Ironically, I recently requested a copy of a public document (yellow memo) dating back to August 2008, surprise surprise I was denied access, yet again I have no choice other than to use FOI (below).
87 Avon Terrace York WA 6302
23 February 2015
Freedom of Information officer Shire of York 1 Joaquina Street York WA 6302
Dear Sir/Madam
Freedom of Information-request for documents - public memorandum (yellow memo)
Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992, I request a copy of the memorandum dated 12 August 2008, from Ray Hooper to Neale Prior WA Newspapers.
Background: On 12 August 2008, the Shire of York displayed a memorandum on a notice board outside its administration office at 1 Joaquina Street, York. The memorandum was a duplicate copy of a memo the Shire of York sent to Mr Neale Prior at WA Newspapers. The memorandum was also displayed on a notice board outside the Post Office in Avon Terrace, York. Both notice boards were glazed with lockable doors. At the time, I received numerous phone calls from members of the public informing me that the Shire of York had posted a notice naming me and two others. The memorandum(s) remained on display for approximately one week before they were removed.
The memorandum formed part of the FitzGerald Report (see attached) which came about after Council authorised an investigation into the actions of Mr Ray Hooper, previous Chief Executive Officer, Shire of York.
Document requested ordinarily
On 19 February, I sent the following email to records@york.wa.gov.au
Good afternoon Could I please have a copy of the Memorandum (yellow memo) dated 12 August 2008, from Ray Hooper to Neale Prior at WA Newspapers? The document is a public one, it also names me so there should be no reason for it not to be released ordinarily without FOI. As I’m only requesting one document, could I please have a copy before close of business tomorrow, 20 February 2015. Many thanks Simon Saint
On 20 February, I visited the Shire of York administration office to deal with another matter, while there, I enquired about the yellow memo. I spoke with the Deputy Chief Executive Officer Mrs Tyhscha Cochrane and requested a copy of the memorandum. I was acrimoniously informed that I could not have a copy of the document because it contained the names of third parties. It is noteworthy that the Shire had no regard for the 'third parties' at the time it published the memo in 2008, since then, the Shire appears to have developed a conscience, or maybe an understanding it exceeded some limits back in 2008..? Note, this Freedom of Information application has come about due to the past actions of the Shire of York and its inability to be accountable and transparent. If you require statements to clarify that the memorandum was published, please contact me in the first instance to enable me to advertise.
I worked at the shire in 2008 and I remember this. At the time I recall thinking to myself, I'd better not upset the CEO in case the same happens to me, which with hindsight is exactly what the CEO wanted me to think. I am sure the notice was on the board for two weeks at least, I recall many people commented on it at the front counter, I can't remember exactly what the notice said but I know it wasn't very nice, Oh, I'm glad to be out.
The "Yellow Memo" was out for everyone to see at the time, so what's the problem now? We saw it in the post office window not long after moving to York and we couldn't believe our eyes. We didn't really know the people concerned but knew enough about local government to know that this sort of document was completely inappropriate and was horrified to think that people would be named in such a way and accused of wrongdoings in such a way. I remember thinking how did the Councillors allow this to happen? They (SOY) issued it so they obviously have it on file. If the DCEO is refusing to release the original then she should be held accountable by the CEO, Commissioner and Department immediately.
The CEO is her boss and must immediately tell her to release the document and discipline her. If this does not occur I am only left to believe nothing has changed. ARE YOU LISTENING GRAHAM SIMPSON? It is your responsibility to action this straight away.
I cannot believe the hypocrisy. How do these people keep their jobs, let alone get them in the first place?
Is Mrs. T. Cochrane qualified for the position she holds?
Mrs. Cochrane seems to still be in the Ray Hooper mode of operation. Do you need to phone Ray to get his approval?
I am a resident who took a photo of the Yellow Memorandum (not long after I came here to live) because I could not believe what I was seeing. I have kept it filed away until I read this Blog.
I have been here long enough now to see what has been happening and I do not like what I see.
For the record all three residents names were printed on the yellow memo posted on the public notice boards in York! Clearly this was done as a cowardly attempt by the CEO to embarrass and denigrate those named and as a warning to all other residents of what could happen to them should they cross the CEO Ray Hooper.
Did the CEO Hooper seek permission of those he named before he released the document to the public?
So what is your problem Mrs. Cochrane? Would you like a copy, or do you want me to post the photo on the blog for you?
Hang on, we have a DCEO who has no qualifications. Bloody hell, it is no wonder we have had problems. It is time those who are paying the salary bill at the Shire of York demanded we have qualified people working for US! Before Mr. Best or Mr. Simpson respond with the ridiculous theory that rural areas find it difficult to source qualified staff - that is absolute bull shit, there are people in York who ARE highly qualified. The problem has been the majority of the Staff at the Shire were hand picked by Ray Hooper and qualified people did not get a look in.
Referring to the posted document (Shire of York CEO Appraisal 2008) Page 1, KRA 1: Leadership (transcribed as written in the original document). Criteria 1.2 High Standards of ethical behaviour are displayed. > The CEO displays the highest ethical standards. Opponents to his philosopher of Local Government do not like the fact that they can not bully him, threaten him or 'buy' him and thus endeavour to discredit him. > The CEO is open and accountable at all times > The CEO likes to do things properly.
Overall Rating Comments: > If he has a weakness, it is that he tolerates "fools" (Councillors included) and needs to harden up in this area > He access to "those who count" serves York very well
If this Appraisal of the CEO precedes the issuing of the infamous and revolting 'Yellow Memo' which denigrated members of the public (as identified in the Fitz Gerald Report), this is more dismal than we originally thought. I would ask the following questions: 1. Which of the three Councillors offered these glowing statements to justify re-employment of the CEO and renewal of his contract? 2. Did those same Councillors give tacit approval for the CEO to write and publish the yellow memorandum? 3. Did those same Councillors have any input into the content of the yellow memorandum? 4. Did any of those Councillors ever apologise to the persons named in the Yellow Memorandum? 5. Did the CEO retract his statements and offer an apology to any of those named in the Yellow Memorandum? 6. Do any of those Councillors (and specifically the Shire President of the day Pat Hooper) concede that they ENABLED and ENCOURAGED the spiteful and vindictive behaviour of the CEO and his staff by virtue of those comments? 7. Will former Councillor Pat Hooper concede that he set the tone of the future way back in 2008? 8. Former Shire President, Mr Pat Hooper please explain: * Who were/are the tolerated "fools"? * Which of the Councillors were fools? * Who were/are "those who count"?
