The infamous Fitz Gerald Report
Confidential Report to Council 2014 - CEO Conduct and Performance
Dear Mr President and CouncillorsRE: CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO COUNCIL – COUNCIL’S CONCERNS ABOUT CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE OF CEO RAY HOOPER
Thank you for your instructions in accordance with Resolution 230414 of Council at the Special Meeting held on 14 April 2014, to assist Council to resolve its concerns about the conduct and performance of the immediate past CEO, Mr Ray Hooper.
Executive Summary with recommendations
The following report covers;
1. The process followed by our investigation.
2. Details of the complaints received covering a period extending from 2008 to 2014
Note in relation to item 2 that while significant supporting documentation is also provided the veracity of many of the claims has not be fully tested within the scope of this investigation.
Our investigation has found with respect to:
1. Former CEO Mr Ray Hooper.
1.1 A significant number of instances where it would appear that former CEO Ray Hooper has been involved in detrimental action against individuals and the general community of York without the authority of Council and in contravention of the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics etal.
1.2 It is recommended at numerous stages throughout the report that Mr. Hooper should be asked to clarify/explain his action/s in relation to the claims made.
1.3 Given that Mr Hooper has already resigned from the role of CEO it is recommended that Council, given the details provided in this report, should determine as to whether any further action should be pursued against him.
At the same time it is apparent that the Councils of the day did not fulfil their oversight responsibility and engage in investigating the various claims made against Mr. Hooper at the time they were raised by members of the York community.
It is recommended that members of the Councils of the day Past President Cr Hooper, Past Deputy President Cr Lawrence, Past President Cr Boyle, Past Deputy President Cr Scott, Cr Randall, Cr Fisher, Cr Duperouzel, Cr Smythe, and Cr Walters explain their apparent inaction to control the activities of the former CEO Ray Hooper.
2. Manager of Planning - Jacky Jurmann.
It would appear that the Manager of Planning proceeded with prosecution of the Saints on issues already approved by the normal planning process. It is recommended that Jacky Jurmann be asked to explain her actions in relation to this and at the same time to clarify whether such action was directed by the former CEO Ray Hooper and or the Council of the day.
3. Former Shire President Cr. Pat Hooper.
The investigation details a number of instances where:
3.1 Cr Hooper has breached the Shire's Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff.
3.2 Cr. Hooper as President did not compel fellow councillors and staff to adhere to the Shire's Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff, nor did he report such incidents to the Standards panel.
3.3 Cr. Hooper as President contravened the Local Government Act and Regulations
It is recommended that Cr. Hooper should explain his actions and his inaction. If indeed the Code of Conduct has been breached and Acts contravened then appropriate action should be taken.
4. Former Shire President Cr. Tony Boyle.
The investigation details a number of instances where:
4.1 Cr. Boyle has breached the Shire's Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff.
4.2 Cr. Boyle as President did not compel Ray Hooper to adhere to the Shire's Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff, nor did he report such incidents to the Standards panel.
4.3 Cr. Boyle as President contravened the Local Government Act and Regulations.
4.4 Cr. Boyle as President ignored professional and legal advice.
It is recommended that Cr. Boyle should explain his action and his inaction; if indeed the Code of Conduct has been breached, Acts contravened and professional and legal advice ignored, then appropriate action should be taken.
5. Areas of significant financial concern. Three areas of concern raised during the course of this investigation are in relation to;
5.1 York Tourist Board matters.
5.2 The transfer of $600,000 from various budget areas to the York Recreation Centre.
5.3 The Sale of the Old Convent.
It is recommended that further investigations are made to test the claims made.
6. Potential claim by Simon and Heather Saint.
The report identifies the strong possibility that the Saints could well have grounds to pursue a claim against the Council (and hence the Community) for the treatment received from the Council's Officers (Ray Hooper and Jacky Jurmann) and the subsequent consequence of this to their business and personal life.
It is recommended that Council engage legal advice to investigate the prospect of avoiding such action by negotiating with the Saints on the matter with the aim of finding a solution acceptable to the Saints and the Community.
PROCESS
On the instructions of the Shire President, we undertook a series of interviews with The Shire President, some Electors and some Shire of York staff members and examined documents contained in the Shire records.
In all we interviewed or spoke to 19 electors, one of who was a past Councillor, two serving Councillors, one past contractor, one past employee and five serving employees. As the interviews progressed, more and more people were recommending that I extend the list of people to be interviewed to include more people with all manner of complaints against Ray Hooper and past Councils of the day. The range of complaints and issues raised by the electors interviewed was quite wide and covers years going back to around 2008, all supported by two archive boxes of documents, supplied to me by the interviewees in support of their complaints.
The size of this project is almost such as to warrant a Judicial Enquiry with several teams of lawyers and investigators and a Judge to hear and decide on the matters. Accordingly, whilst I will not include each and every complaint in this report, I will provide a representative cross section of complaints, which I believe will show a clear picture as to the circumstances of Ray Hooper’s management of the Shire during the period being complained about, up to his resignation in 2014.
Many electors complained long and loud about the treatment that they had received from two past Shire Presidents and Councils of the day, individual Councillors and by various staff members, including Ray Hooper, in respect to a number of issues. There were also serious allegations of misconduct against past Shire Presidents and Councillors, which, whilst they are perhaps not directly related to Ray Hooper’s conduct and performance, they appear to indicate the culture of the organisation for which Ray Hooper, as CEO, can be held accountable. Accordingly, I propose to include allegations and complaints made by electors against past and present Councils and past Shire Presidents in the hope that this report will assist the current Council to deal with the damage caused in the community by past Councils and Ray Hooper. If there were only one or two disgruntled electors who had come forward to complain, I would have limited my report to matters directly related to Ray Hooper’s conduct and performance. Because there is apparent widespread and deep rooted concern in the community, demonstrated by the large number of complainants with serious complaints across a wide range of issues, I believe this justifies extending the report to cover the wider issues raised by complainants against past Shire Presidents and Councils of the day.
It should be noted that a huge amount of the material provided to me indicates that quite a number of the issues presented to me as justification for complaints against Ray Hooper and Past President Councillor Pat Hooper and Past President Councillor Tony Boyle and others including the past Councils of the day have already been the subject of complaints to the CCC, the Local Government
Standards Panel, the Department of Local Government, the Minister, the State Administrative Tribunal and many matters have been before various Courts.
I have not set out to become the authority of review for all of these jurisdictions and have no power in that area anyway. What I have attempted to do in this investigation is to highlight those issues raised with me that indicate the conduct of Ray Hooper and the Councils of the day that have allegedly caused much stress, anxiety and financial costs to electors in York and to the fabric of the York community.
The recurring theme amongst complainants against Ray Hooper was that whoever stood up to him, challenged him or complained about him, the Council or the Shire in general, soon found themselves subject to visits from a Shire Ranger or a Health or a Building Inspector with complaints about their pets causing trouble in the neighbourhood and/or threats of legal action on some compliance breach or other. One complainant suggested that Ray Hooper spent more time and effort trying to suppress “dissent” from electors than he did trying to resolve their complaints. Another common theme in the complaints is that Ray Hooper repeatedly refused to meet with people who sought to meet with him to discuss their concerns. One complainant described a situation where she was advised at the front counter by the Deputy CEO that Ray Hooper was not available to meet with her and the complainant could see Ray Hooper standing out the back of the Shire Office smoking and then Ray Hooper walked back into the office in full view of the complainant. If these allegations are true, then it lends a degree of justification to the level and substance of the complaints received during this investigation.
THE COMPLAINTS
1. The “Yellow Memo”
Several electors drew my attention to a document dated 12 August 2008, which is a Memorandum from Ray Hooper to Neale Prior at WA Newspapers, which was displayed on public notice boards at the Shire and the Post Office. It contained Ray Hooper’s response to activities and statements by electors in respect to matters in the town that they were concerned about. This document is now part of folk law in York and is affectionately referred to by some electors as “The Yellow Memo” (See Doc 1).One elector stated that this document ‘set the tone’ in York of the relationship between Ray Hooper and the Community, or more particularly those members of the community who were politically active locally and willing to express their views on matters of public interest: views that Ray Hooper apparently disagreed with.
1.1. In this document, Ray Hooper publicly names electors and personally attacks them quite aggressively with derogatory remarks and allegations that one is “… on a crusade …“and another had deliberately broken the law. It appears that Ray Hooper was of the view that these people had no right to an opinion because “… these three are relative newcomers …” to the town are lawbreakers.
1.2. One of the electors named and attacked in this document was a recent migrant to Australia from a Communist country, who was terrified to be named in such a public document by a perceived to be powerful public officer like the local Shire CEO. I was told that in this elector’s native country the terror and intimidation that the government reigned on their citizens was merciless and the likelihood of imprisonment if you were found to be a dissenter against the government was a serious reality in his mind. This public naming and attack by Ray Hooper on this elector was particularly intimidating given this circumstance.
1.3. The three people mentioned in the document are Simon Saint, Will Butun and Roma Paton.
1.4. A Local Government CEO cannot name and attack rate payers in a public document.
(Reference; Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics, Public Sector Commission Conduct guide, Public Sector Commission Commissioner Instruction Number 7, Local Government Act 1995, Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007)
1.5. According to the Local Government Act Council can authorise the CEO to speak on behalf of council.
1.5.1 If Ray Hooper produced this document without Council approval then Council were obliged to take immediate action. There is no evidence that Council took action to deal with this very serious breach. The handling of this document by Council set the tone for Council being complicit to CEO’s actions.
1.5.2. If Ray Hooper produced this document with prior approval of Council then President Cr Pat Hooper and the council of the day should explain their actions and how they complied with the Local Government Act.
1.6. This Document set the tone in York for the relationship between Ray Hooper, the Councillors and the Community (Rate Payers). This adversarial relationship should have been addressed expeditiously by the then president Cr Pat Hooper and the council of the day.
1.7. The effect of this document is that it intimidated sections of the York community.
1.8. This adversarial relationship set the tone for subsequent events that are detailed below.
2. The Emergency Helicopter (See Doc 2)
Recently the emergency helicopter visited York to provide emergency transport to hospital for several people who had been injured in a car accident near the town. Apparently several people in the town complained to the police about the noise the helicopter had made whilst waiting for the oval lights to be turned on so that it could land safely. There was public outrage at the fact that people in the town would complain about the noise made by the emergency helicopter.
2.1. Cr David Wallace confirmed in an email dated 11 March 2014 to Mrs Paton that at a Planning Meeting of the Council, Ray Hooper told those present that two of the people who had complained to the police about the emergency helicopter noise were Roma Paton and Elizabeth Christmas. I am advised that this rumour spread around the town like wildfire. As a result of this the two ladies
named by Ray Hooper were publicly denigrated by other residents in the town and verbally abused by people that they had previously listed amongst their friends in the town. Reportedly the damage caused to these two ladies’ reputations has been horrendous. Both ladies, who recently lost their husbands, say that they have suffered untold stress and angst and public humiliation as a result of Ray Hooper’s false accusation.
2.2. The local police officer has confirmed in writing to Mrs Paton and Ms Christmas that it was definitely not either of them who made the complaints about the emergency helicopter noise. If this is true, it would appear that Ray Hooper made this claim when it was patently untrue and there was no basis for him to make this claim about these two women.
2.3. If these allegations are true then Council should request that Mr Ray Hooper apologise to Mrs Paton and Ms Christmas for personal stress and anxiety together with the loss of personal credibility they experienced. If Mr Hooper is unwilling to apologise then Council may wish to apologise on his behalf.
2.4. Retaliatory Intimidation by Rangers Mrs Paton alleges that, as a result of her appearing at Public Question Time and asking questions and challenging Ray Hooper and the Council on various matters, she received a visit from Matthew Sharpe, a Shire Ranger, who claimed that the Shire had received a complaint that her dog had been barking incessantly. Mr Sharpe actually had identified the wrong dog, as he believed that Mrs Paton’s dog was a white dog and in fact Mrs Paton’s dog is a brown dog. Mrs Paton states that whilst Mr Sharpe was at Mrs Paton’s home dealing with this complaint he stated that ‘there were issues between Mrs Paton and Ray Hooper’. When Mrs Paton advised Mr Sharpe that she had CCTV footage of the dog’s behaviour at the time that it had allegedly been barking incessantly, Mr Sharpe withdrew the complaint on the grounds that “to proceed further was not in the community interest”. I approached Matthew Sharpe to provide him the opportunity to comment on this matter, he refused to speak with me on the grounds that it may affect his business providing contract Ranger services to other Local Governments in the region.
2.5. Mrs Paton alleges that Ray Hooper lied to the Ombudsman by stating that she and Mr Saint and Mrs Schmidt had been offered mediation and had refused to take part in mediation, when in fact they had not been offered mediation nor had they had an opportunity to refuse or accept mediation. Ray Hooper later issued a confidential memo to the Councillors advising them not to mention that mediation was available for fear that it might ‘give rise to claims for compensation’. (See Doc 3).If this is true, it raises serious issues about Ray Hooper’s honesty and integrity and he should be called upon to explain his actions in the conduct of this matter.
2.6. Mrs Paton alleges that Ray Hooper sold the Old Convent to a mate of his from Chittering for $350,000 and that the money was never put through the Shire of York’s bank account and is untraceable. Further, Mrs Paton alleges that whenever she or anyone else brought this matter up in public question time in a Council meeting they would be howled down by the President, Cr Pat Hooper and/or Cr Boyle and Ray Hooper. Mrs Paton alleges that a lady named Fitzgerald from the CCC stated that forensic accountants could not find the proceeds from the sale of the Convent in the Shire’s accounts and that the Shire’s reports for the year that the Convent was sold record that no Shire properties were sold in that year. Further, Mrs Paton alleges that following the sale of the Convent, Ray Hooper authorised the use of municipal funds to pay for the connection to the Convent to deep sewerage. Mrs Paton alleges that Ray Hooper explained this expenditure by stating that he had “forgotten to put it in the contract”. Mrs Paton alleges that Ray Hooper was “just looking after his mate”. If these allegations about the handling of the proceeds from the sale of the Convent and the payments made in respect to connecting the deep sewerage to the Convent after it had been sole and settlement effected, that this raises serious questions of probity and the degree of honesty with which Ray Hooper has managed Shire funds and its business dealings. Mr Hooper should be asked to explain his actions in respect to these matters.
2.7. Mrs Paton alleges that Ray Hooper lied to the Council and the public about a deal that he had done with SITA, whereby the Shire would get 5 years free tipping at the waste site if the SITA application was approved. Mrs Paton states that there is documentary evidence to show that this deal was done and Ray Hooper has denied that such a deal was ever done. If this allegation is true, it raised the question of Ray Hooper’s honesty in his answers to ratepayer’s questions at Public Question Time. Ray Hooper should be called upon to clarify whether he did do the deal with SITA and shown the relevant documentation showing the deal that he did with SITA.
3. Ms Joy Marshall
Ms Joy Marshall describes a situation where for 5 years she was subjected to waste water from the house behind her flowing through her property causing her septic system to overflow and sewerage to back up into her house. Ms Marshall alleges that she repeatedly rang Ray Hooper about this matter and he refused to ever take a call from her on the matter. Ms Marshall then describes how a building was constructed next door to her house and how all the storm water from that property flooded her property and then when the owners moved in, their leach drain overflowed and caused raw sewerage to flood her driveway.
3.1. Ms Marshall was unable to get any action from the Shire of York on these matters until she was diagnosed with legionella (a reportable disease), following which the Shire of York took immediate remedial action.
3.2. Ms Marshall went to a Council meeting in 2010 and asked Ray Hooper why he would never take her calls or responds to her emails and refused to communicate with her. Two days later, Ms Marshall received a visit from the Shire Ranger alleging that her dog had been causing a nuisance by barking incessantly. Ms Marshall states that her dogs were always with her wherever she went and that this claim was a fabrication to intimidate her.
3.3. A serving Councillor has described how at a Works Committee meeting, Ms Marshall was described by the Shire President (Cr Hooper) as “that mad woman with the dogs”.
3.4. It is alleged that there were more than one Health Inspector employed sequentially by the Shire during the period relating to these complaints from Ms Marshall.
3.5. Ms Marshall has described how she has suffered ill health because of the sewerage flooding her property from neighbouring properties and had a nervous breakdown and has been suicidal because of the Shire’s treatment of her in respect to her complaints about the sewerage flooding her property and the Shire’s threats about her pets. (See Docs 4, 5 & 6).
3.6. If these allegations are true, Ray Hooper and Cr Pat Hooper (Shire President at the time) should be called upon to explain why they refused to deal with Ms Marshall’s complaints over such an extended period of time and why the Shire waited for 5 years and until Ms Marshall contracted a reportable disease (Legionella) before her complaints were acted upon by the Shire.
3.7. Ms Marshall alleges that she made an application to have additional dogs at her property and that on the day her application was heard by the Council; the Council declined her application along with a similar application by a Mrs Kennerley from Chill Out Massage. Subsequent to this meeting, Mrs Kennerley was advised by an officer of the Council (allegedly the Deputy CEO) that she should reapply immediately for her additional dogs and it would be approved, because the only reason the Council had declined Mrs Kennerley’s application was because they had decided to decline Ms Marshall’s application at the same meeting and didn’t want to approve her application at the same meeting that they declined Ms Marshall’s similar application. The deputy CEO has advised that she believed that the person who communicated with Mrs Kennerley following the Council denying her application for additional dogs was a previous female Ranger who was not very experienced in dealing with the public. The denial of Ms Marshall’s application to keep additional dogs is a matter of record in Council minutes, as is the denial of Mrs Kennerley’s application at the same Council meeting and then subsequent approval at the next or a subsequent Council meeting. Ray Hooper should be called upon to explain the grounds upon which the two similar applications were denied at the first instance and then Mrs Kennerley’s apparently unchanged application was approved at the next meeting of Council.
3.8. If Ms Marshall’s allegation about the immediate approach to Mrs Kennerley by a Shire staff member is true, then Ray Hooper should be called upon to explain what, if any, instructions he gave to the Deputy CEO or the Ranger who approached Mrs Kennerley and advised her to reapply immediately and that her application would be approved. In any event, Ray Hooper, President Pat Hooper and the Council of the day should be asked to explain what was the rationale for refusing the two applications in the first instance and then approving Kennerley’s application immediately following the initial refusal.
3.9. Ms Marshall alleges that she had to go to SAT to have this matter resolved and that Shire staff fabricated a web of lies during the SAT hearing about her dog application and that this was instigated by Ray Hooper. If Ms Marshall’s allegations that Shire staff lied at the SAT hearing, Ray Hopper should be called upon to explain what, if any, instructions he gave to his staff in respect to defending the SAT application by Ms Marshall.
4. Tony Seabrook
4.1. Mr Tony Seabrook alleges that Simon Patterson, a former employee of the Shire, was bullied and
undermined by Ray Hooper. (See Doc 7). If what Mr Patterson states in his letter of resignation is true, then Ray Hooper should be called upon to explain why he called for actions by his officers that would appear to have been to deliberately breach the Workplace Agreement. Further, if Mr Patterson’s allegations are true, Ray Hooper should be asked to explain why he engaged in negative criticism of his staff in the memos he allegedly issued, which will be a matter of record in the Shire. President Pat Hooper and the Council of the day should be asked to explain why they did not investigate the serious concerns raised by Mr Paterson.
4.2. Mr Seabrook expressed concern at the amount of alcohol purchases that are evident on Ray Hooper’s corporate credit card. In particular, Mr Seabrook refers to the alcohol purchases made at Lort Height Nominees (Castle Hotel), which predate the opening of the bar at the Recreation Centre. Mr Seabrook was questioning the validity of these alcohol purchases on Ray Hooper’s Corporate Credit Card. If an examination of the Corporate Credit card statements show unusually high amounts of money being spent on alcohol by Mr Hooper at the Castle Hotel, then Ray Hooper should be asked to explain what the purposes were of these alcohol purchases that predate the opening of the York Recreation Centre.
4.3. Mr Seabrook alleges that Ray Hooper accused him of criminal activity for carrying on his business at the Farm and that Ray Hooper blocked his building application for an office building on his farm for 16 months. If this allegation is true, then Ray Hooper should be asked to explain the criminal activity he accused Mr Seabrook of engaging in and why Mr Seabrook’s planning application to develop an office building on his farm took 16 months to receive approval. It may also be appropriate that Jacky Jurmann be given an opportunity to comment on this allegation of a 16-month delay on planning approval for Mr Seabrook.
4.4. Mr Seabrook alleges that Ray Hooper lied to him about Royalties for Regions Money, saying that it had to be spent on the recreation centre and not on Roads. Mr Seabrook consulted Brendon Grylls, who confirmed that this money could be spent on road upgrades (capital improvements). Mr Seabrook states that Ray Hooper presented him with a map of road works over a 5-year period and asked him to “back off” if this work was done. Mr Seabrook states that he agreed to “back off”, but that none of the road works Ray Hooper promised him were actually done in the 5-year period and that Ray Hooper directed all of the Royalties for regions funds to the Recreation Centre construction project. Mr Seabrook describes how he attended a meeting at which Ray Hooper and the Council redirected $600,000 from many other important areas of the Shire’s operations to the Recreation Centre project.
4.5. If these allegations are true, then Ray Hooper, President Pat Hooper and the Council of the day should be given an opportunity to explain where all the money came from for the Recreation Centre Project and how much money, if any, was diverted from Road Maintenance to the Recreation Centre Project.
5. The York Tourist Bureau & Visitor’s Centre
5.1. Mrs Nola Bliss, who became a Member of the York Tourist Bureau in 2008, made the following statements about the dissolution of the York Tourist Bureau:(See Red Folder”)
5.2. Mrs Bliss stated that Graham Stanley (Deputy CEO Shire of York) was appointed Treasurer of the Tourist Bureau and this is confirmed in Minutes of a meeting. Cr Pat Hooper was a member of the Tourist Bureau Committee, moved motions and voted on them as a Committee Member. She claims that Cr Pat Hooper has denied that he was a member of the YTB Committee but was simply an observer. The Minutes appear to show otherwise. Mrs Bliss states that Ray Hooper has denied that Graham Stanley was the treasurer of the Tourist Bureau. Again, the Minutes appear to show otherwise.
5.3. Mrs Bliss says that she suspected that there was a coterie of favours being done behind her back. Mrs Bliss advertised the position of Bookkeeper for the YTB and then whilst she was away on leave,
Kate Watts, the Chairperson’s daughter, who had a prior conviction for stealing as a servant, was appointed to the role against the wishes of at least two Board Members. Mrs Bliss and John Saville-Wright from the Imperial both opposed her appointment. John Saville-Wright believed that Kate did not have the skills and further believed that she had previously stolen from him when he had employed her. Mrs Bliss alleges that the Chairperson was aware of Kate’s prior conviction, being that he was Kate’s Father.
5.4. Mrs Bliss alleges that neither Graham Stanley nor Cr Pat Hooper ever asked for or produced any financial statements or reports from the Bookkeeper to the YTB Board.
5.5. Graham Stanley did ask for reports from Kate Watts, Kate avoided producing the reports by
feigning illness whenever she was supposed to meet with Graham. When he eventually went to meet her without an appointment so that she could not avoid him, she feigned illness by ‘fainting’.
5.6. Mrs Bliss also alleges that Graham Stanley prepared a financial statement for the October 2009 AGM some 15 minutes prior to the meeting, which showed that the YTB was not in debt.
5.7. Mrs Paskett stated that the report that Graham produced at that meeting is one that Kate finally produced using EXCEL (ie not from MYOB) shortly before the meeting, it was a mess and Graham made an attempt to make it vaguely professional. He did however propose at the meeting that the report be accepted, which it was. He did not raise any concerns regarding the report at the meeting. It was, however, obviously incorrect. The most obvious item was that the assets value was in red and had a negative value, which would hardly constitute an asset. Graham should not have accepted and presented that report without raising a serious concern.
5.8. Tanya Richardson stated that resigned her position with the YTB because she was unable to get any financial reports from the Bookkeeper and that she couldn’t make a fuss about this because the Bookkeeper was the Chairperson’s daughter.
5.9. Mrs Paskett recalls that Tanya came to see her before the AGM at which the financial report was presented and raised the financial reporting issue with me as she felt I should know of her concerns as I had indicated that I was interested in standing for a position on the Board. This was prior to either of us being aware that money had actually been misappropriated. At that stage, she believed it was just a reporting issue and an issue of not being able to resolve a staffing issue due to the conflict of interest in having Kate reporting to her own father.
5.10. Sandra Paskett states that she was elected the new Chairperson at the October 2009 AGM and when she saw the finance report prepared by Graham Stanley, she was seriously concerned and took the books home and commenced a review of the YTB finances. Mrs Paskett states that she found discrepancies in the books and advised Graham Stanley who agreed there were serious issues. Mrs Paskett met with Kate to discuss the report and immediately decided to stand her down. Initial investigations revealed about $10,000 had been misappropriated, this eventually increased to over $40,000 with an overall debt of almost $100,000. Mrs Paskett advised Ray Hooper who advised that the matter should be reported to the Police. Ray Hooper offered that the Shire would pay for Dominic Carbone to assist the Committee to sort the matter out.
5.11. In December 2009, Mrs Paskett states that Dominic Carbone gave a written quote of $4000 (50 hours at $80 per hour) to complete the work. She claims that Mr Carbone took in excess of three months to complete the project that was a five day project according to Mr Carbone’s quote, and that Mr Carbone eventually billed the Shire $15,000 for the work. Domenic Carbone would not report to the YTB committee on his work but reported instead to Ray Hooper, even though the money to pay for the report was supposed to be provided by the YTB. Mrs Paskett provided documentation showing that this payment to Mr Carbone was buried in the Shire’s financials under “Area Promotion”.
5.12. Mrs Paskett claims that she requested a meeting with the Council to deal with public concern about reports that there had been theft of YTB funds. The Council refused to meet with tourism representatives until Mr Carbone’s report had been tabled.
5.13. Mrs Paskett stated that Tourism representatives attempted to meet with Ray Hooper a number of times about ‘restarting’ tourism however they were unable to get effective action on this. One public meeting was cancelled almost at commencement (ostensibly due the weather), and they were unable to ever get Ray Hooper to reconvene that meeting. Given the economic importance of Tourism to the town this was a major issue and has contributed significantly to the fragmentation and destruction of this economic sector.
5.14. Mrs Paskett alleges that a week later, a Councillor warned Mrs Paskett to “keep the minutes recording Graham Stanley as Treasurer” in a safe place.
5.15. Tanya Richardson and Mrs Paskett were subject to the Shire purporting that Graham Stanley (the Treasurer) and Shire President Cr Pat Hooper (the nominated Shire representative, responsible for oversight of the effective governance of the Shire’s large funding contribution) had no role on the York Tourist Bureau. Given the ongoing denials by Shire President Cr Pat Hooper (Graham Stanley had left the Shire shortly after the theft and to Mrs Paskett’s knowledge did not refute anything), these records were finally copied and an envelope of the copied records showing positions and relevant minutes was distributed to each councillor to put a stop to the denials. Despite this, Shire President Cr Pat Hooper’s denials continued and seemed to be accepted, the hard evidence somehow being conveniently overlooked. Mrs Bliss and Mrs Paskett say that staff advised them that Mr Carbone had been given a key to the YTB office.
5.16. It appeared that Mr Carbone was working to find every possible reason to excuse Kate Watts from responsibility for the theft and to excuse her behaviour (“she just wasn’t trained or managed properly” or “she was just a bit confused by these unclear processes”) and place the blame elsewhere (“it was the manager’s fault for not training her”). Records showing that Kate Watts was given training were sighted by Mrs Paskett, and the YTB was an accredited organisation with good documentation of procedures. Further, Kate was responsible for banking the money. She just took it instead. Mr Carbone’s patronising approach was insulting in the extreme.
5.17. Mrs Bliss alleges that Ray Hooper and Michael Watts had squashed the Police investigation into the theft once they realised that it was not Ms Richardson but Kate, the Bookkeeper, who had stolen the money from the Visitor Centre.
5.18. According to documentation supplied to me, Mr Carbone provided a report to the Shire in April 2010. Mrs Paskett states that on 19 April Ray Hooper and Mr Carbone met with the YTB Committee and advised that the Shire would take responsibility for everything and that Shire funding of the YTB would be suspended for 2 years to offset the payments required to settle outstanding GST, staff Superannuation and unpaid PAYG. Mrs Paskett alleges that Kate Watts, the Bookkeeper, had been opening the mail and hiding the documents that showed that the GST and PAYG and Superannuation payments had not been made. Further, she alleges that in addition to this, the Executive and the Treasurer, Graham Stanley, had failed to have proper financial reporting put in place and had left the Bookkeeper to her own devices.
5.19. Mrs Bliss states that Ray Hooper and others blamed the theft on Tanya Richardson, who had been the Manager at the time, and Sandra Paskett. The local Police twice failed to prosecute Kate Watts until Assistant Commissioner Brown became involved and saw the matter through to its conclusion, which involved a plea of guilty, a conviction and gaol sentence for Kate Watts.
5.20. Mrs Bliss states that both Ray Hooper and Deputy President Cr Roy Scott wrote letters of support for Kate Watts on Shire Letterhead to the Magistrate who heard the case against her. These letters stated that Kate Watts had been enticed to steal the money and that the employer had no proper procedures in place. Ray Hooper and Cr Roy Scott (Deputy President) should be asked why they wrote these letters and did they have prior authorisation by council.
5.21. It is further alleged the Magistrate expressed his surprise at the letters and gave the example that ‘if he had diabetes and someone left jellybeans on his desk it would still be his fault if he ate the jellybeans’.
5.22. The YTB received restitution of $12,600 and Ray Hooper allegedly insisted that this be handed over to the Shire. Mrs Bliss expressed her concern that this money did go to the Shire and has not been properly accounted for in the Shire’s financials.
5.23. Mrs Paskett stated that she did not believe that the Tourist Bureau should have been required to pay the restitution received to the Shire (as we had repaid the debt through the withholding of funding over the two year period). Numerous requests were made to the Shire for an acquittal of the repayment but nothing adequate was ever forthcoming.
5.24. Mrs Paskett states that the Tourist Bureau Committee felt bullied by Ray Hooper. In the end, although we did not believe the money had to be paid, to the shire we relented. This left the YTB with no funds to restart, which I am sure was Ray Hooper’s objective.
5.25. I am unsure where this amount appears in the Shire’s financial records – the payment of the money to the Shire was not done willingly but we eventually agreed that it would be paid into a specific Shire trust account to be used for a fountain in the river at Avon Park.
5.26. Tanya Richardson, who was the Visitor Centre Manager at the time the theft was discovered, states that she requested many times proper financial reporting from Kate Watts and approached Graham Stanley to no avail. She says that she then complained to Ray Hooper and that Ray Hooper’s response was “It’s up to the Committee, sort it out with them!”
5.27. Ms Richardson states that the Shire put Mr Carbone in place and then started rumours that she had stolen the money.
5.28. When Ms Richardson attempted to ask questions in Public Question Time at Council meetings about this matter, she alleges that the President, Cr Boyle slammed the gavel down and closed question time. She claims that each time she subsequently attempted to ask these questions, the President, Cr Boyle, ‘closed her down’. Ms Richardson alleges that when Ray Hooper recorded her questions, he would edit them beyond recognition and avoid answering them, and sometimes didn’t even record her questions at all.
5.29. Ms Richardson states that the Visitor Centre underwent an accreditation process in 2009, which entailed extensive training for Kate Watts on the procedures and requirements. She claims that Kate did a Certificate III on Tourism, Book Easy Finance and Administration Course and Accreditation. Ms Richardson alleges that the Accreditation was specifically on finances. Ms Richardson claims that she offered Kate Watts a MYOB Course, but Kate refused saying she was a full bottle on MYOB and that the Centre could save its money.
5.30. If these allegations are true, Ray Hooper, President Pat Hooper and Deputy President Roy Scott should be asked to explain their actions in respect to the handling of this whole issue and in particular explain how they justified sending letters of support for Kate Watts to the Magistrate on Shire Letterhead.
5.31. Ms Richardson states that since she resigned from the Manager’s position at the Visitor’s centre and went into her own business, she has been ostracised and victimised by Ray Hooper, Cr Pat Hooper, Cr Tony Boyle and the Shire of York.
5.31.1. The Shire suddenly introduced venue fees against her by charging her a $550 per day hire fee for the oval when previously all that was required was to pay the power costs.
5.31.2. She has had venue bookings arbitrarily cancelled by the Shire and has systematically been blocked from conducting events in the town as well as being refused funding of any kind for proposed events.
5.31.3. Ms Richardson alleges that other event organisers are given funding and allowed to conduct events without complying with the Shire Policies regarding Traffic Management Plans and Risk Management Plans. Further, Ms Richardson alleges that Ray Hooper gave $10,000 of Shire money to the York Motor Cycle Festival two years running without any documentation other than a single page budget, no Council approval and no plans in accordance with Council Policies.
5.32. If this allegation is true, Ray Hooper should be asked to explain on what authority he paid out these funds to the organisers of the York Motor Cycle Festival and why he failed to apply Council Policy to this organisation in respect to Risk Management and Traffic Management plans for these events.
5.33. Ms Richardson and Mrs Paskett allege that they were attempting to restart the Jazz Festival and so Mrs Paskett approached Ray Hooper for funding. Mrs Paskett alleges that Ray Hooper stated that as long as Ms Richardson was involved in the event, there would be no Shire money put up to sponsor the event.
5.34. Ms Richardson alleges that Ray Hooper and Cr Pat Hooper President at the time, withdrew Shire funding for Avon Tourism Inc. because Ms Richardson was involved with that organisation.
5.35. If these allegations are true, Ray Hooper and Cr Pat Hooper should be asked to explain why they made such a decision against Ms Richardson and if they were victimising Ms Richardson.
Page 18 of 31
5.36. Ms Richardson states that many times Cr Tony Boyle has shouted her down in the Council chamber.
5.37. Ms Richardson alleges that when she started doing events in York, she did a presentation to the Council. Cr Pat Hooper was President at the time. She states that she offered to train local community groups on risk management plans and marketing. Ms Richardson alleges that, to her face, Cr Pat Hooper told her that her ideas were wonderful. Ms Richardson alleges that Cr Roy Scott told her that, after she had left the meeting, Cr Pat Hooper had stated that Ms Richardson had absolutely no chance of getting any Shire sponsorship or help for her events at any time in the future.
If these allegations are true, then Councillors Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper should be asked to show how their conduct in these matters demonstrates good Governance and complies with the Shire’s Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff.
6. Past Councillor Trish Walters
6.1. Ms Trisha Walters, an ex-Councillor, claims that she was marginalised and victimised and intimidated by Councillors Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper and by Ray Hooper during her 4 year term as a Councillor. She claims that Ray Hooper would accuse her of committing a criminal offence whenever she suggested that Ray Hooper had made any kind of mistake or done something wrong.
6.2. If this allegation is true, then Councillors Boyle and Hooper should be asked to explain how this conduct towards Cr Walters complies with the Shire’s Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff. Ray Hooper should be asked to explain how a Councillor is committing a criminal act by simply suggesting that he as CEO had got something wrong or had made a mistake.
6.3. Ms Walters related the story of a visit to York by the Governor whilst she was a Councillor. During this visit, Cr Pat Hooper introduced each of the other Councillors to the Governor and omitted to introduce Councillor Walters, causing Cr Walters to have to introduce herself to the Governor. Later that day, whilst the Council were on a bus excursion with the Governor, as they were all about to get back on the bus, the Governor’s wife got onto the bus first and then Cr Pat Hooper moved to get onto the bus next, ahead of Cr Walters and the Governor had to call him back, saying “Excuse me! Ladies first!”
6.4. If this allegation is true, Cr Pat Hooper should be asked to explain his conduct towards Cr Walters on this occasion and in particular why he failed to introduce Cr Walters to the Governor in the same manner as he did for the rest of the Councillors.
6.5. Ms Walters claims that all correspondence she received from Ray Hooper was aggressive and bullying and that at every Council meeting she attended she was bullied and humiliated by Cr Pat Hooper and Ray Hooper and other Councillors. Ray Hooper wrote a letter to the Department of Local Government complaining about Cr Walters and saying that she should not be a Councillor. When Cr Walters would ask a question, Ray Hooper would say that she did not understand the Local Government Act and that she was not permitted to ask questions like she was asking and repeatedly told Cr Walters that she didn’t know what she was talking about.
6.6. Ms Walters recalled that in her 4 years as a Councillor she only received 2 telephone calls from Ray Hooper as CEO.
6.7. In addition to this, Ms Walters claims that she was blocked from attending Councillor Training Courses during her term as Councillor. In support of this claim, Ms Walters supplied copies of two Memos from Ray Hooper. One was dated 1 May 2009 and the other was dated 30 June 2011. The former memo advised Cr Walters that the Forward Planning Meeting held on 28 April 2009, which was attended by 5 Councillors, had agreed that a procedure for Councillor attendance and associated matters would be implemented immediately. The memo advised Cr Walters that as a consequence her attendance at the Structural Reform Strategy Workshop on Monday 4 May 2009 was therefore not approved and that her registration had been cancelled. The reason given was that it was considered that her attendance was not required as the CEO and President would be attending and reporting back to Council.
6.8. The memo stated that if Cr Walters wished “to attend any meeting, forum etc. as a Council representative” she would need to have her official attendance approved by the other Council Members. The latter memo had an attachment detailing a procedure for elected member training that had been agreed to at a “Forward Planning Meeting” on 27 June 2011. The Memo advised Ms Walters that as a consequence of the procedure agreed to at the Forward Planning meeting that the two training courses and accommodation she had booked had been cancelled.
6.9. The comment at the end of this Memo that Ms Walters should take any questions that she has in respect to this matter up with other elected members perhaps needs to be directed to Ray Hooper to explain the intention of this comment and why he was not prepared to discuss this matter with a Councillor in these circumstances.
6.10. Ray Hooper and President Cr Pat Hooper should also be asked to explain how a procedure that was “agreed to at a Forward Planning Meeting” can become policy of Council and implemented so swiftly without it actually being carried as a Council resolution.
6.11. Ray Hooper and President Cr Pat Hooper should also be asked to explain where the “other Council Members” referred to in the memo of 1 May 2009 obtain their authority as individual Council Members to approve or otherwise Cr Walters’ attendance at “meetings, forums etc.” comes from. Ray Hooper and President Cr Pat Hooper should also be asked to explain where individual Councillors meeting in a “forward Planning Forum’ get their authority to carry resolutions and make Council policy in this manner. (See TW1 & TW2)
6.12. Further, if these allegations are true, Ray Hooper and President Cr Pat Hooper should be asked to explain how this conduct towards Cr Walters is consistent with the treatment of all other Councillors and how they believe that this conduct is compliant with the Shire’s Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff and their duties under the Local Government Act 1995 in respect to the proper conduct of Council business.
6.13. Ms Walters recalls voting against the purchase of the Old School and as a result of this vote being attacked by Councillors telling her that she had no right to vote against the proposal. Following this event, Ray Hooper wrote to the Department of Local Government seeking to have the vote overturned on the grounds that 2 Councillors were absent on holidays when the vote was taken.
6.14. If this allegation is true, then Ray Hooper should be asked to explain how the Council could conclude that Cr Walters had no right to vote against the purchase of the Old School and why he believed that he should seek to have the vote overturned.
6.15. Further, Ray Hooper should be asked to explain why he did not advise the Council of the day that Cr Walters had every right to vote as she wished on the purchase of the Old School, and any other issue for that matter.
6.16. In her 4th month as a Councillor, Cr Walters received a threatening letter from Cr Pat Hooper accusing her of a breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct. Cr Walters provided a comprehensive response to Cr Pat Hooper. Ms Walters alleges that Cr Pat Hooper took this matter no further after receiving Cr Walters’ response.
6.17. Ms Walters states that she walked into a Forward Planning Meeting one day and witnessed Ray Hooper and Graham Stanley saying to Tyhscha Cochrane “Don’t worry, the job is yours!” Following which Tyhscha was appointed to the position of Deputy CEO without other applicants being interviewed and/or without the job being properly advertised. Ms Walters states that WALGA had identified two other candidates, but they were not interviewed and that Ray Hooper just
gave the job to Ms Cochrane. Ms Walters described the structure under Ray Hooper as one of nepotism and cronyism.(See TW3)
6.18. If this allegation is true, Ray Hooper should be asked to explain what assurances, if any, he gave to Tyhscha Cochrane prior to the completion of any interviews for the DCEO position that she should not worry as the job was hers and why a normal selection process was not followed.
6.19. Ms Walters recalled how some staff had walked out of Council meetings because they were not prepared to stay in the Chamber witnessing the President Cr Pat Hooper and other Councillors shrieking abuse at Cr Walters and throwing things at her.
6.20. Ms Walters has described a situation where another Councillor, Ashley Fisher, actually raised his fists to her and menacingly threatened physical violence on her person.
6.21. If these allegations are true, then Councillor Pat Hooper should be called upon to explain how his alleged conduct complied with the Shire of York Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff and as presiding member why he did not protect Cr Walters from abuse and threats of physical violence from other Councillors.
7. Simon & Heather Saint
7.1. Simon Saint stated that he asked questions in Public Question Time about Ray Hooper’s Corporate Credit Card payments in 2008. Mr Saint says that he never received a reply to his questions and his questions were not recorded.
7.2. Mr Saint claims that subsequent to his questions, Mrs Heather Saint wrote to the Shire on 21 October 2008, 24 October 2008 and 10 November 2008 and received what Mr Saint describes as an ambiguous and evasive reply from the DCEO, Graham Stanley.
7.3. Ray Hooper ceased the practice of publishing the corporate Credit Card Statements. Prior to this time, Ray Hooper’s corporate Credit Card Statements had been made available to the public. This fact is documented in a recent memo from Ray Hooper to staff.
7.4. A letter of concern regarding missing documents and other financial matters was sent to the Minister (Castrilli) on 24 November 2008 with an acknowledgment received on 2 December 2008 and a subsequent full response received on 5 February 2009.
7.5. The response clearly identifies communication between the Department and the Shire of York, how the Shire intended to rectify matters and confirmation that the Department had scheduled a visit to the Shire to assess a range of compliance and other governance issues.
7.6. Mr Saint alleges that this led to him being treated aggressively and with complete contempt, threatened multiple times with legal action and then eventually prosecuted by the Shire in 2010 for unapproved signage.
7.7. A further prosecution was instigated 18 months after Mr Saint had removed offending signage and had sold the business. These allegations are part of the public domain and well documented in Council records and in papers provided to me by Mr Saint.
7.8. Jacky Jurmann, the Shire Planner, should be asked to explain why a prosecution for a breach of this nature was instigated 18 months after the offending material had been removed by Mr Saint and the business sold. She should also be asked to explain what, if any, instructions she received from Ray Hooper, President Cr Tony Boyle and Council of the day in respect to the prosecution of this breach.
7.9. On the 17 September 2012, Cr Boyle, the Shire President made an announcement by Presiding Member without discussion whereby he referred to Mr Saint as a 'simpleton' and a 'scoffer'. Following a complaint from Mr & Mrs Saint to the Government Standards Panel, Cr Boyle was found to have committed 3 breaches. (See Doc 7a) The full transcript of the Standards Panel decision is publicly available as SP2, SP26 &SP27 of 2012 on the website.
7.10. This matter is factual, however, Ray Hooper should be given the opportunity to explain whether he found the conduct of Cr Boyle, the Shire President acceptable and if not, in his position as Chief Executive Officer, why he did not report a breach for the behaviour of the Shire President in accordance with the Code of Conduct.
7.11. At the same meeting of 17 September 2012, Cr Boyle, the Shire President, banned Mr Saint and Mrs Saint from asking questions in Public Question Time at Council meetings. Mr Saint alleges that the reason Cr Boyle gave for this was that Mr Saint was costing the Council too much money by lodging numerous Freedom of Information applications with the Council. There was no explanation given for the ban relating to Mrs Saint.
7.12. Ray Hooper and President Cr Tony Boyle should also be asked to explain what remedial action they undertook following written advice from the Department of Local Government advising that the Council was not permitted to ban people from asking questions in Public Question Time at Council meetings.
7.13. If the allegation that Mr Saint’s FOI request was costing the Shire of York too much money is
true, Ray Hooper should be given an opportunity to explain why he didn’t give the information to Mr Saint when he requested it instead of denying Mr Saint access to what is ostensibly public documentation relating to the use of public money.
7.14. A reason for the exclusion of Mrs Saint should also be forthcoming.
7.15. Mr Saint describes the same experience that Ms Richardson described which is, if Ray Hooper didn’t like a question that was asked at Public Question Time, then Ray Hooper would summarise it in such a way that it didn’t make any sense and if Ray Hooper didn’t like the question at all, he simply would not record it.
7.16. If this allegation, which appears to be the subject of many documents and other enquiries by different jurisdictions, is true, then Ray Hooper should be asked to explain this conduct and why he failed to properly record and answer questions from electors asked during Public Question Time and his contribution to the situation that developed where the Council moved to silence questioners at Public Question Time and to block the public scrutiny of public records stored in Council’s records.
7.17. If this allegation is correct then the Council of the day should also be asked why they accepted the minutes as a true and accurate record of council meetings when it is alleged they were not.
7.18. Mr Saint alleged that Ray Hooper and the Council targeted anybody who asked questions in Public Question Time. As evidence in support of this claim, On 8 January 2013, Mr Saint describes a situation where, six years after he had received planning approval for Saint’s Diner, he received a planning directions from the Shire demanding the provision of 2 onsite car parking bays, payment of $10,500 in lieu of him providing the 2 car bays or the threat of another prosecution. The 2 car bays
had not been a condition on the original development approval. Mr Saint believes that this was a vexatious act on the part of Ray Hooper and some Councillors. The State Administrative Tribunal set the Council’s decision aside and 4 days later the Council decided to prosecute Mr Saint for the $10,500. SAT advised that this was illegal and that if the Shire was not happy with their decision, they should appeal to the Supreme Court to have the decision reviewed.
7.19. These allegations by Mr Saint are well documented. Ray Hooper, Jacky Jurmann Town Planner, and the Council of the day should be called upon to explain why, six years after the Council approved Mr Saint’s development; they commenced the proceedings against Mr Saint seeking payment of $10,500 in lieu of car bays at his business.
7.20. The Council placed a condition on the Saint’s development application for the Dog’s Bollocks Emporium that they were required to install 6 toilets in the premises. Following production of advice obtained by Mr Saint from the City of Swan which established that this number of toilets only applied in cases where there are 100 employees on the premises and further, by investigation and the production of the legislation of the Building Regulations 1989 to Council by Mrs Saint, it was acknowledged that the incorrect Building Act/Regulations had been applied and that the majority of the onerous conditions imposed did not apply to their development. After an extended period of time, this condition and others were subsequently withdrawn causing Mr & Mrs Saint financial expense, delay and stress.
7.21. When I interviewed the Shire Planner, Jacky Jurmann, and asked her whether she had been instructed by Ray Hooper to place this kind of onerous condition on development approvals for certain developers in the Shire, she became quite aggressive and combative and denied that she had ever done this kind of thing. She stated that she didn’t think she should be sitting answering my questions (as I was not a planner) and stated that I was questioning her professionalism. In light of her aggression and obstructiveness to my questions, and the evidence that she has in fact imposed such onerous conditions on Mr Saint’s development application, there is probable cause for a full review of all of the Shire Planner’s recommendations to Council in respect to all applications for planning approval, which Jacky Jurmann has handled, that have been lodged by Mr Saint since 2008, with a view to assessing whether Jacky Jurmann placed unreasonable or onerous conditions on Mr
Saint’s planning approvals and whether it is appropriate for the Council to now compensate Mr Saint for these unreasonable conditions being placed on his development applications.
7.22. Jacky Jurmann should be asked to explain on what basis she required Mr Saint to include 6 toilets in this development and whether she was directed to place this condition on the Development Approval by Ray Hooper.
7.23. Mr Saint has alleged that both Councillors Pat Hooper and Tony Boyle, whilst they were in the position of Shire President, have used the gavel aggressively at Council meetings and have shouted at his spouse and himself in Public Question Time, while Ray Hooper has sat witnessing their behaviour but not acting on it. Mr Saint alleges that Cr Boyle, as Shire President, engaged in the practice of shutting question time down before the regulation minimum of 15 minutes had elapsed. Mr Saint also claims that Cr Boyle continued to do this even after receiving a ruling from the Department of Local Government that it was not appropriate to close Public Question Time in less than 15 minutes.
7.24. Mr Saint alleges that Cr Pat Hooper, as Shire President, declared at a meeting that he would not accept questions from the gallery on operational or administration matters and that only questions on policy would be accepted. Mr Saint says that it took a visit from Jenny Law from the department of Local Government to rectify the situation and have Cr Pat Hooper’s declaration reversed.
7.25. If these allegations are true, Councillors Boyle and Pat Hooper should be asked to show how their conduct as described by Mr Saint complies with the Shire of York Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff and where in the Local Government Act or regulations does it say that question time can be closed before it has gone on for 15 minutes at least.
7.26. Further, Cr Pat Hooper should be given the opportunity to show where in the Local government Act or regulations it provides for a limit on the scope of questions that can be asked by electors in Public Question Time.
7.27. Ray Hooper should be given the opportunity to say what advice he gave to these two Councillors when they were Shire President that would have lead them to conduct themselves in the manner alleged by Mr Saint and Ms Richardson.
7.28. Mr Saint states that Matthew Sharpe, a former Shire Ranger, approached him in the main street after he resigned from the Shire and stated to him “If you only knew what I know, you have had a rough time”. This claim on the part of Mr Saint is quite similar to a claim about Matthew Sharpe from another unrelated party, who had no reason to know that Mr Saint was going to make this claim to me. Here, I refer to a statement by Mr and Mrs Geary who claimed to have had a visit from Mr Sharpe following his resignation from the Shire, where Mr Sharpe apologised to them for prosecuting them for an alleged dog attack stating “I stand by what I said in Court, she is a happy, excitable, jumpy dog and I was forced to prosecute by Ray Hooper”.
7.29. If these allegations are correct, Matthew Sharpe should be called upon to explain his version of these events and to explain how he believed that meeting with me during this investigation and explaining his version of these events could possibly damage his current business arrangements.
7.30. Further, if these allegations are true, Ray Hooper should be given the opportunity to explain what instructions he gave to Mr Sharpe in respect to the prosecution of Mr and Mrs Geary in relation to the alleged attack by their dog.
7.31. On 3 December 2008, Ray Hooper wrote to the Department of Local Government enquiring whether there were any means or methods available to Council to deal with what he described as “vexatious residents” who “appear determined to cause community dissent by continually targeting Council as an entity, elected members and specific staff”.(See Doc 8)
This letter refers to 2 to 5 people making “petty and vexatious claims and complaints which have no bearing on the good governance of the community …”
7.32. Ray Hooper should be given the opportunity to explain what petty and vexatious claims and complaints he was referring to in this correspondence to the Department of Local Government and who were the 2 to 5 people in the community that he was referring to.
7.33. In a letter to the Department of Local Government 4 March 2014, which is headed up “Vexatious Unreasonable Demands”, Ray Hooper claims that every effort has been made to ascertain what the underlying issues are ‘with these people’ and the means to resolve them without any results to date.(See Doc 9)
7.34. If this claim by Ray Hooper is true, he should be given the opportunity to explain what actions he took and with whom to “ascertain what the underlying issues are with these people and the means to resolve them”.
7.35. Mr Saint stated that Ray Hooper has never approached him seeking to understand the underlying issues of his requests for information from the Shire or trying to establish a means of resolving issues. From the comments and submissions made to me by all complainants bar Mr Seabrook, none of the complainants would say that Ray Hooper has ever approached any of them with this intention in mind.
7.36. On 2 April 2014, Ray Hooper wrote to Simon Saint. The letter was headed up “Smear & Innuendo Campaign” and contained a series of extremely personal statements about Mr Saint. (See Doc 10)
7.37. On 4 April 2014, an Official Complaint was lodged by Mr Saint relating to the letter from Ray Hooper of 2 April 2014, complaint (Doc 10). (See Doc 10a)
7.38. On 11 April 2014, Ray Hooper wrote a memo to the Shire President defending his letter of 2 April 2014 and in the text of this memo he makes the statement that “Quite literally, I could not care if Mr Saint lives or dies at the personal level, as I do not and will not engage with him outside of my work”.(See Doc 11)
7.39. On 9 April 2014, Ray Hooper wrote a “strictly confidential” memo to all Councillors stating that Mr Saint’s request to read out at a Council Meeting Ray Hooper’s letter to him dated 2 April 2014 should be denied. In the memo, Ray Hooper goes on to claim that the reason for this recommendation was that the letter was sent to Mr Saint personally and that the Council had not authorised the letter and that the letter was an operational matter only. (See Doc 12)
7.40. In light of these documents, Ray Hooper should be called upon to explain how he believes that these documents demonstrate good governance and conduct becoming of a public officer and how it complies with the Shire’s Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff.
