Dear Beagle Editor, THE ESC GENERAL MANAGER MUST EXPLAIN.
With reference to the Code of Practice – Licensing of Public Reserves debate that took place at last Tuesday’s ESC meeting I agree with what some commentators have written and wish to follow up with a few real facts not ‘alternate facts’ as presented at the meeting by some councillors and staff.
I feel sad (not sorry, as he should have done his own research) for Councillor Tait, who was not a member of the previous council, as he seems to have been given information that had no relevance to the topic of discussion ie ‘The Code of Practice – Licensing of Public Reserves ’.
That is, Councillor Tait stated that he understood than an earlier review by an independent audit committee had found that the Code of Practice was 100% legitimate and in accordance with State Government requirements. However, not only is this completely incorrect but it is demonstrably impossible to have occurred.
The code in question did not even exist at the time of the 2015 review to which Clr Tait was alluding. That review had been undertaken by the independent members of the audit committee into the ESC’s Huntfest approval processes between mid 2012 and mid 2015. That review report was presented to council on 19 October 2015.
However the code, that Clr Tait claimed had been given the tick of approval by that review report, was not mentioned in the report. Why? Because the Code of Practice – Licensing of Public Reserves code was not even finalised and adopted by council staff until December 2015.
The review report and the code are simply not linked in any way. This fact can be easily verified by examining the Independent Auditors Review Report which is available on the ESC website.
Yet, when asked by Mayor Innes for advice on this during last Tuesday’s council meeting, the General Manager, Dr Catherine Dale, failed to inform the mayor, Councillor Tait, other councillors and the general public, of this fact. Instead she endorsed Clr Tait’s misleading of the council regarding the auditor’s report by stating that “ that was the view they formed.”
So why did the General Manager give this seriously inaccurate and misleading response at last Tuesday’s meeting? That question needs to be answered publicly and comprehensively by the ESC General Manager. Name and address supplied
