Printable View
I am surprised that WA has as many local government areas as it does when you consider that 2/3 to 3/4 of WA contains little beyond sand and suntans. Draw a circle of radius 200 miles centred on Perth and see that there is not much and not many outside other than a few remote mines which combined would not have the population of a couple of Sydney suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by V8Ian
Thanks Guys.
Our annual grant is $43000:eek::eek::eek:
Talk is stick the $43000 and go it alone,we can recoup that easy doing what we do well,Private Works.
Hi Ben,you wont get better pay and conditions than we have,we are known as the highest paid shire workers in WA,ALL DESERVED,before the leaning on shovel jokes start:p:p:p:p
Hi Lewy.
We are VERY concerned about loosing what we have,there is no way ANY of the local to us shires would or could match what we get paid or our productivity.
Hi Dave.
You hit the nail on the head,we have no debt infact a large reserve,yet have very good services for our little town.Good management,why try to fix something that isnt broke!!!
Interesting times ahead.
Andrew
Sorry to stress you more Landandy but what another poster said about reducing nepotisim and cooruption through combining councils is totaly false IMHO.
I live in the illawarra where 2 councils have recently been SACKED for various mismanagement and corruption offences , 1 covers 180,000 people and the other about 70,000! Another example was a certain distant cousin's father was a senior manager in the 60's in a "big" city council that got "amalgamanted" with another and built himself a little empire that had enough swing to ensure his sons managers positions and his wife "contract" cleaning jobs on an hourly rate equal to that of a doctor!:o
Maybe the Queensland sheep from Joh's days have taught the WA livestock to vote.;):angel::DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm
I doubt if its it makes much difference to corruption whether a LG is big or small, as it occurs everywhere. The real issue is personal morality, not size.
No doubt some small councils are excellent and some are hopeless. The real answer is to single out the useless ones and abolish them and give their areas to the good ones, but that's not an easy thing to push thru because the most corrupt usually make the most noise, so they tend to survive and the good ones get merged, which is the worst possible result.
Your council could take the initiative and offer to take over its neighbours under certain conditions.
I assume your workplace agreement under amalgamation would include a 'no disadvantage' clause, so you should be protected for some period. After that, welcome to the real world...
all im gonna say is it's the stupidest thing thats ever happened in local government
It's a shame Andrew!:( Hope it doesn't turn out too bad for you.
It's been mooted for years, mostly driven by the larger (populacewise) shires and towns; and started with the donut councils in the 90's. The donut towns (ie Narrogin, Northam etc where there is a town LGA surrounded by a shire LGA) all claim that the residents of the surrounding shire uses their facilities, but don't pay. As you've alluded to, what they really mean is that they, the towns, have over captialised building 'aquatic centres' and the like and need the extra cash to attrit debt.
Any nepotism and corruption will not change. It's too easy in local govt due to the make up and the lack of adequate scrutiny.
It will still take some time for any amalgamation to go ahead, I think. But, it could be worse, at least you didn't quit to take up a job at Ravy!:eek: