THE MAN FROM ALLAWUNA
(With apologies to ‘Banjo’ Patterson and his “The Man from Snowy River”.)

There was panic at York Council, for the word had passed around
the CEO with  no regrets had quit that day
To some Council  members- he was worth a million $Pounds
because they had no idea of what to do-or say.
They’d few ideas of council rules, good governance, and still so far
no ideas of probity, and what obligations are.

One of them had made his pile from fixing cars and things
of his departing CEO – he let his praises ring.
“Good CEO? “I believe he was” –our man was quick to say
“he guided me- directed me”- that was ‘Good Old’ Ray
Never was a better man to lend a helping hand
support Ray’s local rubbish tip, “ that’s where I’ve made my stand”.

Like Ray, this mans departed, left the Council fray
 to pursue his family business- but had it got away?
There’s many who hail from York who said  ‘this one will never do
he just mimics others, ‘ this rides too tough for you’
He stood tall in the Council saddle, two comrades by his side
 said “York tip is good for all of you”  
now may his conscience be his guide

Another stood up, a mendicant, from “The House upon the Hill”
a politician through and through, you guessed it-he’s a dill
Of Ray, did Tony Simpson say, ‘in York he’ll leave a hole’
this man would not know what this hole is- and it’s York that pays the toll
“There’s community pressure on a number issues” Simpson made that clear
but what those community issues are?  He’s still got no idea!

 As the lashing whip of past mistakes resounds through vale and hill
others should not be forgot –yes- be remembered still
There’s teacher Pat and farmer Boyle- to their eternal shame
Ray Hooper was their CEO- so they must bear some blame
The CEO has since left York with not a lot to say
yet there is one word to think about- and that word is “Hooray”

To defeat political pomposity and authoritarianism – the ‘common man’ has satire.
David Taylor.

James Plumridge <#*^*westnet.com.au>
to shireofyork6302@gmail.com.au

Some contributors to the blogspot have commented rather unkindly on what they perceive as Mia Davies' failure to stand up for York with regard not only to the Local Government Minister's threat to sack our Shire Council but also to the SITA landfill proposal.

One went so far as to suggest that she has no interest in York and that the letters of her first name stand for 'Missing In Action'.

I received the following email from Ms Davies three weeks ago.  She was the first politician to respond to my letter to Minister Simpson.  I have since received a response on Minister Simpson's behalf from Brad Jolly, an executive director in the DLG.

I am heartened by her statement that she has impressed on Mr Simpson 'the importance of providing support to the Council to resolve or address matters that concern the community in relation to the operation of previous Councils'.  I take this to be an indirect reference to matters raised in the Fitz Gerald Report.  Mr Simpson's department would probably like nothing better than to shovel the follies and misdemeanours of previous shire administrations into a deep, deep hole, to cover up its persistent failure over the years to act on residents' complaints.  I hope Ms Davies will keep reminding Mr Simpson of his moral duty, and if necessary, when the time comes, take a principled stand on the matter.

As to the landfill, in my letter to Mr Simpson l asked, by way of question, for an assurance that his threat against the YSC did not arise from tacit government support for SITA's proposal.  Mr Jolly has declined to address any of my questions on the grounds that the 'Show Cause' process is not yet complete.  If the truth is that the Show Cause Notice has nothing to do with SITA's proposal, perhaps Ms Davies would like to tell us so, and to define her own position regarding the proposal.  I venture to guess that most York people voted for her, and I think we have a right to know her opinion.  If she won't give it to us, that would be a fairly good indication of where the government's interests really lie.

Does anyone know where the ALP Opposition stands on the landfill question and the Show Cause Notice?  I sent a copy of my letter, with covering remarks, to David Templeman, the shadow minister, and hope for a detailed response from him when the holiday season ends.  My suspicion is that the Opposition doesn't give the proverbial stuff for York, whose citizens don't vote for it, and on the landfill issue is at one with the Government.  Could I be wrong?


-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	RE: Shire of York Show Cause Notice - LGA Sn 8.15B(1)
Date:	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 04:14:28 +0000
From:	Davies, Mia <Mia.Davies@mp.wa.gov.au>
To:	<#*^*westnet.com.au>

Good afternoon Dr Plumridge

 

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Minister Simpson.

I understand the situation is distressing and have had a number of meetings with the Minister and various stakeholders in the community over the course of the last six months.

Following on from the announcement I met with the Minister to understand the process going forward.

The role of a Councillor can be challenging and these are people that have volunteered their time on the behalf of the community.  For this reason it is essential that we remain supportive and understanding as the matter is addressed.

There is now a process to be followed in which I cannot interfere.  If the Council is operating effectively they will meet the requirements of the 'show cause' notice and they will be entitled to continue.

The ‘show cause’ notice relates to a process identified under the Local Government Act linked to the current Council.

