To overcome the “revolving door” and the manipulation of the system by specific psychological types, the architecture of the City of Melville must be redesigned to dismantle the asymmetric control held by the executive “class.”

When the architecture is weak, Machiavellian and Narcissistic types use the law as a “bureaucratic buffer” to protect their status, which in turn triggers a Querulous (obsessively justice-seeking) reaction from the community. This creates a self-perpetuating “battleground” where legal fees are the ammunition.

The Psychology of Architectural Manipulation

Psychological Type	How they manipulate the current architecture	Impact on the “Battleground”
Machiavellian (Executive)	Uses s 5.41 (CEO functions) to classify strategic information as “operational.”	Creates a “black box” where $180k in hidden expenditure can be buried.
Statutory Legalist (Employee)	Applies the “letter of the law” to FOI and Public Question Time to “respond without answering.”	Validates the community’s belief in “Administrative Pseudolaw.”
Narcissistic (Leadership)	Views community dissent as a personal attack/psychosocial hazard.	Triggers expensive, outsourced “conduct investigations” to silence critics.
Querulous (Complainant)	Responds to “stonewalling” by doubling down on FOIs and litigation.	Provides the “evidence” the executive needs to label them as “unreasonable.”

---

Redesigning the Architecture to Overcome “Class” Control

To break this cycle, the City must move away from State-led monitors (who are often seen as part of the “revolving door”) and toward Community-Integrated Oversight.

1. Structural “Transparency by Design” (Neutralising the Machiavellian)

Instead of a system where the executive chooses what to release, the architecture should move to Proactive Disclosure.

• The Change: Implement a “Open Data Dashboard” where all non-private legal expenditure, consultancy contracts, and “dispute management” costs are published monthly without the need for an FOI.
• The Psychological Result: It removes the Machiavellian “power” of information gatekeeping. When the data is public, the “secretive” advantage is lost, and the Querulous type has nothing to “hunt,” leading to a natural de-escalation of conflict.

2. External Restorative Justice (RJ) Panels (Neutralising the Narcissistic)

Because Narcissistic and Psychopathic traits thrive in high-conflict, “win/lose” environments, the architecture must introduce a “No-Win” Collaborative Requirement.

• The Change: Mandate that before any legal expenditure exceeding $5,000 is authorised for a community dispute, both parties must undergo a Restorative Justice Conference facilitated by a non-government, independent mediator (e.g., from the Resolution Institute).
• The Psychological Result: This forces the “Callous Executive” into a humanised space where they must face the impact of their actions. It bypasses the “revolving door” of the DLGSC by using private, accredited mediators who have no career ties to the local government “class.”

3. Democratising the ARIC (Neutralising the “Closed Loop”)

The Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) must be architecturally separated from the executive it audits.

• The Change: The ARIC should be composed of a majority of Community Audit Volunteers (qualified accountants or lawyers from the ratepayer base) and chaired by an independent professional with no prior employment in the WA local government sector.
• The Psychological Result: This breaks the “Enabler/Codependent” cycle where staff protect their bosses. Independent community members are not susceptible to “abusive supervision” because their livelihoods don’t depend on the CEO.

4. “Human-Centric” Public Question Time (Neutralising the Legalist)

The current “pseudolaw” approach to Public Question Time is a primary causation of disputation.

• The Change: Adopt a “Live Response” model where the CEO or Mayor must provide a substantive, verbal answer at the meeting, or a written answer within 48 hours that is reviewed for “substance” by the Independent ARIC Chair.
• The Psychological Result: This satisfies the “Empathetic Servant” types who want to feel heard and prevents the “Statutory Legalist” from using 28-day delay tactics to frustrate the public.

Conclusion

The current architecture at Melville is a “battleground” because it rewards the manipulative traits of the executive class and punishes the justice-seeking traits of the community. By moving oversight to Independent Professionals and Community Auditors, the City can bypass the “revolving door” and force a culture of compliance that prioritizes fiscal health over executive ego.