The Councillors endorsed the CEO's behaviour in 2008 but that's not to say that Ray Hooper wasn't personally to blame as we all make our own choices. For anyone to continue the tirade as the two Hoopers and Boyle did assistant by their acolytes along the way, there was malicious intent and that's inbred, no excuses. Back in 2008 they were lashing out at the a group of protesters who wanted to save the tree in Avon Terrace. Actually, lashing out at anyone who dared to protest or question the system, which led to the issuing of the unorthodox memorandum (yellow memo). With hindsight and a great deal more information coming to light (since the Fitz Gerald Report was published) it all makes me (and possibly others) ashamed of believing rubbish and not doing anything to prevent it. Back then I recall reading newspapers and listening to the 'street talk' (gossip) and I sadly admit to passing judgement based on the information sources (predominantly Council and Councillors). As I said, we all make our own choices, I made bad ones and I apologise to anyone on the receiving end of the nasty events and processes that have been uncovered. I just hope apologies can be made to these people and this can be put behind us never to happen to anyone again.
Good on you Remorseful. Perhaps you can enlighten us to some of the things you were led to believe and by whom that you have since learnt were untruths that caused you to judge?
Better yet you could ask the people who told you the untruths in public why they did so.
Don't hold your breath the people victimised are getting an apology any time soon. The commissioner just wants us to get over it. Demand of him a thorough investigation and then maybe York can move forward. Until then we can only assume never to happen again is a dream. They must acknowledge the past wrongs publicly.
Like you, Remorseful, I sat back and out of ignorance allowed bad things to happen. We can atone for our sins by making sure that people with brains and integrity stand for election later this year, campaigning for them and giving them our votes.
At the same time, we need to ensure that the old guard have no chance of returning to Council, either in person or by proxy. It's rumoured that a former councillor is grooming one or more of his mates to take up where he left off. This year, be extra careful who you vote for!
I also heard the rumour this week an ex councillor is pretty desperate to get a couple of 'his' mates into council at the next election - puppets! You can bet your life the ex councillor will make sure anyone he grooms will be a class 1 bully! Perhaps I should make that a Class 111 bully because that gives it a toxic rating.
It is about time the old guard realised they do not own York and their days of pushing people around are over.
It takes one person to start the healing process. Thank you Remorseful. Lets hope more follow your example.
I agree with Anonymous 75 - the Commissioner would prefer us to 'get over it'. That of course would be the easy path for him and the DLG. It is not a path any of us are willing to walk. We want an independent inquiry.
Please give serious consideration to using the Blog (anonymously) to expose the untruths you were told and ask the people who told you why they did it. You can be sure the same lies would have been repeated to many others and unless these people are exposed and stopped, they will do it again to others.
Unfortunately society does have people who simply don't have the brain skills to process their wrong doings as being unacceptable behaviour within our society.
The York councillor who was judged and found to be guilty of a serious breach by the Standards panel is one.
Remorseful, thank you. Perhaps there are more like you who have realised they were told untruths by councillors. This could explain why people are smiling and saying hullo to me in the main street for he first time in almost a decade. Takes a bit of getting used to. The isolation has been cruel.
some answers to your questions: 1. Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle, Trevor Randell, Ashley Fisher and Brian Lawrance all showered accolades on RH whilst he was present in the room. It was sickening. Cr. Walters voted against the motion. 2. RH wrote and posted the Y/Memo under delegated authority from the council.
Stop the rot, how do you know RH posted the memo under delegated authority ? Is there written proof somewhere and if so where can we find the documentation for it ?
In 2008, either Hooper, Boyle, Lawrence, Fisher or Randall referred to a fellow Councillor, Trish Walters, as a fool. This behavior is abhorrent and only goes to prove that a culture of bullying existed. The male Councillors were misogynistic pigs, hateful nasty little men (no reflection on the male gender). I am sure Councillor Smythe can confirm what nasty people they were and to work with a collective hate machine as it was then would have been a very difficult upsetting experience.
Thank you for publishing the 2008 appraisal. Reading that document has left me bloody speechless. I had no idea we had the Archangel Gabriel here in York.
What alarms me most about Cr Hooper's performance review of CEO Hooper is that, as Shire President at the time, he reveals a dismal ignorance of how local government is supposed to work and appears to have accepted without question CEO Hooper's 'philosopher' [sic] of local government. He should have paid more attention to the 'opponents' of that philosophy, who obviously had wiser heads than his. Who's the fool now?
Cr Hooper says that during the period under review, CEO Hooper had 'shown great leadership as the 'Director' of policy, compliance and management'. The quotation marks around 'Director' hint perhaps at some degree of uncertainty, but there should have been no doubt in Cr Hooper's mind that CEO Hooper was not and should not have been considered as a 'director of policy'.
The CEO's title says it all: he (or she, of course) is an executive, employed to carry out policy, not to formulate or direct it. His responsibilities are defined by s. 5.41a of the Local Government Act 1995; they are to advise and inform the elected Council, in which authority is ultimately vested and from which the CEO's authority, such as it is, is derived. In that respect the CEO will certainly influence policy, but it is not his business to make or direct it. He is an employee of Council, not its overlord.
Neither Cr Hooper nor CEO Hooper seems to have grasped this elementary fact. To some extent, Cr Hooper's ignorance may be mitigated, if not excused, on the grounds of inexperience and lack of training, but nothing can excuse or mitigate CEO Hooper's assumption over the years of what amounted to something resembling absolute authority over elected councillors, Cr Hooper included, as well as the shire's administrative staff. I can't say whether or not CEO Hooper had received suitable training as he rose through local government ranks to the stratospheric heights of CEO, but he had had plenty of experience, for example in Kalgoorlie and Chittering, and really should have known that his sole purpose as CEO was to act as Council's, and by extension the community's, humble servant and do Council's bidding within the confines of the law.
I suspect that a major problem in local government in this state and no doubt elsewhere is the endless, incestuous recycling through the shires of senior administrative and technical staff. I note that when CEO Hooper's contract was most recently renewed, that renewal was justified partly on the basis that CEOs had become scarce, with many having moved on from their places of employment. As I've said before, we should be looking outside the 'purple circle' for young, well-qualified, dynamic CEOs and other staff. Time for another extinction of the dinosaurs!
Which councillors were responsible for that abomination of an assessment? You guys have always blown your own trumpets - in one case very loudly! Come on, own up and tell the people of York - so we know who the real fools are.
Thanks Anonymous 21 Feb. 21:57 you coined a perfect term for the pitiful specimens of Hooper x 2 , Boyle, Lawrance, Fisher and Randall - 'a collective hate machine'.
Considering the yellow memo, which I remember very well, and after reading the CEO's appraisal from 2008, it shows just how disjointed and ignorant the Councillors were at the time. Five years later, Matthew Reid was elected to Council and became Shire President, the boyle was lanced and it took a while to drain the puss, some still remains.
Cr Hooper's made comment at the Council meeting when he renewed Ray's contract "There's a shortage of CEO's." This was merely an excuse to keep his mate Ray in place. Nothing more and nothing less. Toodyay and Northam both managed to secure a new CEO so why couldn't York? PH said he had a couple of letters opposing RH's contract renewal but only 1% of the population. There you have it. The community keep whispering they were opposed but most did not put pen to paper. Fear perhaps, but the community cannot complain after the fact if they did nothing at the time.
