Minister kicks Mayor’s ass over CEO review

The situation at Canning is becoming diabolical and it should be the first council to come under scrutiny of the Auditor General, in moves planned by the State.

Minister for Local Govt, Paul Miles, could be indicating this may happen in an article out today in Canning Times: Local Govt Minister reminds Canning Mayor to act in best interests of ratepayers over CEO review“.

Mr Miles has been refreshingly vocal about not tolerating bullshit from our local govts and their councils.

As for Mayor Paul Ng, he has become an outright hypocrite, behaving in much the same way the former Mayor was accused of doing – and the political wannabes, mostly poor performers and Mike Nahan cronies on Canning’s current council are no better.

I don’t think Canning’s troubles are over and unless that finally changes it may be better to cease it operating as a local govt authority.

Why aren’t Canning’s councillors voting at meetings?

Canning’s Mayor loses patience with councillors

Canning falling on $1.6m Inquiry sword?

CanningAccountability’s views have steadily increased and by mid year each of its posts is expected to have a readership of 000s

6 thoughts on “Minister kicks Mayor’s ass over CEO review

    1. Thanks for comment! I’m increasingly concerned at how things are panning out following the still fairly recent end to millions of $$ of inquiries in to Canning. It is also odd that one of the poorest performing councillors, Jesse Jacobs, was able to get on to the CEO review committee. Oddly council didn’t vote to return the two councillors, Margaret Hall and Pauline Tarrant, who were part of the selection committee to appoint new CEO Arthur Kyron in first place, which left only Cr David Brown and Jesse Jacobs. Other councillors spoke of their concerns at the Mayor’s attempt to sign off on the CEO’s probationary period without them playing a role, and Cr Cunningham said “I don’t think a CEO [should be signed off on just because there have been no complaints against him]”. This is clearly a very important role at the City and Mayor’s Ng’s behaviours are increasingly concerning.


      1. Diana,
        Whilst you’ve been a vocal critic of the political wannabes which I support, you endorsed the current Mayor and councillors over other genuine candidates – so when it comes to hypocrisy you are unfortunately tarnished with the same brush.
        Its hard to remain impartial and objective when you’ve thrown all your eggs into one basket.


      2. Hi Terry

        This sort of comment tends to be sent in by a gmail account; yours is no different. I have heard this sentiment before, but only from one person (and repeatedly) so let’s address this now. I featured posts on most but not all of the mayoral candidates of 2017. That is not the same as “endorsing” anyone.

        Most of the political wannabes have been some of the poorest performers on council. Council’s business is largely what’s brought to Council and if you were familiar with the Minutes of council meetings you would find it hard to provide evidence that the majority have been productive.

        There is not substance or evidence that I “threw all my eggs in one basket” and in fact supported some prior councillors returning – as they were entitled to do under the Act, so that valuable knowledge of Canning and council procedure was not lost. The council today has almost no experience or record of having been identifiably involved with the process of local govt prior to putting their hat in the ring to be a councillor.

        You are considerably misinformed about me.



  1. Well,well,a year and a bit in since this bunch of hapless ,so called professionals were elected,and already the Minister is casting concerned glance across the Council as a whole. The councillors have no local govt experience and already there is a clique that huddle together in sheer terror ,to vote yes on just about everything thrown before them by the CEO and execs,they are weak and incompetent,most never even reply to ratepayer queries save “passing it on tithe appropriate person”.The executive is leading them around by the nose right up to the chopping block. I’m amazed that the CEO did not inform the Mayor that his Motion would have been ultra viries as as it contradicted the LG Act 1995,but why would he,he and his execs must kill themselves laughing as Cllrs and their Egos flounder at every turn. The only point I would disagree with would be the statement about the previous Mayor,it was wrong. He was a strong and knowledgable Mayor who was very Community conscious but would not put up with the Executive trying to “pull the wool “over his or ratepayers eyes , whether is was a rate rise or some other waste of money. It is hard to imagine this current Council or Mayor lasting 4years,it will either blow up in there face or the Execs will throw them under a bus, as is their want.


    1. I suppose people think to themselves “ah, they wont touch Canning again for decades now”, as relates to it coming under investigation again, but if the Liberal Govt is returned I wouldn’t assume too much, regardless of whether Mike Nahan hovers anxiously nearby or not. The Premier was pretty clear on 6PR radio, when he spoke of the dismissal of former Canning Commissioner Linton Reynolds – he was fed up with issues at Canning, one way or another. Reynolds and no doubt former CEO Lyn Russell’s unwillingness to institute an advisory panel of community members to help inform decisions at Canning in the absence of a council – for three years! – has played in to the problems we have now. It meant valuable opportunities to seep councillors in to the culture of governing, also something the $1.6m Inquirer encouraged latterly – were lost. The new council could not demonstrate any prior engagement with the City in any real way, has had to make decisions while learning how to be councillors, etc and again, I think this has perverted what could have been a much clearer and more accountable way forward for Canning.


Comments are closed.