Fmr Mayor: Canning vulnerable still

CanningAccountability image Joe Delle Donne Ad

We think former Mayor Joe Delle Donne makes some good points….

Clearly concerns about Canning continue… clearly the majority of our new Councillors and the Mayor will have little to no real experience in local govt…. clearly the staff who will advise them have been up to all sorts of things and frequently just didn’t do things all that well.

Just a sampling:

Nahan: Staff managed Canning for themselves (July 2015)

Canning has deteriorated (July 2015)

Council will need to grow a set… (August 2015)

Premier’s clear warning to Councils (and WA Labor wants rates kept close to CPI too)

POOF! Another million of ratepayers’ money gone under Commissioner

Commissioner loses $700m project?

All the training in the world won’t substitute for deep knowledge and extensive experience of local govt, and Canning – what was, and what on earth is costing us so much now.

Lifting rates because “our rates are lower than other councils” is only going to close that gap, so that’s not much of a solution.

Remember we were told by staff that caring for the elderly and the disabled was in dire threat under reform?  Well, Care Services is now unsustainable – how did that happen, in just one year?

Simon O’Brien got the flick as a Canning Councillor and went on to be a Minister – nobody died.  Dare we move on too?

Experience is important now more than ever.

Mayoral advertisement appeared in the Canning Examiner, 7 October 2015, page 2

9 thoughts on “Fmr Mayor: Canning vulnerable still

  1. It is apparent that the electors of Canning do not want the following on council:
    1. Member of the previously ‘sacked’ council.
    2. Candidates having ties to any political party.
    3. Any one who has ties to the building industry of property development groups.


    1. I think people are also a little wary of how many ratepayer and community groups have put their representatives up for this one council, too, Bill. I’m aware of your vehement desire that former councillors not get voted back in, and that you, your group and its connenctions, presumably, have long supported Blair Campbell for Mayor instead – who you’ve described as being “mentored” by the ‘sacked’ former Commissioner, Linton Reynolds, who allowed staff to benefit from huge wages rises and other benefits and splashed money around in a way he would never have been allowed to get away with at Armadale, when he was mayor there. This man represented choices that simply weren’t reasonable or responsible.

      I stand by my call that experience in the form of SOME previous councillors is important, but not all of those, as you know, put in the sort of efforts we would like to see. Surely your concerns are if the entire former council were to get back in? Clearly that won’t be the case.

      There are a ton of different types and flavours running for council now, Bill, and with almost no experience with local govt and many also show no sign of knowledge of, participation in, the work that was done by only some, in the end, to try to stop either Canning being ceased, or the opportunistic environment for staff that saw them change so many things without our approval.

      You, as a candidate, and Blair Campbell, have no experience of being on an actual local council either, for all the knowledge, like me, you’ve gained from side activities, and Blair to a lesser extent.


  2. Diana,
    I challenge you to publish the following findings from the Kendall Report:……

    [Our response]

    Bill, I’m not going to recreate large parts of the Kendall Inquiry report on as comments. I’ll put the link in instead and the people viewing this blog can read for themselves Dr Kendall’s findings and his broader views – including that so much was done in the [absence of a council] it may not stand the test of a return to democracy. That comment was pretty extraordinary in itself, as it indicates he was aware that, basically, just staff and the eventually dismissed Commissioner, Linton Reynolds, had changed or done a lot of things, but is this what the community, through their reps would have wanted?

    Link to Kendall Inquiry report here:

    Look for Report of the Panel of Inquiry in to the City of Canning.


  3. Diana, I believe I have done an extensive apprenticeship over the past 3 years and have a very good understanding of how council works.

    Do you acknowledge that the main reason Reynolds was ‘sacked’ was political as he was supporting the ratepayers in the fight to save Canning? He acknowledged that it would happen when he stood up to Barnett, Simpson and Nahan..