7.41. On 26 February 2014, Ray Hooper wrote to the Information Commissioner seeking to block an FOI application from Mr Saint on the grounds that Mr Saint’s applications were unreasonable and previous information sought by Mr Saint had been used to impugn Ray Hooper’s character. (See Doc 13)
7.42. On 7 March 2014, Ray Hooper followed up the letter to the Information Commissioner dated 26 February 2014 with another letter supporting his request that Mr Saint’s application be blocked and attaching photographs of Mr Saint’s front window displaying information previously obtained from the Shire using an FOI application. It seems Ray Hooper will stop at nothing to prevent Mr Saint from holding him accountable for his actions. (See Doc 14)
7.43. On 7 March 2014, Ray Hooper wrote a memo to all Councillors about “Mr Saint’s Actions”. In the memo he calls Mr Saint’s actions a malicious and vindictive campaign and the material obtained from the Shire and displayed in Mr Saint’s window as scurrilous. In this memo, Ray Hooper calls on the Council to defend him against Mr Saint’s “unjust actions” as they are affecting Ray Hooper’s personal health. (See Doc 15)
7.44. In light of these documents, Ray Hooper should be provided the opportunity to explain what might be the underlying cause of Mr Saint’s actions and whether he now considers that he could have managed Mr Saint’s requests for information back as far as 2008 in a different manner that might have allowed the relationship between the Shire and Mr Saint to have developed in a more positive light.
7.45. On 20 March 2014, the Director General of the Department of Local Government responded to Ray Hooper’s letter of 4 March 2014 seeking advice as to vexatious complainants. In this letter, the Director General refers Ray Hooper to the Ombudsman’s Website where there are
Page 28 of 31
guidelines for public authorities as to how to deal with unreasonable complainants. The Director General makes the point in her letter that “Any decision by Council or any other public authority to restrict a person’s avenue of complaint should be taken as a measure of last resort and should not be relied on as a means of avoiding scrutiny.(My emphasis).(See Doc 16)
Documents show that Ray Hooper declared Simon Saint to be vexatious back in 2008 immediately following his earliest questions of Council in Public Question Time.
7.46. Ray Hooper should be asked to explain whether his actions in writing this letter were designed to ‘avoid scrutiny’ of his conduct and use of the Shire’s Corporate Credit Card.
7.47. On 20 March 2013, Ray Hooper wrote to the department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor expressing surprise at the licensed alfresco areas identified on the Saint’s Liquor License Approved Plans. Ray Hooper requested that the matter be investigated and rectified “as a matter of urgency” and that the outcome be reported back to the Council. (See Doc 17) A copy of the Council report that identified the areas approved by the Council was attached to Ray Hooper’s letter.
7.48. On 25 March 2013, the Acting Premises Manager from the department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor wrote back to Ray Hooper advising that the alfresco areas that his Department had approved on the Saint’s Liquor License mirrored in the Maximum Accommodation Approval issued by the Shire on 16 October 2007. (See Doc 18)
7.49. If this allegation is correct, Ray Hooper and/or the Planner Jacky Jurmann, should be asked to explain who drafted the letters to the Department of racing Gaming and Liquor. Why was the prior Council approval documentation not checked before these letters were written to the department of Racing Gaming and Liquor? Who’s initiative was it to write the letters and what was the justification for the letters being issued.
7.50. Saints Diner was opened on 1 March 2008. It had complied with the planning conditions set by the Council in June 2006 and was signed off as compliant. The Shire also signed a Section 40 Certificate for the purposes of a liquor licence application.
7.51. Five years later, on 8 January 2013, the Shire issued a Direction Order to the Saints to either provide two on-site car bays at the development or pay cash in lieu, the amount due being $10,500. The Saints appealed the Direction Order in the State Administrative Tribunal and had the Direction Order overturned.
7.52. In a legal opinion from McLeod’s, dated 8 April 2013, the lawyers stated on three or four occasions that they were of the opinion that the original Direction Order may well be found to be invalid by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
7.53. The SAT set aside the Shire’s Direction Order and the Planner, Jacky Jurmann advised Mr Saint in an email dated 11 April 2013 that action in relation to the Direction Order had been finalised.
7.54. Four days later, on 15 April 2013, a confidential report appeared on the Agenda for the Ordinary Council Meeting prepared by Jacky Jurmann which resulted in the Council resolving the Saints be advised to comply with the Direction Order issued on 8 January 2013 within 7 days, or face prosecution. (See Doc 19)
7.55. Whilst a legal opinion from McLeod’s dated 8 April 2013 (See Doc 20) suggested that the Shire withdraw from the SAT appeal and withdraw the Direction Order against the Saints, they suggested that the Shire could prosecute the Saints for breach of the Town Planning Scheme in the Magistrates Court to achieve compliance.
7.56. It is apparent that McLeod’s were not made aware of the terms of the 19 June 2006 planning approval that the Saints had received from the Shire when this first opinion was prepared.
7.57. By the time that McLeod’s issued a second legal opinion on 28 May 2013 (See Doc 21) it appears they had been informed of the terms of the planning approval issued to the Saints on 19 June 2006 and their advice changed completely, advising the Shire that they had no case against the Saints and that the Magistrate would probably find the Shire had approved the development without the requirement for any car bays.
7.58. This process would have cost the Saints a significant amount of time and money and personal stress and anxiety together with the loss of professional credibility.
7.59. In October 2013, Mrs Saint was diagnosed with Breast Cancer and underwent surgery in November 2013. At this time, and as far as Mr & Mrs Saint were concerned, the open threat of some form of prosecution by the Shire of York still remained. A very difficult personal decision was made by them to close their successful business entirely. A formal request was made to the Shire to have the property transferred to residential use as a result of their overarching concern that there may be more prosecutions by the Shire in the offing. Having regard for assurances given by Jacky Jurmann in the past, which were then followed by prosecutions, the Saints may well be justified in their fears of further prosecutions by the Shire.
7.60. As it transpired, on the recent production of various documents to Mr & Mrs Saint, it became evident to them that the original planning direction issued by the Shire of York in January 2013 was invalid. The development fully complied with the Planning approval of 2006 and the Shire of York were fully aware of the fact which had been re-iterated to them on May 28 2013.
7.61. Mr & Mrs Saint advised me that, at that time in 2013 and, to date, they have never been formerly advised of this compliance and, if they had been, then Saint's Diner could have remained as a business readily available to fully reopen for trading in 2014. Needless to say Mr & Mrs Saint are very upset and disturbed by the whole outcome.
7.62. Jacky Jurmann should be asked to explain why the original planning direction was issued on the Saints in January 2013 and whether she knew that their development was actually fully compliant with the previous approval.
7.63. If these documents are correct, then Jacky Jurmann Town Planner or Ray Hooper CEO, President Cr Tony Boyle and Council of the day should be given an opportunity to explain why this action was initiated against the Saints, whether the action was motivated by malice towards the Saints or is there some essential or pressing planning legislation that generated the need for this action.
7.64. Further, Ray Hooper, Jacky Jurmann, President Cr Tony Boyle and Council of the day should be asked to show cause as to why it should not be concluded that they have engaged in a personal vendetta against Mr Saint for many years now and why Mr Saint should not now receive compensation from the Council for the damage that their allegedly vindictive actions have caused the Saints.
7.65. Mr Saint provided a copy of a series of emails (See Doc 22) beginning with an email dated 9 March 2014 from Cr Duperouzel to four Councillors including the Shire President and senior staff including the CEO, Ray Hooper, in relation to a confidential Memo from Ray Hooper (See Doc 23) dated 6 March 2014 regarding an email request from Mr Saint dated 5 March 2014 seeking information about Ray Hooper’s Corporate Credit Card usage.
7.66. Ray Hooper should be asked to explain why he saw the need for confidentiality in this issue and why he believes that the Corporate Credit Card statements are confidential documents and should not be scrutinised by members of the Community or ratepayers.
7.67. Councillors Tony Boyle, Pat Hooper and Mark Duperouzel should be asked to explain their views as to why there should be no public scrutiny of the CEO’s use of the Shire’s Corporate Credit Card.
7.68. Councillor Boyle should be called upon to explain how a referral by him to Mr Saint as “this idiot” in a Council Document that will be seen by Staff members and possibly the public is consistent with his obligations to comply with the Shire of York Code of Conduct for Elected Members and Staff.
Yours sincerely
Mike Fitz Gerald PRINCIPAL 22 July 2014
