Come dance with me: council edition

By Rashelle Predovnik
May 2026

OPINION

There was a time when council meetings were built around the radical notion that the public might actually ask questions.

Now, thanks to the ever-evolving choreography of rule changes, attending a council meeting in the Shire of Toodyay feels less like civic engagement and more like auditioning for a low-budget ballroom competition where nobody knows the steps and the judges keep changing the rules halfway through the song.

Welcome to Come Dance With Me – the newest interpretive performance from the shire president and the Committee for Controlled Movement.

The music begins at public question time as ratepayers step up to the microphone ready to perform.

But don’t expect to ad-lib.

This is not a freestyle event.

This is the ‘two-step’.

Two questions only: then sit down.

Next partner please.

The rhythm is elegant in its inefficiency.

One resident rises, approaches the microphone, asks two carefully rationed questions, then shuffles away while the next resident takes their turn crossing the dancefloor.

By the time each partner change is complete, precious minutes have danced away.

In Toodyay, only 15 minutes is allowed for public question time – which sounds generous until you realise half of it is spent watching people rotate on and off the microphone like disappointed contestants on Dancing With The Stars: Local Government Edition.

It’s a masterclass in movement without momentum.

Meanwhile, journalists trying to ask questions by email are left standing outside the ballroom pressing their faces against the glass.

Three separate media enquiries of mine were emailed in beforehand.

None were answered.

None even made it onto the dance card.

Apparently, accountability now requires physical attendance at a council meeting because nothing says ‘transparent governance’ quite like forcing residents and journalists to queue at a microphone for the privilege of very limited interaction.

The rules themselves seem to pirouette constantly.

Procedures change.

Formats shift.

Footwork evolves.

Residents arrive having learned last month’s routine only to discover council has moved on to a new dance.

There is something strangely poetic about travelling to a council meeting because it is now the only place questions will be answered.

Unsurprisingly, the unanswered questions – piling up over four weeks – become an ever-growing troupe of dancers waiting in the wings.

But the 15-minute stage is too small and in the end, almost nobody makes it onto the floor long enough to dance all the questions they came to ask.

By the time my turn arrived, I managed two questions before the music faded and the curtain fell.

No encore.

No follow-up.

Just a polite nod from the ballroom stage manager and the unmistakable feeling that the purpose of the dance was never communication at all — merely choreography.

Perhaps next month council can simplify things further.

Maybe residents could communicate entirely through interpretive movement.

One spin for ‘yes’.

Two spins for ‘question taken on notice’.

And a slow waltz toward the exit for anyone hoping for genuine engagement and their questions answered.

Uniform rate plan sparks backlash from rural property owners

By Rashelle Predovnik
April 2026

Morangup residents have fired up against a council decision to create a uniform rate in the dollar, warning it will drive up costs for rural property owners and potentially deliver a bigger-than-expected financial blow when rates are finalised.

The modelling in the report to council that supported the uniform rate pushed GRV rural residential rates up by five percent and UV rural rates up 21 percent.

But critics of the move are bracing for a bigger hit when rates are finalised, as the percentages in the council report were based on last year’s lower rate setting.

This means the projected increases outlined in the report could end up even higher if this year’s rates are set above last year’s levels.

Uniform rates benefits some more than others

Council voted to change the method of rating from July 1 this year moving from differential rates to a uniform rate in the dollar for properties valued using Gross Rental Value (GRV) and Unimproved Value (UV) at its March meeting.

The uniform rate won’t significantly change the shire’s total rate revenue, which will stay about the same according to the report to council.

But it will have a big effect on many household budgets.

The report to council showed the biggest changes affected two groups: 410 properties in the UV General category saw their rates drop by 58 percent, whereas 198 UV Rural properties saw their rates jump up 21 percent.

The biggest category (1,055 ‘GRV Rural Residential’ properties) had a five percent increase.

Whereas 626 GRV Residential properties saw their rates fall by four percent.

A call for accurate data

But the figures modelled in the report to council were from last year and they will be outdated when council ratifies its new budget and sets its rates for the 2026-2027 financial year.

This means, the small decreases modelled in the March report to council could disappear and small increases could spike if council sets a rate this year higher than last year’s 2.2 percent.

The neighbouring shires of York, Chittering and Victoria Plains have a uniform rate structure.

Whereas Northam and Goomalling still use the differential rating model and so did Toodyay before the change last month.

In a statement the shire said this change will make rates fairer, clearer, and easier to understand, and it will help ensure long term compliance with rating laws.