    1. I acknowledge your significant role over the last three years, Bill, despite the face you never acknowledge mine.

      Linton Reynolds was dismissed for his business decisions, and you well know it, because you expressed concern many a time at spends that were occurring under Reynolds, and especially as it was clearly never going to survive reform.

      You also know Reynolds never actually did stand up to the state – he refused to do a proposal, when he had ample time to reconsider that and get it right, instead of doing a cowardly little submission to the Local Govt Advisory Board. And before you start arguing points on that, you might want to consider that Canning is now considering Melville’s request to package of some of our land to them in terms of boundary change. Reynolds could well have ceded land that is an anomaly and unwanted, unnecessary part of our boundary, and thus qualified Canning to make a PROPOSAL to remain its own master, but he did not. Most other councils did, many also took the opportunity to redo their Proposals and thus increase their strength in this process. Reynolds thought nothing of spending a lot of our money, so there was no reason he could not have set aside his feeble submission, after forcing Canning in to an untenable position by originally agreeing, against the community’s wishes, to bind us to amalgamate with Gosnells. Again, very few other councils agree to merge, amalgamate, etc. Had local govt reform gone ahead, you know full well Reynolds would have lost Canning forever.

      So, will now admit you have been pushing for a man to be mayor that you know has been in receipt of what you call “mentoring” from this failed commissioner? If not, pls don’t comment until you are prepared to stand and make full declaration on this issue, Bill.


  4. Totally agree with you on this one Bill … I have just read the Inquiry Report. As a resident I would be gutted if one of the “Three Musketeers” were elected. Yes Diana, there are some immoral and unqualified candidates vying for the gig. Some, being your previous councillors/mayor and some being new candidates, with political aspirations only, that can not put two sensible words together, bring no management, business, analytical or simply no “brains” to the table. (I viewed ALL the video footage from the Candidate Forum last month) But…. there are also some very motivated and intelligent candidates also. A housewife deciding she wants to join the council to keep the river clean is different to a person that has sat on boards, managed staff, worked in business, has legal or accounting knowledge, been active in community concerns, volunteers etc ….. don’t you think?Sadly you have decided that no one is worthy of being a Canning Councillor/Mayor unless they have had previous experience as a councillor. I find that a bit respectful to those candidates that have shown the commitment and passion and put their hands up for what will be an “interesting” role.


    1. Clearly we have featured other candidates to some former council members, and the rest were represented by the long awaited video from the Candidate Forum (we also requested the City do a better job of putting out the interim audio, so the community wouldn’t have to trawl through 3 1/2 hours of files marked 1001, 1002 and 1003 – with no indicator of where the different wards, mayoral candidates, etc were). That video was due almost a month earlier and should have been one of the portals the community could use to determine the worth of each candidate.

      Those that weren’t, including mayors, we have tried to put up something for otherwise. You are assuming a lot of us, Terri (1) that we have the time to cover 56 candidates, (2) that one small group, having made some effort, should make a lot more on [your behalf], and (3) that a blog should also represent your views. The blog put in a huge amount of effort for years to try to ensure people were at least aware of what was happening in the absence of a council. Knowing how much was done, had been changed without any of US – we the people – having any role in that, certainly is one of the things that prompted us to consider that those who actually had experience of what Canning was like (and highly rated by the community for its services and rates – as shown in the Fight For Canning campaign, ie attributable to the former council at less cost) before the changes and costs we face enduringly today would be important. We have been repeatedly clear about the value of experience in this particular situation, which is perfectly reasonable. As for the five re-bidding councillors (six if you include Bill Gleeson, who was a councillor in a former Canning Council), the democratic system says they can renominate, and they have. It seems odd to me people are so concerned that some sort of damnation and Hell will descend – doesn’t say a lot about what the other councillors effectiveness, which we hope will be the case, of course!


    1. Pls keep it brief, Bill, and please take in to account that both you and the man you’ve endorsed for mayor are candidates, so we will be mindful of comments amounting to electioneering. Cheers.


Comments are closed.