I have impressed on the Minister for Local Government the importance of providing support to the Council to resolve or address matters that concern the community in relation to the operations of previous Councils.

I appreciate your concerns and remain conscious of the community's wishes.  Thank you again for taking the time to inform me of your views on this issue.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

HON MIA DAVIES MLA

Member for Central Wheatbelt

A comment sent in which is worthy of being a stand alone post

 

WHEN WILL IT ALL END?

Following the issue of the recent show cause notice I would agree that the DLGC have made some very poor judgements but,  I would I also state the same of the current and past York Council.

Past CEO Ray Hooper, Councillors and  the senior administration were despicable in their behaviour towards the York Community, which is well known and certainly needed (and still needs) addressing.

Some current Councillors have done everything possible to cover their own 'proverbial arse'.  They have, on occasion, appeared to play in a 'one man band'. It has become evident that the instigation of the 'Fitzgerald report' was but a mere excuse to clean the slate and wipe the board but, ready for a new start - for what and who's benefit?

I am disgusted at the level of self absorbed arrogance that is and has been shown regarding this whole Fitzgerald Report and the Show Cause notice and rebuttal fiasco.

More than slightly sick of hearing about poor Councillors and their damaged reputations.....
What about the residents / ratepayers mentioned in the Fitzgerald report who bothered to step forward and put their names on record? What about their feelings, what about their families, what about their future? Who from the York Council, DLGC or the Ministers Officers has actually shown a care about them?

The past problem belongs to York - it should not have been passed to the Minister, it should not have been handed over the DLGC, it should not have been passed to Lawyers and Insurance Companies. It should have been dealt with IMMEDIATELY by those responsible and, forgive me for asking what I believe to be an obvious questions...

"What prevented and is still preventing this Council going through the list of complaints and concerns as reported, starting with the easiest to resolve first and offering a simple APOLOGY or other means of resolution to those affected"? 

Not possible?  too easy?  .. NO...because basically that's only what decent people and grown up's do!            
The entire York Shire Council have let this community down and they should hang their heads in shame!

These people are so tied up in a political tussle and personal gratification that they forget who put them where they are and for what purpose.

A sincere apology has three parts:

"I'm sorry" - is a statement

"I won't do it again" - is a promise

"How do I make it up to you?" - is a responsibility

 

Sincerely hopeful of an end to all this political crap,

VERITAS

Western Australian Information Commissioner

You are here:  [2014] WAICmr 24

---

WALTERS and Shire of York, Re [2014] WAICmr 24 (22 December 2014)

Last Updated: 23 December 2014

Decision D0242014 – Published in note form only

Re Walters and Shire of York [2014] WAICmr 24

Date of Decision: 22 December 2014

Freedom of Information Act 1992: section 6; Glossary

On 8 August 2013, Ms Patricia Walters (the complainant) applied to the Shire of York (the agency) under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (the FOI Act) for access to certain financial records relating to the Forrest Oval Recreation and Convention Centre in York.

By notice of decision dated 25 September 2013, the agency decided that the information requested by the complainant was publicly available and therefore, pursuant to section 6 of the FOI Act, was not subject to the access procedures in the FOI Act. In effect, the agency refused to deal with the complainant’s access application (the access application). As the then Chief Executive Officer made the decision, internal review was not available to the complainant. On 16 November 2013, the complainant applied to the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) for external review of the agency’s decision.

Following receipt of the complaint, the Commissioner obtained the FOI file maintained by the agency in respect of the access application. The Commissioner decided to deal with the matter in the first instance by requesting that the parties attend a conciliation conference. However, the matter was not resolved at that conference.

The Commissioner’s office made further inquiries with the agency with respect to the records that the agency holds within the scope of the access application, including inquiries about the agency’s databases. The agency maintained that the information requested by the applicant was available in minutes, agendas and reports of the Council that are available on its website.

Section 6 of the FOI Act provides that the access procedures set out in the FOI Act do not apply to documents that are available to the public, either for purchase or free distribution. The Commissioner considers that the fact that some information contained in a document may be available publicly, or on public record elsewhere, does not mean that section 6 of the FOI Act applies to that document. This is because section 10(1) of the FOI Act provides a right of access to documents rather than information and section 6 applies to documents that are publicly available, rather than information which is publicly available (see also Re Kolo and Department of Land Administration [1994] WAICmr 2 and Re Collins and Ministry for Planning [1996] WAICmr 39).
The Commissioner provided the parties with a letter setting out his preliminary view of the complaint. The Commissioner considered that the information stored in the agency’s databases came within the scope of the complainant’s access application and that the databases were documents as defined in the Glossary to the FOI Act. The Commissioner was also satisfied that the databases themselves were not available to the public, either for purchase or free distribution. Accordingly, it was the Commissioner’s preliminary view, based on the information before him, that the agency’s decision to, in effect, refuse to deal with the access application under section 6 of the FOI Act was not justified because not all of the requested documents were publicly available.
The Commissioner invited the agency to reconsider whether it wished to maintain its position or to make further submissions. The agency made further submissions. However, those submissions did not address whether or not section 6 of the FOI Act applied to all of the documents within the scope of the access application.

The Commissioner reviewed all of the information before him, including the agency’s further submissions, and was not dissuaded from his preliminary view. Accordingly, the Commissioner set aside the agency’s decision to, in effect, refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application. In substitution, the Commissioner found that section 6 of the FOI Act did not apply to all of the requested documents and the agency was required to deal with the access application in accordance with Part 2 of the FOI Act.

.

                                                 DEAR BLOG READERS

Dated December 28, 2014

Hon Tony Simpson
Minister for Local government
8^th Floor Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH, 6005

CC Hon Colin Barnett
Premier of Western Australia


Dear Minister

Your Ref: Shire of York Blog 6032

I am sure you are aware of this community concerns- based, Internet Blog Site, recording your performance, the performance of your department, past Shire of York Councils and its employees- for posterity.

It certainly is no ringing endorsement of your treatment of the current Shire of York Council and, in particular, its’ President. Not only does its content suggest you should hang your head in shame, it infers you should take rapid remedial steps to reposition yourself to where you actually support the community- not a handful of potentially tainted individuals.

It appears by the accusations you have broadcast against the current Shire President, you and your Department could have come perilously close to being in breach of the Defamations Act, 2005. This is an indefensible action, particularly when it involves what could be defined as a personal attack by a Minister of the Crown on a public spirited citizen, trying to better his community.

You may be interested to know that the Blog-Site has had in excess of 35,000
hits with any comments universally negative towards your performance, your department’s, a minority group of individuals and, in some cases, the overall state of Local Government in Western Australia.

It is perceived that your actions and those of your department are bringing the third tier of the democratic process, the Local Government Councils and their administration into disrepute. That is - your demand for what you conceive to be adequate Code of Conduct performance and other required compliance by most council’s, their councillors and employees only exists when a problem, created by your department’s deficiencies, explodes in your face.

Your knee jerk reaction after monitoring York Council meetings only occurred when deleterious misinformation was relayed to you by one of your incompetent officers in collusion with several Councillors with an axe to grind.

The fact that any lack of adequate administrative performance and compliance goes back decades still seems to escape you, although you have the relevant documents to prove it. One in particular, dated 2004, is prominently displayed on the Blog Site.

Thirty-five thousand hits on the York Blog is a lot of bad publicity and if you add on the ubiquitous ‘Dunbar’s Number’ there may be a very large force of disgruntled ratepayers waiting for the next State Election. They could also be lining up the Local Member, Mia Davies, who appears to feel York is not part of her electorate, especially its’ Shire Council and proposed rubbish tip.

So what is your real agenda? Are you using the Shire of York Council as a whipping boy for a deeper, more sinister purpose? Is it an opening for a surreptitious attack on Rural, Regional and Remote Local Government that your Government can now ill-afford to assist?

Everyone knows the wheels have fallen off the State’s iron ore gravy train,
it has lost its AAA credit rating and the current budget is in deep shtook.

Statistics are the basis of reality. Politicians tend to use this basic equation only when it suits them and usually for politically devious reasons.

Statistical reality is that this State has had a severe budget blow-out.

Another statistical reality is your former home state of Victoria has 79 Local Government Areas (LGA’s) providing local government services to 5.841 million people.

In Western Australia there are currently 138 LGA’s representing 2.55 million. 
(In Queensland there are 74 and the same in South Australia.)

Where reality bites hard in WA is that 109 of these LGA’s serve a permanent Rural, Regional and Remote Area population of just 354,000, while thirty-four of them have an average population of just 576, and that is residents not ratepayers.

Overall there are 30 more LGA’s outside of Perth than there are in the whole of Victoria, including Melbourne.

So is your real agenda that, by pillaring the Shire of York Council, it may give you an excuse to reduce the number of Rural, Regional and Remote LGA’s by up-to 50 to bring WA into line with most other states?

If so, I would think again!

Yours sincerely
David Taylor
YORK RATEPAYER.

 Sound familiar ? 

 

June 2004 was about the same time Ray Hooper resigned from his position as CEO Shire of Chittering, he then moved on to York in August 2004.

And this from Kalgoorlie in 1989:

 

ANOTHER TYRESOME FAUX PAS

 

       



Santa Clause, Peter Murray far right wearing yellow vest 

For more years than anyone cares to remember, the Shire of York allowed the Shell Garage block to be a fetid wasteland, a Soweto Ghetto of rotting tyres, decaying car batteries and rusting car bodies.

