IN the recent Fremantle council elections less than 50 per cent of people eligible to vote bothered to cast a vote.
Resulting in, by a very, very slim majority, the re-election of Brad Pettitt as mayor of Fremantle.
Under this mayor’s leadership, Fremantle saw all but one major retailer leave Fremantle, shops and small businesses go to the wall by the dozen, Fremantle’s debt (ratepayers’ debt) increase by tens of millions of dollars, the approval of new apartments (for the most part empty) increase ten told, and for reasons best known to himself, believe this slim, very slim majority, gave him the approval to continue with his politically-correct decision to change and replace Australia Day.
For those who didn’t think it worth voting, you are getting—and will for four long years—continue to get what you deserve.
Beach Street, Fremantle
Up your game, press
IT is disturbing that there is relatively little comprehensive coverage in the media regarding asylum seekers.
Too often the media merely parrot the government spin which consistently demonises refugees and labels them ‘illegals’ (they are not).
Lies and distortions regarding asylum seekers are allowed to flourish and fester, with little rebuttal.
An effective democratic system requires objective, comprehensive reporting and transparency.
Yet the Australian government has done everything to stifle reporting and public discussion regarding refugees, even passing laws to muzzle workers charged with the health and welfare of incarcerated refugees.
Abetting Australian government policy, Nauru has successfully curtailed visits by journalists by demanding $8000 for a visa, non-refundable even if refused.
In this atmosphere of obfuscation it is incumbent upon the media to vigorously pursue and publish comprehensive, accurate information.
Dorothy St, Fremantle
ANYONE with an ounce of compassion would have been horrified to see the footage of the bull who suffered catastrophic injuries in the rodeo at the Adelaide Entertainment Centre last week as he bucked and then twisted and fell as his hind leg snapped.
But what happened isn’t unusual in an industry where abusive treatment is standard practice in order to guarantee that the paying public see some “action”.
Extensive bruising and internal injuries are common, and necks, backs and leg bones are often shattered.
As long as what the RSPCA calls “a legalised form of cruelty” continues, Australia will be known to the rest of the world not just as “down under” but as downright backwards.
Desmond Bellamy, special
Bring back the kiosk
ONE of the great things of living in Palmyra is that Port Beach is only a short drive away.
Therefore, during the summer I quite often take a drive down there and indulge in a walk and/or swim.
Now this on its own is a magnificent experience, however, having a coffee from the kiosk there just makes it that little bit more special.
Sitting there sipping on a coffee and looking at the ocean is something truly beautiful.
So it was much to my horror when the last two times that I have been there, the kiosk has been closed.
This caused much sadness and disappointment and I had to drive to Leighton Beach to have a coffee.
Now the café at Leighton is perfectly fine and the coffee most pleasant.
However, there is something special about having a brew at the same beach that you patronise and love.
Therefore, could you please bring back the kiosk at Port Beach and make a middle-aged/old man very happy.
Murray Road, Palmyra
Think before you…
LAST Friday’s opinion article “A Clayton’s Award” (Thinking Allowed, Herald, December 15, 2017) unfortunately contained many errors that reflect poorly on the untarnished reputation of the Australian Organisational Excellence Awards (the Awards).
In seeking to discredit the City of Melville, this article suggests that an award of the City’s choice was obtained by simply paying a fee and following a series of administrative steps.
This is an incorrect and gross misrepresentation of one of the most rigorous and highly regarded Awards processes in Australia.
Specific Points of Error in the Article:
• The Foundation is a totally independent Not-For-Profit entity and it does not provide consulting services.
• Applicants do not “pay a fee and follow a series of steps that end with receipt of the award of their interest”.
• The Australian Quality Council was never owned by the government – it was a membership-based Not-for-Profit. It is thus incorrect to state that the government “flogged it off” in 2002, and it did not “become SAI Global”.
• There is no requirement for applicants to purchase copies of the ABEF.
• SAI Global is not, and has never been, involved in any way in the evaluation process that is now administered by the Foundation.
• Evaluation costs are not expensive. As the evaluations for Business Excellence Awards are undertaken by volunteers, the cost to applicants is very modest.
• The Awards Criteria are not a “consultant’s benchmark”, but rather are defined by a framework that is internationally recognised as one of the world’s leading Excellence Models.
A rigorous Evaluation Process
Since the inception of the Australian Excellence Awards in 1987/88, all Award applicants have been evaluated by a panel of highly experienced, independent volunteers (referred to as evaluators) drawn from successful high-performing organisations, public, private, government and NFP.
The evaluators are not “some private business gurus” as referred to in the article in question, and neither is SAI Global in any way involved in the evaluation process.
Before an Award can be made, the evaluator recommendations are vetted by an independent Panel of Review composed of organisational leaders and recognised technical specialists in the field of Business Excellence.
Both the evaluation team and the Panel of Review are external to and independent from the Australian Organisational Excellence Foundation (the Foundation).
Award applicants may receive a ‘recognition’ in organisational excellence, or a bronze, silver or gold award.
The Awards process is not a competition – each year only organisations that have demonstrated the relevant level of excellence in the way their organisation is run will get an award or recognition.
The Excellence Prize won by the City of Melville has an additional dimension of rigour.
Organisations that have won a Gold Award within the preceding five years are eligible to apply for an Excellence Prize.
Organisations awarded the Excellence Prize demonstrate not only performance against the Framework at Gold level, but also the agility and systematic learning approach to rapidly incorporate improvements and evolve to meet future needs.
Australian Organisation Excellence
WE love receiving letters so whenever you have something to say feel free to drop us a line. Send your letters to: The Editor, Fremantle Herald, PO Box 85, North Fremantle, WA , 6159. Or email them to: email@example.com. Please remember to include your name, address and a daytime telephone number.
Gotta question the existence of a ‘not-for-profit’, ‘volunteer’ staffed organisation that assesses government and business practices.
Just googled “Rave Fernando” and he has literally no online presence. I should also point out his organisation’s name is “Organisational” (not Organisation).
I also note the contact for AOEF is David Sikorski and I googled him. Surprise – his SAI Global details can be found here – https://www.saiglobal.com/DavidSikorski.pdf It also appears he consults for “Thrive+”.
To me, it is curious that both these companies provide organisations with business excellence guidance.
Perhaps CoM can provide details of any amounts paid to AOEF, staff business training or business consultancy services.
I assume the CoM also has a copy of the AOEF assessment report – they could the post a copy of that online also (Just to put any questions to rest).
The page I found most interesting was – http://www.kaqaforum.com/en/?page_id=10 where the speakers included “Ravi Fernando” from AOEF and right below him is Shane Silcox (CoM). Co-incidence?