“This isn’t about raising more money — it’s about simplifying the system and improving transparency,” the shire said in a statement.

“Slight reductions or modest increases may appear on individual rates notices, depending on your property type and valuation.”

But the actual percentage increases and decreases for this year are yet to be released.

The Toodyay Herald asked the shire to confirm that the figures to be advertised for public comment in May will be based on the final 2026–27 budget and updated modelling, rather than last year’s figures presented in the March report to council.

So the community could make informed submissions.

The Herald did not receive a response to its questions before we went to press.

The opportunity to have a say

A statement on a Morangup community website slammed the decision to hit Morangup residents with a rate hike — while Toodyay town residents rates went down — as divisive.

Although the shire said the change was not about raising more money, Morangup residents are being warned to brace for the first of many rate rises if council proceeds with its plans to flatten the system.

“The March decision is the method change — the reshuffling of who pays more and who pays less,” it said.

“It does not necessarily include whatever broader increase the shire may later apply through the 2026/27 budget.”

Morangup residents opposing the uniform model said they were not reacting to one isolated tweak.

They were reacting to a pattern over time of rising costs, town-centric assumptions, heavy shire spending programs, weak outer-locality voice, and now a council decision that shifted more of the rating burden onto rural residential, while giving town residential a reduction.

The unform rating model will be put out for public comment next month.

The proposal will be advertised for 21 days, seeking community feedback so the community can have their say.

Recording a fail: what the Shire of Toodyay’s electors meeting really revealed

OPINION

By Rashelle Predovnik
March 2026

Transparency in local government shouldn’t be controversial and in 2026 it shouldn’t even be a question.
Yet at the annual meeting of electors, residents had front row seats to an argument between the chair and a resident about what was or wasn’t said at last year’s meeting.
The reason?
There was no recording.

If it matters record it and make that information easy to find

From January 2025, shires have been required to record their council meetings, and this helps to create an accurate public record, including a record of what the shire does well.
At this elector’s meeting, the manager of finance delivered an interesting presentation that outlined issues the shire had identified and fixed.
He talked about the money saved, in what was a positive story about the responsible management of public funds.
Yet there is no record of that presentation on the shire’s website.
When The Herald asked for those details so our readers could be informed about those savings, the shire president told us to find it ourselves.
He said, “the executive manager provided examples in his presentation at the annual electors meeting, all of which are documented in previous minutes of ordinary council meetings.”
That response may have technically answered the question – but does directing our readers to trawl through a year’s worth of old minutes really serve the public interest?
The information we asked for was already available in a document that could have easily been emailed.
Instead, we were told to comb through the archives of past council minutes without dates, page numbers or agenda references – to reconstruct what the shire had already presented on PowerPoint slides.
Transparency should not require detective work.

Hit record for the record

In this case, recording matters because public meetings are not private conversations – they are part of the official democratic record.
The shire’s website notes there is no legal requirement to record the annual meeting of electors and although that is technically true – it misses the point.
Good governance is about doing more than the bare legal minimum.
Recording this annual elector meeting didn’t require a new policy, new equipment or extra funding.
It just required the shire to wheel out the same recording equipment it uses for council meetings or even a mobile phone at a push.
Instead, the room was left listening to two conflicting versions of the same event with no ability to review a recording.
And this incident summed up a broader problem on display that night.

An open forum with the floor closed

The annual meeting of electors is a forum for residents to ask questions, raise motions, and discuss general business.
Apart from this editor, only ten ratepayers attended and only two questions were submitted to the shire in advance.
No motions were raised or voted on, and no questions were asked about the annual report.
So, there was time and there was space.
Yet when a ratepayer tried to ask questions from the floor, she was told she couldn’t, because her questions needed to be sent in before the meeting.
Instead of allowing her questions to be heard – and answered or taken on notice – time was spent reading out legislative provisions explaining why they could not be asked from the floor.
Ironically, it would have taken less time to hear her questions.
When the shire president formally closed the meeting after 20 minutes, he then chose to speak to those remaining in the room.
Unsurprisingly, the ratepayer who was not allowed to ask questions chose not to stay and listen.
If you deny someone the right to be heard, they will naturally disengage.
Democracy can be messy: questions can be repetitive, they can be uncomfortable and they can test patience.
But respectful leadership requires a tolerance for scrutiny – especially at a meeting designed to give ratepayers a voice.
Toodyay residents are capable of forming their own views, but what they saw at this meeting appeared to focus more on procedure than participation.
Ratepayers deserve genuine engagement and they deserve respect.
At the very least, they deserve a meeting where someone presses ‘record’.