All this time Easterly Winds blew this potentially carcinogenic cocktail up the nostrils of those cruising up and down Avon Terrace, locals and tourists alike.

That was until the Shire CEO, Michael Keeble, was warned of possible Chernobyl-like chemical compounds developing. Lead, battery acid and a host of other elements combining to make- “Holy Shit”! (Mr. Keeble appears to have had a problem with using bad language!)

So on October 6, 2014, the Shire took it upon itself to do a Christmas in October for Shell
Global and Vitol, a massive Swiss conglomerate, which has purchased all of Australia’s Shell Garages for $2.9 Billion. This includes “Smith’s Shell Service”.

Despite the Shire categorically stating, on its website, that Council WILL NOT remove tyres and batteries, Shire Works Supervisor and ersatz Santa Clause, Peter Murray, some Shire elves, two  Shire sleighs and a lovely red Shire tractor, removed an ugly black mass of Michelin, GoodYear, Dunlop, Bridgestone, Yokohama et al from said service station premises.

The ugly black mass of used rubber can now be found at White Gum Farm, 12kms East of York.
According to Shire financial records its assistance to Multi-National Companies and the local owner was gratis, or if you prefer-“free”. And it’s a lot of free, 5.5 man hours for one Santa and four elves, 5.5 hours hire of two sleighs and the lovely red tractor, plus the usual on-costs such as fuel and depreciation.

This “freebie” is recorded in the Shire’s, Works Depot Monthly Report- Private Works October 2014.

But it gets way better.

Santa Claus (Peter Murray) acted illegally. Under Part 3, Division 3 of the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations, 2004 you must have a licence to move controlled waste- and old tyres are controlled waste.

Has the Shire got a licence? You guessed it-no!

What did CEO Keeble have to say when told, "I can’t seem to get anything f…….g right, can I".

Did Santa Claus receive a Christmas bonus at either end of his sleigh ride ?

 

 

 

 

York wants 'royal commission'

Kate Emery

December 17, 2014, 5:00 am

    Shire of York wants royal commission into governance issues - The West Australian

Local Government Minister Tony Simpson.

The Shire of York wants the State Government to appoint a panel with the powers of a royal commission to investigate corporate governance issues dating back 10 years.

Responding to a show-cause notice from Local Government Minister Tony Simpson, the council rejected many of the claims in a 30-page report compiled by Department of Local Government officers, including that president Matthew Reid signed purchase orders for a report into the Shire's former chief executive and taped councillors without their knowledge.

In its response to Mr Simpson, the Shire said it was "very disappointed and concerned" by inaccuracies and "unsubstantiated allegations" in the department-authored report.

It said the appropriate way to address the issues back to 2004 would be for "an inquiry panel with the powers of a royal commission" to investigate. The Shire also proposed a training program for the council as an alternative to suspending it.

Mr Reid said the report Mr Simpson had relied on to issue the show-cause notice contained matters that were "palpably . . . false and misleading", including allegations he had signed purchase orders.

"As expressed in the tabled council response to the show-cause notice it is council's view the full weight of the law should be brought to bear on the author or authors of the report given to Minister Simpson," he said.

Mr Simpson said he would review the documents and make a decision about whether to suspend the Shire for six months.

Boyle resignation

Click image to enhance

Click image to enhance

                       
                        RESIGNATION OF COUNCILLOR TONY BOYLE
                                    (As it should have been)
       

Dear York,

After serving nine years as a Councillor in the Shire of York (2 years as President) it is
with regret that I find it necessary to submit my resignation today. This is to take effect immediately and includes all duties associated with the position.

Firstly I apologize for my insolent disrespect of the position of President of the Shire of York Council by initially addressing my resignation to an employee of the Shire. As you would understand it was meant to cause deep affront to the Shire President.

I now apologize profusely for my nine year, in-depth, involvement in a council found to be defective in its administration by no-less-an-authority than the WA Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman is the supreme independent arbiter preventing the growing power of government agencies to adversely affect people’s daily lives by making these agencies accountable for misuse of this power.

Obviously I was one of those who failed miserably in this regard.

In my time as President I brought the Shire of York into disrepute with the Department of Local Government and Communities’ ‘Standards Panel’ finding me guilty of improper, unseemly behavior towards some townspeople of York. I now realize that my actions shamed the whole of the York community and sullied the dignity afforded the position of Shire President.

For this I humbly and sincerely apologize. I deeply regret that I did not resign then.

During my tenure as Councillor and President I was responsible, with others, for allowing the, then, Chief-Executive-Officer of the Shire of York, Mr. Ray Hooper, to spend well in excess of $100,000 on travel, entertainment and alcohol alone. I now realize that this expenditure bore absolutely no rational relationship to any financial benefit to the York community. In fact there was no benefit at all.