Cr Smythe apparently got plenty of objectors. Did she table these letters? No.
From any standpoint, Cr Hooper's excuse for reappointing CEO Hooper was ridiculous, to put it mildly. The only valid reason for employing anyone is that the prospective employee is the right person for the job. If Cr Hooper had said that, or only that, about the CEO, people might well have disagreed with him, and insisted he justify his opinion, but the worst thing that could have been said is that he showed poor judgement.
On the other hand, to employ someone because he or she is, or is believed to be, the only person available, and moreover to do so in the teeth of public antagonism, is an act of wanton stupidity. How did some of those councillors ever manage to get elected to office?
There must be something in York's water. At the last election in 2013, a councillor who had been loudly and publicly censured by the standards board (presided over, let me acknowledge, by Mr Brad Jolly) nevertheless succeeded in his bid for re-election, garnering as I recall rather more than 500 votes. Who knows what will happen at the next election. Sometimes I wonder if the voice of the people really is the voice of God, as the old proverb alleges.
I'm repeating sections of a comment I made a week or so ago because it is relevant here.
During Public Question time at the Council meeting in early 2013, when renewing RH's contract for 2 years was on the agenda, I stated the community did not want this. I asked why it had to be rushed through when his existing contract went through to August of that year. I was told they had to secure RH quickly because so many other Councils had lost their CEO (it was a time of multiple frauds, etc and CEOs were being dismissed, resigning, etc) including in Northam. Therefore, replacement CEOs would be thin on the ground (my paraphrasing).
Those who attended that meeting will no doubt remember the man's voice in the gallery saying,. "Then send him to Northam!". How we wished....
Then, when the Councillors were voting on the contract extension, PH piped up with 'only 2% (not a mere 1%!) of the residents sent in any objections'. We weren't able to comment during this part of the meeting, but we were biting our tongues because those 2% only had a few days to get an objection to the SoY. We thought this was quite a significant response, considering the short time between the agenda going up on the website and those who read it promptly letting the rest of us know what was proposed.so we could object. Remember, the 2% included ALL the residents, those eligible to vote and those under age. Therefore, the percentage was quite significant when you consider there were only a few days to lodge an objection
Needless to add, it was a 'done deal' and nothing the residents said - no matter the number of objectors - would have made a difference. Probably some who could have objected thought 'what's the point'... I doubt this would happen today, now that the residents realize they have a voice and can be heard - even if it's through this 'social media' forum. Perhaps James Best will come to understand better why we are using this medium to express ourselves.
@James Plumridge: 'The only valid reason for employing anyone is that the prospective employee is the right person for the job'. How is that view from your ivory tower, Doctor? Here in the real world, given financial, time and other constraints, one employs '... the best person for the job'. In that climate the belief - entirely misfounded or otherwise - that someone is the only person available by definition makes them the best person for the job.
Regarding the councillor you mention - you don't seem to be on the attack about him being suspended compared to, say, Cr Reid. Very interesting. So if the DLGC and Simpson and Barnett had simply asked you who should get sacked in the first place, everything would be cozy right about now? Are you backing up all this talk by running at the next election?
Dear Anonymous 08:31.......By virtue of the fact you have chosen to comment anonymously.... I won't pull any punches. Are you stupid and what point are you trying to make? It's all very well hiding behind your anonymity and accusing someone of being on their ivory tower but couldn't that be seen as the pot calling the kettle black? Or maybe that's the problem, your tower is wooden? If it was down to the 'best person' for the job, do you really believe Ray Hooper was that person, don't answer-that question was rhetorical!
@Anonymous 8:31: I don't live in an ivory tower; it is trite to suggest that I do on the basis of my academic title. I have always taken a keen and lively interest in what I think you mean by 'the real world' (another trite phrase - who's to say whose world is the 'real' one) and for most of my life have been involved in it. Maybe I should have written 'the best person for the job' instead of 'the right person', but given the 'real' world's acknowledged imperfections the distinction hardly matters; the best person is the right person, if he or she meets the criteria for appointment.
It is laughable to say that 'the only person is by definition the best person'. Was your mind engaged when you wrote that? Are you suggesting that we should appoint the wrong person because that person, though unsuitable, is, so to speak, the only nag in the field? It's a bit like saying 'It's better to hang the wrong bloke than no bloke at all'.
In the particular circumstances under discussion, there was no need to renew the CEO's contract just because there was an alleged shortage of local government CEOs. As I indicated in a previous post, there is no shortage of younger people - preferably with law, accountancy or similar degrees - currently working outside local government, whose academic skills would make it easy for them to adjust to the local government environment and who would bring fresh air into what seems to have become a stuffy closed shop.
I don't see why I should have to 'go on the attack' every time a councillor or council is suspended. Sometimes a council is suspended for very good reasons, and there is dancing in the streets. I went into bat for Matthew for two reasons: first, because I believe he is the right (and best) man for the position of shire president, and secondly, because I believe the minister has acted incorrectly, though lawfully, in suspending a shire president who had the respect and the backing of a majority of York's citizens. I believe the minister acted as he did because he was misinformed by the old guard on the council and in the shire administration as to the real state of things in York. I also believe he was misinformed by DLGC officers friendly with the old guard, but that's another story. I'm disappointed by the minister's trenchant refusal to explain why he acted as he did. (And by the way, I speak as someone who is not aligned politically, has been known to vote for conservative candidates, and will probably do so again.)
Will I stand at the next election? Very likely I will, on a reformist ticket, if I can find good people of similar outlook to stand with me.
Thank you, Anonymous, for your challenging post. I have enjoyed responding to it.
If it was about the right person and best person for the job I would be the Economic Development Officer right now. Problem is the wrong person and not the best person is in the Hr position (Gail Masuk.) I have yet to receive an apology or explanation as to why I gave up two huge Avon Valley festivals to take a position which had no budget, no business plan and was not ready to be offered. I cannot go along with the theory it's about the right or best person based on my experiences. It's about personalities always has been. This is what Matthew was trying to stop.
Hi Tanya, you did not get the job of EPO because you asked too many questions at Council. That was your punishment! The HR person (Gail M.) could not have coped with anyone honest, let alone someone who questioned things AND was actually qualified for the position.
Ah but you see I was given the job and refused to sign the contract because it was rubbish. Perhaps the blogmaster might consider publishing my letter of refusal explaining why for your enlightenment?
I for one wrote to Council about RH's contract renewal and complained loudly. I also complained about the Deputy CEO doing the CEO's appraisal on year. As if she could or would give an honest account being his subordinate.
Information given to Councillors prior to RH contract renewal.
