何様のつもり・Who the f*** do they think they are?
開かれた行政の一貫として鳥取県庁では「県民の声」というネット上の住民からの意見箱を設置しています。一人の住民が自分の声を行政に届けるツールとして評価できるけど,悪用されたら逆に善良な住民に取って凶器と成り得ることが分かった一週間でした。事は月曜日に始まった。午後,グリーンフィールドで芝刈をしていて、いつもの様に数人の利用者が愛犬を連れて来て、うちのお嬢達プリンセスとちかどんと一緒に走り回って,大変よろしい和やかな雰囲気でありました。そうすると,小学4年生の女の子たちが「ニールさん,大変だ,すぐ来て!」と騒ぎが始まった。道路に檻付きとトラックが止まっていて、作業服を来ている男性2人がグラウンドの中に入って来て,しきりにプリンセスの方向を指しながら何やら注意をしている様子でした。県の保健所の職員というこの2人が「大型犬の放し飼いが危険という苦情がこの「県民の声」に届いており,事情を確認に来ていると説明した。法人として登記済のNPOが県議会の承認を受け,正式に県と契約して管理をしているこの土地での事に関しては当然県から連絡が入るものだと思っているので,身分証め遺書を要求したら,持っていないと言われたので,帰るよう指示をした。翌日,保健所に電話で事情を聞いてみたら,担当者が僕と面識があり,なんと以前は2回程あそこでドッグランを開催したいので貸してくれないかと頼んだことがある人です。どうして問題がある時は連絡をしないのかとの質問に対し返事は「忙しかったから」と唖然。もっと唖然となったのは職員に現地に行くよう指示を出した人は誰だと聞いたら,電話の職員が自分ではないと言いうもんで、指示を出した人から折り返しの電話を頼んだ。1時間後に同じ職員から電話があり,今度は「僕が指示を出した」と言います。どうして嘘をついたかと聞いたら,「恐いから」だとさ。「まるっきり幼稚園児が悪さをして先生に見つかり,その先生が恐いから「僕じゃ無かった」と一緒じゃん」とうちの家内の一言。その直後ですが,我々の窓口となっている部署から「放し飼い禁止の看板を立てる対策を検討している」とのメールが入り,すぐさま県庁に出向いた僕です。契約書には「善良なる管理者としての注意を持って使用貸借物件の維持保全に努める」が我々に課せられている維持保全義務です。また「契約に関し疑義があるときは、甲・乙協議の上決定する」となっています。一切の利用制限を設けていないグリーンフィールド,毎年数万人の利用者が大変満足している状態のグリーンフィールド,3年間で1回も問題行為が起きた事のないグリーンフィールド、県に一切の金銭負担の無いグリーンフィールド,一流競技場なみのすこぶる気持の良い芝生が誇りのグリーンフィールド等々を考えれば契約書の条件を見事に満たしているとの評価があって当たり前の管理者「グリーンスポーツ鳥取」ですから,とても契約違反はないと思います。仮にあったとしても、県庁の部署同士で話し合って対策を決定した場合(例えば,保健所職員を現地に行かせる),それこそ県職員が自ら契約違反行為をしているのではないかともう抗議をしました。翌日,県の担当者が僕にチャンと断って置いて、現場に来て,直接利用者の声を聞きました。当然「看板なんて絶対反対!」との合唱だったそうです。とりあえずは現状のままですが,傲慢な県職員(特に保健所)を絶対に許すことはありません。The Tottori prefectural administration prides itself on its openness. One manifestation of this policy is the "Make Your Voice Heard" service on the home page. It makes it possible for even one resident to lodge his views on matters related to the way the government operates. I rate this tool but found out that it could easily become a weapon against decent citizens. The story starts last Monday.I was at Greenfield mowing the grass, several locals were there with their dogs, who were enjoying the space and freedom to run around with their mates on a lovely spring day. All in all, life was good.Or was until a couple of 9-year old lasses rushed to me breathlessly, asking me to come quickly as there was some trouble.A truck with a cage on the back was parked on the street and two officious-looking men wearing overalls had come into the ground and were speaking firmly to the people at the park, pointing all the while at Princess (my 7-year old Labrador and the gentlest dog you will ever ever meet).Telling me that they were from the pound, they informed me that a complaint about dangerous large dogs running free had been received via the Net service I mentioned earlier.An officially-registered NPO had a legally-binding contract with the prefectural government for the management and maintenance of Greenfield, so I had naturally assumed that should there be any sort of problem, the government would contact me first. Being suspicious, I asked for ID. They said they had none so I told them to leave the park immediately. Sensing the futility (danger?) of arguing with a 190cm, 95kg angry Kiwi, they left without further word.The next morning, I rang the relevant department to find out what was happening and was astounded to find that the guy in charge was a person who had twice contacted me in the past to ask permission to use GF for a dog run. When asked why he had not contacted me about this recent complaint, his answer was a gob-smacking "I was busy". I asked who had instructed the staff to go to GF with the truck, and he assured me that it was not him. I asked for the person who had issued this instruction to call me back ASAP, and was utterly gob-smacked (a busy day for my gob) when the same guy called me and admitted that he had indeed given the instructions. Asked why he had lied, he said quite simply that he had been scared.My wife's reaction: "he is just like a little kid caught out doing something bad and not telling his dad or the teacher because he was scared". About this time, I received an e-mail from my regular contact at the government and our first point of call, advising me that they were considering erecting a sign telling users that large dogs must be on their leash at all times.The contract we signed states that our obligation is "to make all possible efforts to maintain and manage the rented premises with all care as befits a decent manager".Further, it states that any issues not specifically covered by the contract "are to be decided by discussion between the two signatories".Greenfield has absolutely no rules and regulations, it is used by several thousand satisfied people every year, there has not been one incident requiring a report to the authorities in the 3 years we have managed it, it cost the local government not a single cent, it boasts grass every bit as good as that in most top stadia. In every respect, I believe that Green Sports Tottori deserves the highest possible commendation. In no way can we be said to be in breach of contract.Even were we in breach of contract, for government departments to discuss any issue among themselves and take action (such as sending a truck to the ground) is in itself a breach of the conditions of our contract. Or so I charged the government with in no uncertain terms. The next day, the man in charge, having asked me if it was acceptable to do so, visited Greenfield and asked several users for their opinion. He was met with a deafening chorus of "NO SIGN POSTS!".Although things have settled for the time being, I have no intention of letting the arrogant government officials get away with their actions.