The expenditure could best be described as an extremely expensive sinecure and given the circumstances of Mr. Hooper’s departure from both the Kalgoorlie-Boulder City Council in 1989 and the Shire of Chittering in 2004, I sometimes feel that, personally I should give this money back.

Once again reflecting upon my nine years in office, I understand how many in York feel it has been a period of total decimation in which the Shire of York has failed miserably in providing the quality of administrative guidance to ensure a sustainable (and) growing community.

Since I joined forces with Ray Hooper at least three hotels, seven restaurants, six businesses and five major tourism events have closed or gone elsewhere to be replaced by a tavern and  restaurant owned by the Shire.

Now I could be cynical here and say the businesses failed because of the poor business management skills of their owners. However, personally, I attempted to start a local abattoir and failed rather miserably.

Once again I apologize to you all and promise you I will not attempt to (dis)grace the York Shire
Council chambers again by seeking re-election as a Councillor.

Plumridge letter to Minister Simpson 6 December 2014

14 Harriott Street

YORK WA 6302

6 December 2014

Hon. Tony Simpson, MLA

Minister for Local Government

8^th Floor, Dumas House

2 Havelock Street

WEST PERTH 6005

By email to Minister.Simpson@dpc.wa.gov.au

Dear Minister,

 Local Government Act Section 8.15B(1)—Show Cause Notice, Shire of York

 As a resident and ratepayer of York, I have a number of concerns regarding the above Notice.  Some of those concerns are reflected in the questions that follow.  I hope you will take the trouble to answer them.

 Impartiality

1.                  The contents of the Notice seem to be based to a considerable extent on complaints made to your department by two former shire presidents, Crs Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper, and two former CEOs, Mr Ray Hooper and Mr Michael Keeble.  The Notice seems to assume without question or substantiation that their complaints have merit.

Did our current shire president, Cr Matthew Reid, enjoy similar access to your department?  If so, was what he may have said in his own defence given the same degree of consideration as the views of those complainants?

 The Fitz Gerald Report

 2.                   The Fitz Gerald Report alludes in detail to a broad range of alleged misconduct on the part of several past and present councillors, a former CEO, other former staff of the shire and a local businessman.   Those individuals stand variously accused of systematic suppression of ratepayer dissent, vindictive persecution of dissenters, cronyism, nepotism, favouritism, deceit, bullying, spreading slander, misusing corporate credit arrangements, and failing to ensure the proper accounting and management of Council funds.

 This misconduct is alleged to have occurred during the respective presidencies of Crs Hooper and Boyle and while Mr Ray Hooper was CEO. 

 Is it the case that, during that period, your department received complaints from York residents and ratepayers about aspects of that alleged misconduct, but failed to investigate them or to intervene in any significant way in the operations of the Shire Council?  If so, why was that?

 3.                   Do you agree that your Department has a duty to investigate the allegations contained in the Fitz Gerald Report—in particular, but by no means only, those that allude to financial misconduct?

 4.                   If you do so agree, why have you limited your review of the governance of the Shire to the activities of the current Shire Council headed by Cr Reid and not extended it to cover previous years, perhaps as far back as 2008?

5.                   Would you consider authorising an independent and disinterested inquiry into the procedures and activities of the York Shire Council, including matters raised in the Fitz Gerald Report?  If not, why not? 

 6.                   By suspending the Council, does your department aim to distract attention from its past failure to act on ratepayer complaints? 

 7.                   Further, does your department aim to protect persons adversely mentioned in the Fitz Gerald Report from legal and political consequences that might flow from their alleged misconduct?

 8.                 It is rumoured that the WA Government has given tacit support to SITA’s proposal to establish a landfill near York, and that an administrator, if appointed, will be instructed to discontinue the Shire Council’s opposition to the proposal. 

Will you assure ratepayers that the rumour is untrue?

 9.                In paragraph 2.2.1(3) of the Notice, you take Council to task for failing ‘to properly manage and control the distribution of the Fitz Gerald Report’.  

I understand that some unknown person or persons leaked the report to the public. There is no evidence I know of that a councillor was responsible for the leak, or that Council as a whole, or the Shire President, could have prevented it.

 The Notice implies that the report should have been withheld from circulation.  How would withholding the report have benefited the York community (other than those persons adversely mentioned in it)?  What damage has our community suffered, or might suffer, resulting from the report’s publication?

 (Individuals who were targeted by the very precise allegations contained in the report have the right of open reply and rebuttal or to seek redress in the courts.  So far as I know, nobody has pursued either course.  I find that surprising.)

 10.               How would suppressing the report have squared with the principle of open, honest and accountable local government, something York seems not to have enjoyed for a good many years before the election of Cr Reid?

 11.               In paragraph 2.2.1(6) of the Notice, you refer to ‘the standing down and termination of CEO Hooper’.  It is my understanding that CEO Hooper tendered his resignation, which Council then accepted.  Which version of the story is correct?