QUESTIONS BY: DAVID PATON Shire of York Council meeting - Monday, 16 February 2009
A written copy of questions was provided to the SOY
My questions are to all Councillors who are considering renewing the contract of the Chief Executive Officer
1. Why time was wasted planning a multipurpose building which is trying to be too many things to too many people on land that is too small for future expansion?
2. Why was a Doctors Surgery planned on land behind the Castle Hotel when in fact the land was not the Shire of York’s to build on?
3. Why was work done (marking angle parking) at Ratepayers expense on 'the one way' road at McCartney Street when in fact the Shire Administration needed approval from the Planning Minister?
4. Why was the Grant money for the bridge at South Street used for other purposes and the Ratepayers in danger of finding approximately $400,000 to pay back? – This error was picked up the Administrator Gavan Troy just in time to rescue the ratepayers.
5. Why was a building permit provided for the extensions to Settlers Tavern, when there was, I believe, a problem with the land title?
6. Why was the amount budgeted for the multi purpose building underestimated by the Shire Administration?
7. Why was land sold in Redmile Road by the Shire of York without the owners being aware that the land had a caveat on it?
8. Where is the timber and Pylons purchased by a local group to build a viewing platform over the river in Avon Park? Is it envisioned for this project to be completed?
9. When will the drainage in York be upgraded? Commissioner Troy alerted the Administration more than four years ago that this was in urgent need of upgrading to avoid major flooding.
10. What has happened to the proposed Equestrian Centre, why has there not been any consultation to all of the stakeholders on this for the past four years?
All of the above problems should have been avoided by the Chief Executive Officer – that is what the Ratepayers pay him for.
I therefore question the wisdom of the present councillors if they renew his contract.
These are penetrating questions that go to the heart of the CEO's ability or lack of it to do his job. How did the Shire President of the day respond? Did any of the councillors vote against renewing the CEO's contract?
Ray Hooper was never a softie! I can already hear the people of Chittering laughing at that comment. If RH had been a softie, there would not have been the need for the Fitz Gerald Report. He knew exactly what he was doing and the Councillors blindly believed him.
an appraisal can show a lot about the appraiser. using terms like fools, stupid and frivolous questions shows a tendency for bullying and contempt for fellow councillors and ratepayers. clearly the CEO was a softie and needed to harden up, which it appears he did, if reads reads the yellow memo. The CEO spent too much time doing his job giving "opinions" and not enough time doing the councillors job of developing policies and strategy. Naughty boy
My understanding is that in a former life Cr Hooper was a teacher and deputy principal of a school. If so, I hope he was more generous in his estimation of students and school colleagues than of his fellow councillors.
I wonder if any councillors were among those who tried but apparently failed to bully CEO Hooper (1.2 above). I'd also like to know if other councillors were privy to the performance review documents, and if so, why nobody gave Cr Hooper a bloody nose by way of response to his bloody cheek.
For the last Council meeting, I submitted 4 questions on notice regarding qualifications of shire staff. The gist of Commissioner Best's replies, unless I have misunderstood him, was that qualifications were of little or no importance in local government in comparison with experience.
The inference I drew from his answer was that the current crop of Council employees have no tertiary, trade or professional qualifications relevant to their positions and no interest in acquiring any. Again, I may have misunderstood him.
Harking back to the halcyon days of 2008, I observe that item 1.4 of the above assessment states that 'Staff...are encouraged to take on advanced study skills through local government courses'. So what has happened since then to discourage them? I'd be interested to know what courses are available to staff, and what interest staff have shown in pursuing them. What would be the point of training councillors if the executive branch of the shire is learning by trial and error on the job, under the tutelage of untrained senior staff?
Unfortunately secrecy remains the order of the day. I feel an FOI application coming on...
Careful James. Mr Best says he is forever misquoted on this blogspot. Follow up on this if you would when the minutes come out. Let's see what he actually said re the staff qualificatios. I was there and my perception was similar to yours however he made several contradictory comments and the published comments will be of interest.
A York Councillor was like a fine wine. They started out as raw as grapes and it was obviously the CEO's job to tread all over them and keep them in the dark until they matured into something remotely worth having dinner with. In the case of Vintages 2008-13, a good one was like hanging up a camouflage jacket and then not being able to find it!
On reflection, I think I was far too kind to compare those Councillors to a fine wine. More likely it should have been a 'mushroom' (or Devil's fruit). The old saying that mushrooms are kept in the dark and fed pooh is far more apt. Once cultivated a mushroom may be poisonous or unpalatable or on rare occasions may be of the variety with a fruiting body. For our great unwashed - some are still full of pooh, some landed in the pooh and others will end up being stuffed. All nurtured by a creator of the toxic variety. Oh, he was such a Fun Gi! "Morphology of a Mushroom" makes for great reading!
Anonymous23 February 2015 at 01:27 The assessment of Ray Hooper (above) was carried out by councillors who were themselves devoid of ethical standards. They probably did not understand the meaning of the word either.
Would Cr.Pat Hooper in his role as Shire President confirm if Councillor Tricia Walters was included in all annual assessments and setting of Key Performance Indicator's for the CEO Ray Hooper, as per the requirement under the local Gov. Act Ref: S.5.38 and regulation 18D?
Trish was excluded from many things. This is something future councillors should not allow and something Pat and Tony should be very ashamed of. Tony and Pat - just because the lady chose not to meet for coffees or beers does not mean decisions should have been made without her. Personalities should never come into play when you say you are representing the community. A lesson in Social Inclusion and tolerance would be apt for both of you
Thank you Tanya for your comment. I was hoping for a response from Pat Hooper himself if he has the guts! Come on Pat, time to start answering some questions.
As for lessons in Social inclusion and tolerance, you are correct
Ironically, I recently requested a copy of a public document (yellow memo) dating back to August 2008, surprise surprise I was denied access, yet again I have no choice other than to use FOI (below).
ReplyDelete87 Avon Terrace York
WA 6302
23 February 2015
Freedom of Information officer
Shire of York
1 Joaquina Street York
WA 6302
Dear Sir/Madam
Freedom of Information-request for documents - public memorandum (yellow memo)
Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992, I request a copy of the memorandum dated 12 August 2008, from Ray Hooper to Neale Prior WA Newspapers.
Background:
On 12 August 2008, the Shire of York displayed a memorandum on a notice board outside its administration office at 1 Joaquina Street, York. The memorandum was a duplicate copy of a memo the Shire of York sent to Mr Neale Prior at WA Newspapers. The memorandum was also displayed on a notice board outside the Post Office in Avon Terrace, York. Both notice boards were glazed with lockable doors. At the time, I received numerous phone calls from members of the public informing me that the Shire of York had posted a notice naming me and two others. The memorandum(s) remained on display for approximately one week before they were removed.
The memorandum formed part of the FitzGerald Report (see attached) which came about after Council authorised an investigation into the actions of Mr Ray Hooper, previous Chief Executive Officer, Shire of York.
