had breached council’s code of conduct.
4. Does this nonsense do anything to help Council’s poor performance? Not in my opinion – it appears to have been an intentional diversion.
Observations as a Councillor
1. A councillor’s key duties are:
a. To represent the interests of all ratepayers
b. To be properly and seriously informed on issues put before Council.
c. To ensure that public monies (our rates) are efficiently spent.
2. To do this, it is essential to fully understand the matters put before council. Council is meant to be a place of review and policy direction. It is not there as a rubber stamp or to flatter the self-image of any manager.
3. I have asked many relevant questions in my short time on Council. It is obvious that several councillors have asked none. If they are happy with the present state of things, I am not.
4. From my questions and despite the often poor answers given, the following facts are apparent about this Council to date:
a. The administration is gold plated and not an effective money manager.
b. The administration is an unsustainable drain on Council’s resources with redundant sections and vague and duplicate responsibilities. Since the Councils of Dudley and Kingscote were merged in 1996, total staff numbers and costs have significantly increased: what was the point of the amalgamation?
c. There are no budgets nor cost reporting for hundreds of administrative tasks – no tracking of costs and no effective progress reported to Council.
d. Council receives consultant reports from the administration but never the original brief to the consultant – ie we are provided with an answer but have to make decisions without knowing what the question was.
e. I have never seen a business case for any activity or project proposed by council. Money is approved without sound justification. Indeed there is no serious value for money filter applied to most areas of activities.
f. Council does not differentiate between its core (mandatory) business and the subjective (nice to have) activities.
g. Council does not bring its significant administrative staff to book against its activities. Actual costs may therefore be seriously understated.
5. At this point, many ratepayers and councillors will be saying ‘so what?’ – that is normal for all levels of government. But if any level of government said we need to approximately triple taxes – there would be serious protest. The need for such a massive increase indicates inefficiency and begs the question as to whether council is dysfunctional and needs an appointed administrator.
6. Perhaps these facts will gain the attention of those indifferent ones:
a. Just last year our 10 year plan promised ratepayers we would be increasing rates 2%, year on year for the ten years and that council would be “in the black” by 2015.
b. Very recently Council is told that this might now be 10% pa or in effect a near tripling of what we now pay.
7. Why are we so inefficient?
a. “The basic idea of a well-run government program is to have clear goals; have a plan to meet those goals; measure progress along the way against those goals; change your program when necessary so you can still achieve those goals.” Neil Barofsky, chief auditor of the US TARP stimulus program who quit in disgust saying that the M.O. for TARP was to “pretend that the program was a success even though it is not meeting those goals.” Sounds familiar?
b. The new Council resolved to review its Strategic Plan – the administration ensured that the review was little more than to read aloud and endorse the existing one. No experienced facilitator was available for the process and the Local Government Act requirements that when a Council develops its Strategic Plan it must provide assessments that relate to:
i. The sustainability of the council’s financial performance and position
ii. The extent or levels of services that will be required….
iii. The extent to which infrastructure will need to be maintained……
iv. The council’s proposals with respect to debt levels.
Prior to the “review”, I repeatedly requested a lot of this required information. It was not provided. I requested it again (formally) for this meeting. It has again not been provided. A convoluted response to my request has been provided but an answer is not provided.
Today, the “new” Strategic Plan is presented to council for endorsement under the pretence that it has now been reviewed: it has not! Several important resolutions of the new council are disregarded, e.g. to work closely with the CFS and NVC to achieve all towns and localities becoming classified as ‘fire safe’ communities.
c. Stokes Bay Road Project. This is a classic example of where council “invests” in a road that is a significant life cycle liability for Council – no business case is available for consideration. An expensive road to sparsely inhabited countryside, whereas spending Council’s next $323K instalment on existing sealed road maintenance would provide a significant positive return to Council in the medium to long term.
d. Camping and Day Visitor Project. This is an example of where everything is free – except the legacy of our significant life cycle cost obligations plus the outstanding need for Council to provide multiple costly ablution facilities which are omitted from the scheme.
e. A Council strategy to effectively deal with our poor efficiencies appears not to exist. In my view our Strategic Plan is nebulous and convoluted and does not address our critical material issues.
f. On the issue of the Penneshaw CWMS Project, we are in effect today advised that essential information about justifying the need for such a scheme has not been gathered. This is symptomatic of the still to be completed American River Scheme where the whole $7m project went ahead without such basic information and ended up overdesigned and unlikely ever to meet stated outputs such as irrigating the American River oval.
g. Tourism Venture Subsidies: Whilst in principle I support tourism as an Island industry, Council has received significant advice that much of our financial problems stem from operating and maintaining infrastructure for tourists who make little or no financial contribution to Council’s services. Yet we are sucked in to provide more and more materiel support to tourism. The viability of our current Airport Business is quite shakey. Despite this Council’s administration is repeatedly pushing that Council’s policy be that the airport is upgraded to take larger aircraft. Councillors have been advised that the justification for this is that a Kingscote developer has stipulated their development is conditional on an airport upgrade. We should obviously not waste our very limited resources in such areas, but, the upgrade process has started: as we are inconspicuously advised in today’s status reports.
8. An indication of Council’s confusion, is that we have conflicting resolutions on the same issues:
a. Penneshaw CWMS – “suspend the process for the Penneshaw gravity sewer scheme and fully review the proposal” and, without that review “to complete the design for a gravity sewer scheme for Penneshaw”.
b. “To Review the 2010/11 Business Plan” and “That Council not review the 2010/11 Annual Business Plan.”
Concluding on a positive note, welcome to new senior staffers Andrew Boardman and Andrew Cole. Indications so far are you guys have hit the deck running infusing a positive, professional addition to the two key positions within Council’s permanent staff.