Public Question Time

 12.               In paragraph 2.2.2.(1) of the Notice, you allege that the Shire President and Council have accepted ‘inappropriate questions in relation to staff and human resources matters’. Can you provide specific examples of such questions, and explain how and why they were ‘inappropriate’?  In this context, exactly what does ‘inappropriate’ mean?  ‘Inappropriate’ in relation to what?

 13.               Would you agree that the purpose of public question time is to permit members of the public to exercise their democratic right:

 (a) to seek clarification of issues that concern them;

(b) to offer suggestions as to how Council funds might be applied;

(c) to raise questions regarding aspects of Council’s activities, including the conduct of councillors and staff; and

(d) to express support for, or dissatisfaction with, the scope, direction, implementation and enforcement of Council policies?

 14.               If you do so agree, would you not also agree that what your Notice implies is that the Shire President and Council should censor questions from the public—presumably including questions that may be embarrassing to Council or staff, but are not malicious or defamatory—rather than simply maintain order during public question time?

 Conflict among Councillors and with former CEO Keeble

 15.               Why was it ‘inappropriate’ for the Shire President and Council to use the Shire’s audit committee to ‘conduct investigations into alleged financial matters’ (paragraph 2.3.2)?

 16.               What exactly was ‘inappropriate’ about the Shire President’s management of debate in Council meetings (paragraph 2.3.3), bearing in mind that he has been opposed and obstructed at almost every turn by certain other councillors and, it is said, by former CEOs?

 17.              What exactly has been ‘inappropriate’ (2.3.4) about Cr Reid’s conduct towards former CEO Keeble and administration staff?  How has his conduct towards staff had the ‘potential to cause significant industrial relations and welfare issues’ (2.3.5) for staff other than Mr Keeble, whose own conduct towards Cr Reid is very much open to question?  Is there a single instance of that ‘potential’ becoming actual?

 18.           Given the apparently toxic nature of the relationship of Mr Keeble and certain councillors with Councillor Reid, it seems wise of Cr Reid to have made audio recordings of his meetings with those individuals (2.3.6), although it would have been wiser not to make them surreptitiously, if that is in fact what he did.

 Are you aware that on one of those recordings Mr Keeble is allegedly to be heard ordering Cr Reid to sit down and calling him ‘a fucking cunt’ in earshot of administration staff?  Do you believe that is proper behaviour and a proper use of language on the part of a local government CEO towards a shire president, especially when other staff can easily overhear it?  Would you not agree that such behaviour must cast doubt on Mr Keeble’s credibility regarding accusations he may have made against Cr Reid?

 Since becoming Shire President, Cr Reid has shown that he has a positive vision for York and a determination to ensure that Council’s activities and proceedings are open to public scrutiny.  He has strong community support, and consistent support from some of the other councillors.  I am confident that a by-election resulting from the recent resignation of one of the councillors opposed to him would give him clear majority support on Council.  He would then have the chance to restore community confidence in Council and develop policies directed towards a happier and more prosperous future for our town. 

 Suspending Council at this time would be very much a retrograde step and, judging from my conversations with other ratepayers, an extremely unpopular one.

 I am not personally acquainted with Cr Reid.  However, I have seen and heard enough to have faith in his ability as President of the York Shire Council to lead our community towards a brighter future.  Please, Minister, leave him to get on with the job.

Yours sincerely,

James Plumridge

(Dr) James V Plumridge, Ph D

cc           Cr Matthew Reid

                Hon. Colin Barnett, MLA

                Hon. Mia Davies, MLA

                Hon. John Hyde, MLA

Sunday Times article 14 December 2014

Click picture to enhance

Hon. Colin Barnett
Premier of Western Australia

Dear Premier,

YOUR URGENT ATTENTION

Your Ref: 24-503507/JH
Incl: SHIRE OF YORK RESPONSE TO THE ‘SHOW CAUSE NOTICE’ LETTER FROM MINISTER SIMPSON

The strength of the rebuttal of the content of your Minister’s “Show Cause Notice” by the Shire of York (the Shire)suggests that he has been grossly misinformed by the Department of Local Government and Communities (the Department).

The fact that it the Shire has called for a “ROYAL COMMISSION” style investigation into the allegations made by Minister Simpson testifies to the veracity of this rebuttal.

Given this, and continued media interest, it may well place Minister Simpson in an extremely invidious position regarding his credibility in handling this portfolio. This coming on top of the Dean Nalder affair.

The alleged breaches of local government protocol by the Shire as claimed by Minister Simpson, and rejected by this shire council, certainly occurred from 2008-2013 and is well documented. These documents are, or should be, in the safe custody and control of the Department and various other government departments.

The person who has been Director General of the Department since March 2008, is Ms. Jennifer Matthews.