Document requested ordinarily
On 19 February, I sent the following email to records@york.wa.gov.au
Good afternoon
Could I please have a copy of the Memorandum (yellow memo) dated 12 August 2008, from Ray Hooper to Neale Prior at WA Newspapers?
The document is a public one, it also names me so there should be no reason for it not to be released ordinarily without FOI.
As I’m only requesting one document, could I please have a copy before close of business tomorrow, 20 February 2015.
Many thanks
Simon Saint
On 20 February, I visited the Shire of York administration office to deal with another matter, while there, I enquired about the yellow memo.
I spoke with the Deputy Chief Executive Officer Mrs Tyhscha Cochrane and requested a copy of the memorandum. I was acrimoniously informed that I could not have a copy of the document because it contained the names of third parties.
It is noteworthy that the Shire had no regard for the 'third parties' at the time it published the memo in 2008, since then, the Shire appears to have developed a conscience, or maybe an understanding it exceeded some limits back in 2008..?
Note, this Freedom of Information application has come about due to the past actions of the Shire of York and its inability to be accountable and transparent.
If you require statements to clarify that the memorandum was published, please contact me in the first instance to enable me to advertise.
Yours faithfully
S.M Saint
Bring on the appraisals of Masuik and Cochrane!
DeleteI worked at the shire in 2008 and I remember this. At the time I recall thinking to myself, I'd better not upset the CEO in case the same happens to me, which with hindsight is exactly what the CEO wanted me to think. I am sure the notice was on the board for two weeks at least, I recall many people commented on it at the front counter, I can't remember exactly what the notice said but I know it wasn't very nice, Oh, I'm glad to be out.
ReplyDeleteRay Hooper used fear as a weapon to control staff and residents.
DeleteThe "Yellow Memo" was out for everyone to see at the time, so what's the problem now? We saw it in the post office window not long after moving to York and we couldn't believe our eyes. We didn't really know the people concerned but knew enough about local government to know that this sort of document was completely inappropriate and was horrified to think that people would be named in such a way and accused of wrongdoings in such a way. I remember thinking how did the Councillors allow this to happen? They (SOY) issued it so they obviously have it on file. If the DCEO is refusing to release the original then she should be held accountable by the CEO, Commissioner and Department immediately.
DeleteThe CEO is her boss and must immediately tell her to release the document and discipline her. If this does not occur I am only left to believe nothing has changed. ARE YOU LISTENING GRAHAM SIMPSON? It is your responsibility to action this straight away.
I cannot believe the hypocrisy. How do these people keep their jobs, let alone get them in the first place?
DeleteIs Mrs. T. Cochrane qualified for the position she holds?
Mrs. Cochrane seems to still be in the Ray Hooper mode of operation. Do you need to phone Ray to get his approval?
I am a resident who took a photo of the Yellow Memorandum (not long after I came here to live) because I could not believe what I was seeing. I have kept it filed away until I read this Blog.
I have been here long enough now to see what has been happening and I do not like what I see.
For the record all three residents names were printed on the yellow memo posted on the public notice boards in York! Clearly this was done as a cowardly attempt by the CEO to embarrass and denigrate those named and as a warning to all other residents of what could happen to them should they cross the CEO Ray Hooper.
Did the CEO Hooper seek permission of those he named before he released the document to the public?
So what is your problem Mrs. Cochrane? Would you like a copy, or do you want me to post the photo on the blog for you?
Please, Stop the Nonsense, post it on the blog.
DeleteLet everyone see what kind of CEO we had in Ray Hooper, and pass judgement on the foolish councillors who supported and deferred to him.
I tried to find out what qualifications are held by or expected of Shire staff. Apparently the answer is 'none'.
Hang on, we have a DCEO who has no qualifications. Bloody hell, it is no wonder we have had problems.
DeleteIt is time those who are paying the salary bill at the Shire of York demanded we have qualified people working for US!
Before Mr. Best or Mr. Simpson respond with the ridiculous theory that rural areas find it difficult to source qualified staff - that is absolute bull shit, there are people in York who ARE highly qualified. The problem has been the majority of the Staff at the Shire were hand picked by Ray Hooper and qualified people did not get a look in.
Referring to the posted document (Shire of York CEO Appraisal 2008) Page 1, KRA 1: Leadership (transcribed as written in the original document).
ReplyDeleteCriteria 1.2 High Standards of ethical behaviour are displayed.
> The CEO displays the highest ethical standards. Opponents to his philosopher of Local Government do not like the fact that they can not bully him, threaten him or 'buy' him and thus endeavour to discredit him.
> The CEO is open and accountable at all times
> The CEO likes to do things properly.
Overall Rating Comments:
> If he has a weakness, it is that he tolerates "fools" (Councillors included) and needs to harden up in this area
> He access to "those who count" serves York very well
If this Appraisal of the CEO precedes the issuing of the infamous and revolting 'Yellow Memo' which denigrated members of the public (as identified in the Fitz Gerald Report), this is more dismal than we originally thought.
I would ask the following questions:
1. Which of the three Councillors offered these glowing statements to justify re-employment of the CEO and renewal of his contract?
2. Did those same Councillors give tacit approval for the CEO to write and publish the yellow memorandum?
3. Did those same Councillors have any input into the content of the yellow memorandum?
4. Did any of those Councillors ever apologise to the persons named in the Yellow Memorandum?
5. Did the CEO retract his statements and offer an apology to any of those named in the Yellow Memorandum?
6. Do any of those Councillors (and specifically the Shire President of the day Pat Hooper) concede that they ENABLED and ENCOURAGED the spiteful and vindictive behaviour of the CEO and his staff by virtue of those comments?
7. Will former Councillor Pat Hooper concede that he set the tone of the future way back in 2008?
8. Former Shire President, Mr Pat Hooper please explain:
* Who were/are the tolerated "fools"?
* Which of the Councillors were fools?
* Who were/are "those who count"?
The Councillors endorsed the CEO's behaviour in 2008 but that's not to say that Ray Hooper wasn't personally to blame as we all make our own choices. For anyone to continue the tirade as the two Hoopers and Boyle did assistant by their acolytes along the way, there was malicious intent and that's inbred, no excuses. Back in 2008 they were lashing out at the a group of protesters who wanted to save the tree in Avon Terrace. Actually, lashing out at anyone who dared to protest or question the system, which led to the issuing of the unorthodox memorandum (yellow memo). With hindsight and a great deal more information coming to light (since the Fitz Gerald Report was published) it all makes me (and possibly others) ashamed of believing rubbish and not doing anything to prevent it. Back then I recall reading newspapers and listening to the 'street talk' (gossip) and I sadly admit to passing judgement based on the information sources (predominantly Council and Councillors). As I said, we all make our own choices, I made bad ones and I apologise to anyone on the receiving end of the nasty events and processes that have been uncovered. I just hope apologies can be made to these people and this can be put behind us never to happen to anyone again.
