fiona.png
spreads (7).gif

Huntfest: Response to council letter


Dear Beagle editor, I would like to submit my comments on council's letter re Huntfest, as a letter to the editor as I feel it is extremely pertinent to council's procedure in regard to to their EOI process Huntfest: Response to Council Letter regarding the Crown providing written confirmation to council, that they accepted council's Code for Licencing/EOI process; Council simply assured' Crown Lands that it would develop a 'fair and transparent' procedure. Council did NOT provide Crown Lands with the Code that it developed. Letter to me from council (16th Dec 2016), "The full details of the selection criteria etc, are not the concern of Crown Lands, only that it is an open and transparent competitive process." Council's reference to the ICAC Guidelines: these Guidelines were, "written for public sector managers..........(who) may find themselves responsible for commercial or contractual interactions with the private sector, the not-for-profit sector or public sector organisations OPERATING IN A COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT," so as, "to ensure, and prove to the public, that it (council) is obtaining value for money." (ICAC Guidelines) Selecting a successful tenderer for a licence to hold an event, by two not-for-profit organisation, is NOT about 'obtaining best value for money' by council in a 'COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT,' as council is not PAYING out any money. So, how are they 'ensuring and proving to the public', that they are obtaining 'best value for money'? Apart from fees, which would have to be paid to council by either of the successful tenderers, council would not be MAKING any money. Council is not interacting with not-for-profit tenderers on a commercial basis. If they were the ICAC Guidelines would apply. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 Section 55 'What are the requirements for tendering' (3)This section does NOT apply to: (e) "a contract for the ....licencing of land by the council, other than the .. licencing of COMMUNITY LAND for a term exceeding 5 years to a body that is NOT a not-for-profit organisation." * Crown Land is not 'community land'- so tendering does NOT apply. *SCHC is a not-for-profit organisation- so tendering does NOT apply. (2A) "Nothing in this section prevents a council from tendering for any WORK, SERVICE OR FACILITY FOR WHICH IT HAS INVITED TENDERS." *When selecting between two organisations for an event licence, council is NOT tendering for any 'work, service or facility.' Therefore, contrary to council's assertion (in their letter in Beagle) council is not complying with the LGA. Letter to to me from OLG (23 May 2016), "Neither the Crown Lands Act nor Crown Lands Regulation would require Council to undertake a tendering process prior to resolving to grant this licence." Letter to me from OLG (4 Aug 2016) "You have correctly identified that the leasing/licencing provisions of Section 55(3)(e) of the Act do NOT apply." Council response to the above information (27 Nov 2016) when I provided it : "Notwithstanding your OLG letter, Council received written confirmation from Crown Lands Dept,...............and it is the determining ministry, which agreed the process proposed by council met their criteria...." So, it appears, that now it is Crown Lands fault as they accepted council's assurance that their process would be open and transparent, even though the Crown never saw the Code or its EOI process. As for councils statement in relation to the use of their EOI process and tendering: "Nothing precludes council using........" Nothing precludes council from peeing on a rabbit to see if it turns green either! Patricia Gardiner


#Opinion #Council

COMMENTS : Due to the risks associated with comments from unidentified contributors that expose The Beagle to possible legal actions under the NSW Defamation Act 2005 No 77 anonymous or Nom de Plume comments will not be available until an alternate system of author verification can be investigated and hopefully installed.

Those who provide their REAL NAME (first name AND Surname) and a verifiable email address (it won't be published) are invited to comment below. (yes it is a pain but please comply - it would be a  shame to see your comment deleted)

Those contributors KNOWN to us and verified may continue to use their First Name for ease. The primary need for all of this is due to traceability should a legal action arise.

If you need anonymity email us via our normal or encrypted email accounts


Please note that if you are looking for a previous comment that is no longer visible please contact us.