Ms. Matthews bears the ultimate internal responsibility for the performance of her department or lack thereof. Externally, the quality and reliability of information resources supplied by her to the Minister impacts directly on the public perception of his performance and the overall performance of your Government.

I suggest to you that there is a prima-face case suggesting that Ms. Matthews and the Department have fallen well short of providing proper, well researched and credible advice to the Minister.

In future the Minister may well have great difficulty in explaining to the public of Western Australia, how?and why? he got so many of his allegations so wrong!

Your sincerely

David Taylor
Shire of York Ratepayer.

December 12, 2014

Nil Desperandum, Caveat Emptor in Taurus Excreta

I wish to congratulate Dr. James Plumridge on his clinical dismemberment of Minister Tony Simpson’s ‘Show Cause Notice’ commandments conveyed with smug impunity from ‘The House on the Hill’.
I would also like to make mention of the anonymous donor of illiteracy who comments that Dr. Plumridges dissection of Simpsons banal and inaccurate dictum is “dribble”.

Everyone agrees that in a democracy the fool has the right to make him or herself look stupid.

However the word this person could not wrap the interior of their cerebral cortex around is “Drivel”. “Dribble” is when one’s mouth leaks saliva.

The responsibility for the damage to the democratic process which has occurred within the Shire of York Council sits squarely on the shoulders of Minister Tony Simpson and his department of bureaucratic bunglers.

At any given meeting held by this council over the past decade you would have seen little record keeping compliance and anything closely related to good governance practices.

If you love a laugh then attend a meeting of the City of Joondalup Council where at least one councillor refuses to acknowledge the existence of the ethical and moral judgement called “Conflict-of-Interest” despite his efforts being continually questioned in the media.

To cap it all off, the ‘Disclaimer’, which is the preamble to a Local Government Ordinary Council Meeting, reads like an evidentiary deposition by a lawyer at his guilty-clients murder trial.

It suggests that the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC) cannot trust what a Local Government Councillor does or says in an open forum.

An aphorism for a DLGC motto is the “Pig Latin” ‘Nil Desperandum, Caveat Emptor in Taurus Excreta
roughly meaning, ‘No need to despair, our mistakes are your problem and we will keep feeding you
Bullshit”.
 
David Taylor
York Ratepayer

6 December 2014

 

Hon. Tony Simpson, MLA

Minister for Local Government

8^th Floor, Dumas House

2 Havelock Street

WEST PERTH 6005

By email to Minister.Simpson@dpc.wa.gov.au

Dear Minister,

Local Government Act Section 8.15B(1)—Show Cause Notice, Shire of York

As a resident and ratepayer of York, I have a number of concerns regarding the above Notice.  Some of those concerns are reflected in the questions that follow.  I hope you will take the trouble to answer them.

Impartiality

1.  The contents of the Notice seem to be based to a considerable extent on complaints made to your department by two former shire presidents, Crs Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper, and two former CEOs, Mr Ray Hooper and Mr Michael Keeble.  The Notice seems to assume without question or substantiation that their complaints have merit.

Did our current shire president, Cr Matthew Reid, enjoy similar access to your department?  If so, was what he may have said in his own defence given the same degree of consideration as the views of those complainants?

The Fitz Gerald Report

2.   The Fitz Gerald Report alludes in detail to a broad range of alleged misconduct on the part of several past and present councillors, a former CEO, other former staff of the shire and a local businessman.   Those individuals stand variously accused of systematic suppression of ratepayer dissent, vindictive persecution of dissenters, cronyism, nepotism, favouritism, deceit, bullying, spreading slander, misusing corporate credit arrangements, and failing to ensure the proper accounting and management of Council funds.

This misconduct is alleged to have occurred during the respective presidencies of Crs Hooper and Boyle and while Mr Ray Hooper was CEO. 

Is it the case that, during that period, your department received complaints from York residents and ratepayers about aspects of that alleged misconduct, but failed to investigate them or to intervene in any significant way in the operations of the Shire Council?  If so, why was that?

3.  Do you agree that your Department has a duty to investigate the allegations contained in the Fitz Gerald Report—in particular, but by no means only, those that allude to financial misconduct?

4.  If you do so agree, why have you limited your review of the governance of the Shire to the activities of the current Shire Council headed by Cr Reid and not extended it to cover previous years, perhaps as far back as 2008?

5. Would you consider authorising an independent and disinterested inquiry into the procedures and activities of the York Shire Council, including matters raised in the Fitz Gerald Report?  If not, why not? 

6.  By suspending the Council, does your department aim to distract attention from its past failure to act on ratepayer complaints? 

7.  Further, does your department aim to protect persons adversely mentioned in the Fitz Gerald Report from legal and political consequences that might flow from their alleged misconduct?