DeleteGood on you Remorseful. Perhaps you can enlighten us to some of the things you were led to believe and by whom that you have since learnt were untruths that caused you to judge?
DeleteBetter yet you could ask the people who told you the untruths in public why they did so.
Don't hold your breath the people victimised are getting an apology any time soon. The commissioner just wants us to get over it. Demand of him a thorough investigation and then maybe York can move forward. Until then we can only assume never to happen again is a dream. They must acknowledge the past wrongs publicly.
Like you, Remorseful, I sat back and out of ignorance allowed bad things to happen. We can atone for our sins by making sure that people with brains and integrity stand for election later this year, campaigning for them and giving them our votes.
DeleteAt the same time, we need to ensure that the old guard have no chance of returning to Council, either in person or by proxy. It's rumoured that a former councillor is grooming one or more of his mates to take up where he left off. This year, be extra careful who you vote for!
I think that is inevitable James because they still don't think they've done anything wrong
DeleteI also heard the rumour this week an ex councillor is pretty desperate to get a couple of 'his' mates into council at the next election - puppets!
DeleteYou can bet your life the ex councillor will make sure anyone he grooms will be a class 1 bully! Perhaps I should make that a Class 111 bully because that gives it a toxic rating.
It is about time the old guard realised they do not own York and their days of pushing people around are over.
.
It is up to the people of York to be
It takes one person to start the healing process. Thank you Remorseful.
DeleteLets hope more follow your example.
I agree with Anonymous 75 - the Commissioner would prefer us to 'get over it'. That of course would be the easy path for him and the DLG. It is not a path any of us are willing to walk. We want an independent inquiry.
Please give serious consideration to using the Blog (anonymously) to expose the untruths you were told and ask the people who told you why they did it. You can be sure the same lies would have been repeated to many others and unless these people are exposed and stopped, they will do it again to others.
Knowledge is power Tanya, at least the community have been warned.
DeleteAny whiff of a connection to the old guard will bubble quickly to the surface.
Unfortunately society does have people who simply don't have the brain skills to process their wrong doings as being unacceptable behaviour within our society.
DeleteThe York councillor who was judged and found to be guilty of a serious breach by the Standards panel is one.
Hitler was another.
Remorseful, thank you.
DeletePerhaps there are more like you who have realised they were told untruths by councillors. This could explain why people are smiling and saying hullo to me in the main street for he first time in almost a decade.
Takes a bit of getting used to.
The isolation has been cruel.
Veritis: 21st Feb.
Deletesome answers to your questions:
1. Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle, Trevor Randell, Ashley Fisher and Brian Lawrance all showered accolades on RH whilst he was present in the room. It was sickening.
Cr. Walters voted against the motion.
2. RH wrote and posted the Y/Memo under delegated authority from the council.
Stop the rot, how do you know RH posted the memo under delegated authority ?
DeleteIs there written proof somewhere and if so where can we find the documentation for it ?
To answer Anonymous 20:13
DeleteYes there is proof. The letter received from Ray Hooper has been sent to the blog email address.
In 2008, either Hooper, Boyle, Lawrence, Fisher or Randall referred to a fellow Councillor, Trish Walters, as a fool. This behavior is abhorrent and only goes to prove that a culture of bullying existed. The male Councillors were misogynistic pigs, hateful nasty little men (no reflection on the male gender). I am sure Councillor Smythe can confirm what nasty people they were and to work with a collective hate machine as it was then would have been a very difficult upsetting experience.
ReplyDeleteThank you for publishing the 2008 appraisal.
ReplyDeleteReading that document has left me bloody speechless.
I had no idea we had the Archangel Gabriel here in York.
What alarms me most about Cr Hooper's performance review of CEO Hooper is that, as Shire President at the time, he reveals a dismal ignorance of how local government is supposed to work and appears to have accepted without question CEO Hooper's 'philosopher' [sic] of local government. He should have paid more attention to the 'opponents' of that philosophy, who obviously had wiser heads than his. Who's the fool now?
ReplyDeleteCr Hooper says that during the period under review, CEO Hooper had 'shown great leadership as the 'Director' of policy, compliance and management'. The quotation marks around 'Director' hint perhaps at some degree of uncertainty, but there should have been no doubt in Cr Hooper's mind that CEO Hooper was not and should not have been considered as a 'director of policy'.
The CEO's title says it all: he (or she, of course) is an executive, employed to carry out policy, not to formulate or direct it. His responsibilities are defined by s. 5.41a of the Local Government Act 1995; they are to advise and inform the elected Council, in which authority is ultimately vested and from which the CEO's authority, such as it is, is derived. In that respect the CEO will certainly influence policy, but it is not his business to make or direct it. He is an employee of Council, not its overlord.
Neither Cr Hooper nor CEO Hooper seems to have grasped this elementary fact. To some extent, Cr Hooper's ignorance may be mitigated, if not excused, on the grounds of inexperience and lack of training, but nothing can excuse or mitigate CEO Hooper's assumption over the years of what amounted to something resembling absolute authority over elected councillors, Cr Hooper included, as well as the shire's administrative staff. I can't say whether or not CEO Hooper had received suitable training as he rose through local government ranks to the stratospheric heights of CEO, but he had had plenty of experience, for example in Kalgoorlie and Chittering, and really should have known that his sole purpose as CEO was to act as Council's, and by extension the community's, humble servant and do Council's bidding within the confines of the law.
I suspect that a major problem in local government in this state and no doubt elsewhere is the endless, incestuous recycling through the shires of senior administrative and technical staff. I note that when CEO Hooper's contract was most recently renewed, that renewal was justified partly on the basis that CEOs had become scarce, with many having moved on from their places of employment. As I've said before, we should be looking outside the 'purple circle' for young, well-qualified, dynamic CEOs and other staff. Time for another extinction of the dinosaurs!
Which councillors were responsible for that abomination of an assessment?
ReplyDeleteYou guys have always blown your own trumpets - in one case very loudly! Come on, own up and tell the people of York - so we know who the real fools are.
Thanks Anonymous 21 Feb. 21:57 you coined a perfect term for the pitiful specimens of Hooper x 2 , Boyle, Lawrance, Fisher and Randall - 'a collective hate machine'.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the yellow memo, which I remember very well, and after reading the CEO's appraisal from 2008, it shows just how disjointed and ignorant the Councillors were at the time. Five years later, Matthew Reid was elected to Council and became Shire President, the boyle was lanced and it took a while to drain the puss, some still remains.
ReplyDeleteCr Hooper's made comment at the Council meeting when he renewed Ray's contract "There's a shortage of CEO's." This was merely an excuse to keep his mate Ray in place. Nothing more and nothing less. Toodyay and Northam both managed to secure a new CEO so why couldn't York? PH said he had a couple of letters opposing RH's contract renewal but only 1% of the population. There you have it. The community keep whispering they were opposed but most did not put pen to paper. Fear perhaps, but the community cannot complain after the fact if they did nothing at the time.
