It is a clear breach of the fundamentals of the “Rule of Law” and an open doorway to corruption, to allow a body writing that law, to apply that law, to adjudicate that law, to enforce that law, and then to measure their own compliance with their own law. The City is all these bodies and does all these things without independent oversight.

Question asked of Council Feb 10th, 2026 (See OMC Agenda Feb 17, 2026)

What is influencing Councillors and Council’s practice to determine against its community by functionally, excluding community from advisory and deliberation processes to persistently rubber stamp employment sustaining policy in visual obstruction to facilitating informed community merit
based decision making?

(Note the following response to the above question bears very little resemblance to the question. It is believed that the response was provided by an employee speaking for the Council in non-compliance to the Local Government Act. For the reasons bracketed, the following response is clearly false and appears intended to mislead Council.)

The statement that Council policy decisions disregard community interests, or that community impact is not a primary factor in Council’s decision-making, is both inaccurate and unsupported. (What statement?)
The community remains at the forefront and a key consideration in all policy development processes.

(now if this claim was accurate it would have been measured and the measure published! No such measured evidence is available?)

The City is committed to ensuring that its policies address a clearly identified issue in a proportionate and considered manner, remain relevant, and do not impose unnecessary burdens on external stakeholders or generate internal inefficiencies.

(Note here the City has a.- falsely claimed ownership of policies which are legislated to be owned exclusively by Council and b.- that if true would be measured by an absence of complaints or disputation. The public measure evidences existence of unnecessary imposed burdens on the community through the City’s persistent chronic maintenance of complaints and disputation.)

Generally, Council policies will establish principles to guide decision making.

(This claim promotes existence of a lack of Policy development knowledge and skill. Principles of integrity and competence pre-exist policy and should be adopted to guide policy. Using policy to determine principles is to encourage corruption.)

Where possible, the City will avoid the adoption of policies that establish categorical positions that limit the ability to take individual circumstances into consideration when making a decision.

(the City has no authority whatsoever, to adopt any policy. Policy is imposed upon the City by Council. the City is mandated in legislation to develop procedures to ensure policy is achieved. The City is yet to comply with that mandate.)

Council’s policies are intended to provide for the efficient and effective use of the City’s resources and enable the City to make decisions based on the principles of equity, fairness, natural justice, transparency and accountability, as well as meeting statutory requirements.

(These items are all capable of simple measure. The City has not measured these items. In all probability if these items were measured the City would be severely embarrassed)

Council’s policy development processes includes consideration of:

• the legislative and regulatory environment;
• the City’s available resources;
• the need to provide strategic direction and guidance for decision-making;
• relevant statistical data;
• expert advice;
• community concerns and feedback; and
• impact on the community and district.

(This list is not a process nor is it a procedure. If the City had a process to be proud of, that process would have been published to the public on the Local Governments website, it is not so there is no evidence this claim is anything more than a figment of the responders imagination.)

Question asked of Council May 20, 2025

(In non-compliance with legislation an administrator at the City of Melville spoke for Council when responding to the following questions. The response was false by claiming to quote from the Work Health and Safety statute when that quote did not exist and by that the response appears intended to mislead the Council.)

Part 1 City Volunteers:

After exploring the City’s Annual Reports and website information on Volunteer applications, acceptance, termination and management could Council please clarify:

1. Why hasn’t Council Developed and approved a volunteers/volunteer management policy per the Local Government Act section 2.7(2)(b), as this is a significant community engagement (achievements/benefits/costs/risks) addressed by other Local Governments?
2. When was the Administrations OP – 32 dated 18 May 2016, last reviewed and updated by representatives from among the volunteers it applies to?
3. Where on the City’s website can the referenced “Volunteer Management Procedure” be found?
4. Where can the public find information on organisational powers and delegated authorities in relation to Volunteer recruitment and management, such as vetting and authorising “conveners”. (“volunteer” or “convener” could not be found in the City’s Delegations and Authorisations Manual)?
5. Under what legislative basis does the City create “Volunteer Friend groups” and authorise them to undertake work for and using City resources?
6. How does the City objectively, diligently, and impartially apply the City’s Code of Conduct equally to all employees and volunteers.
7. Why, when the City asserts, 154 Volunteers and 133 volunteer organisations provided $ 601,000 value in 2023/24 does the City not provide in the Community Annual report, the achieved community benefits and in the Annual Financial Report, detail of the – costs and risks in managing, resourcing and supporting volunteers.
8. Why do the Community Annual Report and Annual Financial Report not reflect the principles and intended achievements in OP – 32.

Response a:
Section 5.41.(2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1995 states that the CEO’s executive role is to be responsible for the employment, management, supervision, direction and dismissal of other employees. Under the Western Australian Work Health and Safety Act 2020 volunteers are
recognised as employees. As such, it is more appropriate for an Operational Policy, rather than a Council Policy be developed for the management of volunteers. The City has therefore developed — OP-032 Volunteering Policy.

(The Western Australian Work Health and Safety Act 2020 categorically does not recognise volunteers as “employees”. Section 5.41(2)(d) of the Local Government Act does not apply to volunteers. The City had no lawful authority to produce it’s own policy without formal delegation from council. This response appears intended to falsify and mislead with intention to promote unlawful practices conducted at the City of Melville.)

Response b:
OP-32 Volunteering Policy was last reviewed on 23 September 2022; however it was not updated on the City’s website which has now been rectified – thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is the role of the City’s administration to review and update Policy’s not volunteers, however members of Volunteer Melville! were engaged as part of the development and review of OP-032 Volunteering Policy.

(Clearly the City’s record system is problematic if critical documentation cannot be maintained up to date. Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act expressly defines that it is the Council’s role to review and update policy and any review by the City would be interfering in the legislated role of Council.The Western Australian Work Health and Safety Act 2020 does require persons affected to review and agree to policy or procedures which affect them. For these reasons the response is false and appears intended to mislead Council.)