8.  It is rumoured that the WA Government has given tacit support to SITA’s proposal to establish a landfill near York, and that an administrator, if appointed, will be instructed to discontinue the Shire Council’s opposition to the proposal. 

Will you assure ratepayers that the rumour is untrue?

9.  In paragraph 2.2.1(3) of the Notice, you take Council to task for failing ‘to properly manage and control the distribution of the Fitz Gerald Report’.  

I understand that some unknown person or persons leaked the report to the public. There is no evidence I know of that a councillor was responsible for the leak, or that Council as a whole, or the Shire President, could have prevented it.

The Notice implies that the report should have been withheld from circulation.  How would withholding the report have benefited the York community (other than those persons adversely mentioned in it)?  What damage has our community suffered, or might suffer, resulting from the report’s publication?

(Individuals who were targeted by the very precise allegations contained in the report have the right of open reply and rebuttal or to seek redress in the courts.  So far as I know, nobody has pursued either course.  I find that surprising.)

10.  How would suppressing the report have squared with the principle of open, honest and accountable local government, something York seems not to have enjoyed for a good many years before the election of Cr Reid?

11.   In paragraph 2.2.1(6) of the Notice, you refer to ‘the standing down and termination of CEO Hooper’.  It is my understanding that CEO Hooper tendered his resignation, which Council then accepted.  Which version of the story is correct?

 Public Question Time

 12.  In paragraph 2.2.2.(1) of the Notice, you allege that the Shire President and Council have accepted ‘inappropriate questions in relation to staff and human resources matters’. Can you provide specific examples of such questions, and explain how and why they were ‘inappropriate’?  In this context, exactly what does ‘inappropriate’ mean?  ‘Inappropriate’ in relation to what?

 13.  Would you agree that the purpose of public question time is to permit members of the public to exercise their democratic right:

 (a) to seek clarification of issues that concern them;

(b) to offer suggestions as to how Council funds might be applied;

(c) to raise questions regarding aspects of Council’s activities, including the conduct of councillors and staff; and

(d) to express support for, or dissatisfaction with, the scope, direction, implementation and enforcement of Council policies?

 14.  If you do so agree, would you not also agree that what your Notice implies is that the Shire President and Council should censor questions from the public—presumably including questions that may be embarrassing to Council or staff, but are not malicious or defamatory—rather than simply maintain order during public question time?

 Conflict among Councillors and with former CEO Keeble

 15.  Why was it ‘inappropriate’ for the Shire President and Council to use the Shire’s audit committee to ‘conduct investigations into alleged financial matters’ (paragraph 2.3.2)?

 16.  What exactly was ‘inappropriate’ about the Shire President’s management of debate in Council meetings (paragraph 2.3.3), bearing in mind that he has been opposed and obstructed at almost every turn by certain other councillors and, it is said, by former CEOs?

 17.  What exactly has been ‘inappropriate’ (2.3.4) about Cr Reid’s conduct towards former CEO Keeble and administration staff?  How has his conduct towards staff had the ‘potential to cause significant industrial relations and welfare issues’ (2.3.5) for staff other than Mr Keeble, whose own conduct towards Cr Reid is very much open to question?  Is there a single instance of that ‘potential’ becoming actual?

 18.   Given the apparently toxic nature of the relationship of Mr Keeble and certain councillors with Councillor Reid, it seems wise of Cr Reid to have made audio recordings of his meetings with those individuals (2.3.6), although it would have been wiser not to make them surreptitiously, if that is in fact what he did.

Are you aware that on one of those recordings Mr Keeble is allegedly to be heard ordering Cr Reid to sit down and calling him ‘a fucking c*^t’ in earshot of administration staff?  Do you believe that is proper behaviour and a proper use of language on the part of a local government CEO towards a shire president, especially when other staff can easily overhear it?  Would you not agree that such behaviour must cast doubt on Mr Keeble’s credibility regarding accusations he may have made against Cr Reid?

Since becoming Shire President, Cr Reid has shown that he has a positive vision for York and a determination to ensure that Council’s activities and proceedings are open to public scrutiny.  He has strong community support, and consistent support from some of the other councillors.  I am confident that a by-election resulting from the recent resignation of one of the councillors opposed to him would give him clear majority support on Council.  He would then have the chance to restore community confidence in Council and develop policies directed towards a happier and more prosperous future for our town. 

Suspending Council at this time would be very much a retrograde step and, judging from my conversations with other ratepayers, an extremely unpopular one.

I am not personally acquainted with Cr Reid.  However, I have seen and heard enough to have faith in his ability as President of the York Shire Council to lead our community towards a brighter future.  Please, Minister, leave him to get on with the job.

Yours sincerely,

James Plumridge

(Dr) James V Plumridge, Ph D

 cc           Cr Matthew Reid

                Hon. Colin Barnett, MLA

                Hon. Mia Davies, MLA

                Hon. John Hyde, MLA