ReplyDeleteCr Smythe apparently got plenty of objectors. Did she table these letters? No.
From any standpoint, Cr Hooper's excuse for reappointing CEO Hooper was ridiculous, to put it mildly. The only valid reason for employing anyone is that the prospective employee is the right person for the job. If Cr Hooper had said that, or only that, about the CEO, people might well have disagreed with him, and insisted he justify his opinion, but the worst thing that could have been said is that he showed poor judgement.
DeleteOn the other hand, to employ someone because he or she is, or is believed to be, the only person available, and moreover to do so in the teeth of public antagonism, is an act of wanton stupidity. How did some of those councillors ever manage to get elected to office?
There must be something in York's water. At the last election in 2013, a councillor who had been loudly and publicly censured by the standards board (presided over, let me acknowledge, by Mr Brad Jolly) nevertheless succeeded in his bid for re-election, garnering as I recall rather more than 500 votes. Who knows what will happen at the next election. Sometimes I wonder if the voice of the people really is the voice of God, as the old proverb alleges.
I'm repeating sections of a comment I made a week or so ago because it is relevant here.
DeleteDuring Public Question time at the Council meeting in early 2013, when renewing RH's contract for 2 years was on the agenda, I stated the community did not want this. I asked why it had to be rushed through when his existing contract went through to August of that year. I was told they had to secure RH quickly because so many other Councils had lost their CEO (it was a time of multiple frauds, etc and CEOs were being dismissed, resigning, etc) including in Northam. Therefore, replacement CEOs would be thin on the ground (my paraphrasing).
Those who attended that meeting will no doubt remember the man's voice in the gallery saying,. "Then send him to Northam!". How we wished....
Then, when the Councillors were voting on the contract extension, PH piped up with 'only 2% (not a mere 1%!) of the residents sent in any objections'. We weren't able to comment during this part of the meeting, but we were biting our tongues because those 2% only had a few days to get an objection to the SoY. We thought this was quite a significant response, considering the short time between the agenda going up on the website and those who read it promptly letting the rest of us know what was proposed.so we could object. Remember, the 2% included ALL the residents, those eligible to vote and those under age. Therefore, the percentage was quite significant when you consider there were only a few days to lodge an objection
Needless to add, it was a 'done deal' and nothing the residents said - no matter the number of objectors - would have made a difference. Probably some who could have objected thought 'what's the point'... I doubt this would happen today, now that the residents realize they have a voice and can be heard - even if it's through this 'social media' forum. Perhaps James Best will come to understand better why we are using this medium to express ourselves.
@James Plumridge: 'The only valid reason for employing anyone is that the prospective employee is the right person for the job'. How is that view from your ivory tower, Doctor? Here in the real world, given financial, time and other constraints, one employs '... the best person for the job'. In that climate the belief - entirely misfounded or otherwise - that someone is the only person available by definition makes them the best person for the job.
DeleteRegarding the councillor you mention - you don't seem to be on the attack about him being suspended compared to, say, Cr Reid. Very interesting. So if the DLGC and Simpson and Barnett had simply asked you who should get sacked in the first place, everything would be cozy right about now? Are you backing up all this talk by running at the next election?
Anonymous 08:31....you really don't get it do you?
DeleteDear Anonymous 08:31.......By virtue of the fact you have chosen to comment anonymously.... I won't pull any punches. Are you stupid and what point are you trying to make? It's all very well hiding behind your anonymity and accusing someone of being on their ivory tower but couldn't that be seen as the pot calling the kettle black? Or maybe that's the problem, your tower is wooden?
DeleteIf it was down to the 'best person' for the job, do you really believe Ray Hooper was that person, don't answer-that question was rhetorical!
@Anonymous 8:31: I don't live in an ivory tower; it is trite to suggest that I do on the basis of my academic title. I have always taken a keen and lively interest in what I think you mean by 'the real world' (another trite phrase - who's to say whose world is the 'real' one) and for most of my life have been involved in it. Maybe I should have written 'the best person for the job' instead of 'the right person', but given the 'real' world's acknowledged imperfections the distinction hardly matters; the best person is the right person, if he or she meets the criteria for appointment.
DeleteIt is laughable to say that 'the only person is by definition the best person'. Was your mind engaged when you wrote that? Are you suggesting that we should appoint the wrong person because that person, though unsuitable, is, so to speak, the only nag in the field? It's a bit like saying 'It's better to hang the wrong bloke than no bloke at all'.
In the particular circumstances under discussion, there was no need to renew the CEO's contract just because there was an alleged shortage of local government CEOs. As I indicated in a previous post, there is no shortage of younger people - preferably with law, accountancy or similar degrees - currently working outside local government, whose academic skills would make it easy for them to adjust to the local government environment and who would bring fresh air into what seems to have become a stuffy closed shop.
I don't see why I should have to 'go on the attack' every time a councillor or council is suspended. Sometimes a council is suspended for very good reasons, and there is dancing in the streets. I went into bat for Matthew for two reasons: first, because I believe he is the right (and best) man for the position of shire president, and secondly, because I believe the minister has acted incorrectly, though lawfully, in suspending a shire president who had the respect and the backing of a majority of York's citizens. I believe the minister acted as he did because he was misinformed by the old guard on the council and in the shire administration as to the real state of things in York. I also believe he was misinformed by DLGC officers friendly with the old guard, but that's another story. I'm disappointed by the minister's trenchant refusal to explain why he acted as he did. (And by the way, I speak as someone who is not aligned politically, has been known to vote for conservative candidates, and will probably do so again.)
Will I stand at the next election? Very likely I will, on a reformist ticket, if I can find good people of similar outlook to stand with me.
Thank you, Anonymous, for your challenging post. I have enjoyed responding to it.
Touche`. Good come-back James.
DeleteIf it was about the right person and best person for the job I would be the Economic Development Officer right now. Problem is the wrong person and not the best person is in the Hr position (Gail Masuk.) I have yet to receive an apology or explanation as to why I gave up two huge Avon Valley festivals to take a position which had no budget, no business plan and was not ready to be offered. I cannot go along with the theory it's about the right or best person based on my experiences. It's about personalities always has been. This is what Matthew was trying to stop.
DeleteOMG WTF PMSL
DeleteJames, your response was brilliant.
DeleteWhat a great idea to run on a reformist ticket.
The bullies and no brainers have had their chance and look at the appalling and disgraceful mess they created.
Now it is time for an honest, open and fair Council, something York has not seen in a very long time.
You have my vote!
Hi Tanya, you did not get the job of EPO because you asked too many questions at Council. That was your punishment!
DeleteThe HR person (Gail M.) could not have coped with anyone honest, let alone someone who questioned things AND was actually qualified for the position.
Ah but you see I was given the job and refused to sign the contract because it was rubbish. Perhaps the blogmaster might consider publishing my letter of refusal explaining why for your enlightenment?
DeleteSo those unqualified employees wrote up a contract that was impossible for you to agree to?
DeleteI hope the blogmaster does put your letter up - Ratepayers are the employers of these unqualified people and we need to know what has been going on.
I for one wrote to Council about RH's contract renewal and complained loudly. I also complained about the Deputy CEO doing the CEO's appraisal on year. As if she could or would give an honest account being his subordinate.
ReplyDeleteInformation given to Councillors prior to RH contract renewal.
ReplyDeleteQUESTIONS BY: DAVID PATON
Shire of York Council meeting - Monday, 16 February 2009
A written copy of questions was provided to the SOY
My questions are to all Councillors who are considering renewing the contract of the Chief Executive Officer
1. Why time was wasted planning a multipurpose building which is trying to be too many things to too many people on land that is too small for future expansion?
2. Why was a Doctors Surgery planned on land behind the Castle Hotel when in fact the land was not the Shire of York’s to build on?
3. Why was work done (marking angle parking) at Ratepayers expense on 'the one way' road at McCartney Street when in fact the Shire Administration needed approval from the Planning Minister?
4. Why was the Grant money for the bridge at South Street used for other purposes and the Ratepayers in danger of finding approximately $400,000 to pay back? – This error was picked up the Administrator Gavan Troy just in time to rescue the ratepayers.
5. Why was a building permit provided for the extensions to Settlers Tavern, when there was, I believe, a problem with the land title?
6. Why was the amount budgeted for the multi purpose building underestimated by the Shire Administration?
7. Why was land sold in Redmile Road by the Shire of York without the owners being aware that the land had a caveat on it?
8. Where is the timber and Pylons purchased by a local group to build a viewing platform over the river in Avon Park? Is it envisioned for this project to be completed?
9. When will the drainage in York be upgraded? Commissioner Troy alerted the Administration more than four years ago that this was in urgent need of upgrading to avoid major flooding.
10. What has happened to the proposed Equestrian Centre, why has there not been any consultation to all of the stakeholders on this for the past four years?
All of the above problems should have been avoided by the Chief Executive Officer – that is what the Ratepayers pay him for.
I therefore question the wisdom of the present councillors if they renew his contract.
These are penetrating questions that go to the heart of the CEO's ability or lack of it to do his job. How did the Shire President of the day respond? Did any of the councillors vote against renewing the CEO's contract?
DeleteRay Hooper was never a softie! I can already hear the people of Chittering laughing at that comment.
DeleteIf RH had been a softie, there would not have been the need for the Fitz Gerald Report.
He knew exactly what he was doing and the Councillors blindly believed him.
The Shire President did not respond.
DeleteThe answers were all provided by Ray Hooper himself.
'The Boys' all voted to renew RH's contract.
an appraisal can show a lot about the appraiser. using terms like fools, stupid and frivolous questions shows a tendency for bullying and contempt for fellow councillors and ratepayers. clearly the CEO was a softie and needed to harden up, which it appears he did, if reads reads the yellow memo. The CEO spent too much time doing his job giving "opinions" and not enough time doing the councillors job of developing policies and strategy. Naughty boy
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that in a former life Cr Hooper was a teacher and deputy principal of a school. If so, I hope he was more generous in his estimation of students and school colleagues than of his fellow councillors.
DeleteI wonder if any councillors were among those who tried but apparently failed to bully CEO Hooper (1.2 above). I'd also like to know if other councillors were privy to the performance review documents, and if so, why nobody gave Cr Hooper a bloody nose by way of response to his bloody cheek.
For the last Council meeting, I submitted 4 questions on notice regarding qualifications of shire staff. The gist of Commissioner Best's replies, unless I have misunderstood him, was that qualifications were of little or no importance in local government in comparison with experience.
ReplyDeleteThe inference I drew from his answer was that the current crop of Council employees have no tertiary, trade or professional qualifications relevant to their positions and no interest in acquiring any. Again, I may have misunderstood him.
Harking back to the halcyon days of 2008, I observe that item 1.4 of the above assessment states that 'Staff...are encouraged to take on advanced study skills through local government courses'. So what has happened since then to discourage them? I'd be interested to know what courses are available to staff, and what interest staff have shown in pursuing them. What would be the point of training councillors if the executive branch of the shire is learning by trial and error on the job, under the tutelage of untrained senior staff?
Unfortunately secrecy remains the order of the day. I feel an FOI application coming on...
Careful James. Mr Best says he is forever misquoted on this blogspot. Follow up on this if you would when the minutes come out. Let's see what he actually said re the staff qualificatios. I was there and my perception was similar to yours however he made several contradictory comments and the published comments will be of interest.
ReplyDeleteA York Councillor was like a fine wine. They started out as raw as grapes and it was obviously the CEO's job to tread all over them and keep them in the dark until they matured into something remotely worth having dinner with. In the case of Vintages 2008-13, a good one was like hanging up a camouflage jacket and then not being able to find it!
ReplyDeleteVery amusing Veritas, great analysis.
DeleteOn reflection, I think I was far too kind to compare those Councillors to a fine wine.
DeleteMore likely it should have been a 'mushroom' (or Devil's fruit). The old saying that mushrooms are kept in the dark and fed pooh is far more apt. Once cultivated a mushroom may be poisonous or unpalatable or on rare occasions may be of the variety with a fruiting body. For our great unwashed - some are still full of pooh, some landed in the pooh and others will end up being stuffed. All nurtured by a creator of the toxic variety.
Oh, he was such a Fun Gi!
"Morphology of a Mushroom" makes for great reading!
1.2 is a scream, no one can possibly take it seriously...? Ray Hooper - ethical standards in the same sentence, come on!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous23 February 2015 at 01:27
DeleteThe assessment of Ray Hooper (above) was carried out by councillors who were themselves devoid of ethical standards. They probably did not understand the meaning of the word either.
The cartoons are bloody brilliant - keep them coming.
ReplyDeleteWould Cr.Pat Hooper in his role as Shire President confirm if Councillor Tricia Walters was included
ReplyDeletein all annual assessments and setting of Key Performance Indicator's for the CEO Ray Hooper, as per the requirement under the local Gov. Act Ref: S.5.38 and regulation 18D?
Trish was excluded from many things. This is something future councillors should not allow and something Pat and Tony should be very ashamed of. Tony and Pat - just because the lady chose not to meet for coffees or beers does not mean decisions should have been made without her. Personalities should never come into play when you say you are representing the community. A lesson in Social Inclusion and tolerance would be apt for both of you
ReplyDeleteThank you Tanya for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI was hoping for a response from Pat Hooper himself if he has the guts!
Come on Pat, time to start answering some questions.
As for lessons in Social inclusion and tolerance, you are correct