 |
James Best
(For the purpose of search engines)
|
Notice of Special Council Meeting
Posted on: Friday, 3 July 2015 at 3:38:36 PMNotice of Special Council Meeting - 6 July 2015
A Special Council Meeting will be held on Monday 6 July 2015 commencing at 5:00 pm at the York Recreation & Convention Centre - Barker Street, York.PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:
- Adopting a Policy to deal with unreasonable conduct.
GRAEME SIMPSON
Acting Chief Executive Officer
COME AND SEE THE SHOW
Could it be James Best's unreasonable conduct at last nights meeting?
ReplyDeletePart 1.....
ReplyDeleteThe PURPOSE OF THE MEETING on Monday 6 July 2015, has been described:
• Adopting a Policy to deal with unreasonable conduct.
It is very likely that this policy description is misleading.
It is more likely to be the adoption of a policy in relation to Recommendation 14 of the recent Probity Report to create a 'COMPLAINTS POLICY' .
RECOMMENDATION 14 READS:
That Council gives priority to the preparation of a new draft comprehensive complaints policy that is to contain guidance on the process and procedure to be followed when dealing with complaints made to the Shire.
ACTION TAKEN READS:
Prior to Council suspension a consultant provided a draft policy. This will be presented to June Ordinary Council meeting. ..........(meaning June 2015)
COMPLETED DATE OR EXPECTED COMPLETION:
Ombudsman complaint process to be incorporated into Policy review by elected members workshop on 13 July 2015.
In a response to his letter of 4 March 2014, Director General, Jennifer Matthews, responded to Ray Hooper by letter dated 20 March 2014, in which she enclosed a copy of the Ombudsman's Guidelines for dealing with complaints. Council was not made aware of the letter from Ms Matthews until it was eventually recorded in the Shire's record keeping system by the DCEO on the evening of 14 April 2014. This was the day of the Shire meeting to commission an investigation and the day before Ray Hooper resigned.
Part 2....
ReplyDeleteOn 4 March 2014, CEO (Ray Hooper) wrote to Ms Jennifer Matthews , The Director General, DLGC with a heading 'Vexatious Unreasonable Demands' asking for urgent advice from the Department, to include.....
.... is there any scope or opportunity under current legislation for Council to declare a person vexatious or unreasonable and to direct staff to cease dealings with the person so declared?
On 20 March 2014 Jennifer Matthews, Director General DLGC, responded to CEO Ray Hooper.
Ms Matthews letter to the CEO re-iterates that .......Legislation in WA does not permit a local government (or any public authority) to 'declare' a person vexatious, or as a vexatious complainant.
Any decision by a Council or any other public authority to restrict a person's avenue for complaint should be taken only as a measure of last resort and should not be relied on as a means of avoiding scrutiny.
(copy of the Ombudsman's Guidelines attached to the letter)
HAS BEST DONE THE DEAL WITH RAY HOOPER .........?
DeleteRay Hooper received the letter of advice from the Director General, Ms Matthews on 20 March 2014.
I referred back to Ray Hooper's unwieldy letter dated 8 October 2014, demanding Council action by resolution, (from previous post Sunday, 21 June 2015, 'Commissioner Best tying up loose ends').
4. Workplace Safety
Pass a resolution that where any member of the community undertakes intimidating behaviour to staff or elected members, or who cause stress or fear of consequences to staff or elected members, that Council will not accept this as appropriate behaviour and will not deal with the person or persons acting on his/her behalf.
Who does Hooper think he is setting these demands on our elected Councillor's and (even after receiving advice from Director General, Jennifer Matthews) on what authority, legal or otherwise, can he demand they deny anyone in the community their democratic rights?
Ray Hooper resigned as York CEO on 15 April 2015, under a cloud. He became 'civilian Ray Hooper' and wasn't even a 'member of this community' when he wrote this letter in October, not a resident nor a ratepayer and by York standards, just a 'blow in'.
In the demand for this resolution Ray Hooper's describes his own behaviour, not only towards several Councillor's but also the community members and unconscionable way he treated those who effectively caught him out.
Ray Hooper's letter of demand on 8 October 2015 was part of his personal deal to finalise matters, not for the benefit of 'York as a whole' but to cover his own backside and avoid scrutiny.
In light of recent events and colourful Council meetings, I would not be at all surprised if some element of Ray Hooper's demand forms part of the proposed new policy that seems to require urgent attention - enough to call a Special meeting on Monday 6 July 2015 whilst Commissioner Best is still in the chair.
Recommendation 14 was not dealt with at the June Council meeting, we are in July, our elected members are due to return on Tuesday 7 July 2015 so why the rush to get a Special meeting for this the day before they return...............?
SO HAS BEST DONE THE DEAL WITH RAY HOOPER .........?
Funny, CEO Hooper also wrote to the Freedom of Information Commissioner in February 2014, requesting the Commissioner declare a Freedom of Information applicant 'vexatious'.
ReplyDeleteNot surprisingly, the Commissioner advised Mr Hooper that this would not happen and that the agency is to deal with the matter.
The Commissioner also advised Mr Hooper that certain information relating to the agencies financial transactions should be published as a matter of normal procedure. The Commissioner referred Mr Hooper
to the method used by his Department for disclosure of financials.
Looked up the dictionary. Some dictionary examples referring to relevant meanings, and they could be the basis of some questions in Shire on 6th:
ReplyDelete(upper case is mine)
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/unreasonable
1 NOT FAIR, UNFAIR, UNJUST, UNEQUAL...
Aren’t you making unreasonable demands on [their] time?
It’s extremely unreasonable to EXPECT THEM TO PAY SO MUCH. NB+++
a. used about BAD BEHAVIOUR THAT YOU ARE ANNOYED ABOUT
The evening was spoilt by the unreasonable conduct of some members of the audience. (In my opinion it depends who decides its unreasonable in this case.)
2. NOT SENSIBLE
The price is completely unreasonable (=too high).
ITS UNREASONABLE TO ATTEMPT A PROJECT LIKE THAT [under current conditions]........
Other dictionaries quote its use in law, for 'unreasonable behaviour' being grounds for divorce. (parallel to the former CEO's wish to declare a citizen's questions 'vexacious'.
The ACCC has a page re 'UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT': https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/unconscionable-conduct
While this is talking about commercial transactions, a lot of it would seem relevant to transactions between e.g. employers & employees, Shire and Ratepayers, etc..
NB+++
"Unconscionable conduct does not have a precise legal definition as it is a concept that has been developed on a CASE-BY-CASE BASIS by courts over time. Conduct may be unconscionable if it is particularly harsh or oppressive. To be considered unconscionable, conduct it must be more than simply unfair—it must be against conscience as judged against the norms of society.
Business behaviour may be deemed unconscionable if it is particularly HARSH or OPPRESSIVE, and is beyond hard commercial bargaining.
For example, Australian courts have found transactions or dealings to be 'unconscionable' when they are deliberate, involve serious misconduct or involve conduct which is clearly unfair and unreasonable."
Sections include:
• HOW TO AVOID BECOMING A VICTIM OF UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT:
e.g. do not sign any agreements without reading them carefully; ask for plain language explanations and obtain independent professional legal or financial advice if unsure; if you think you are being treated differently, ask why; do not allow yourself to be talked into a deal that is wrong for you by high pressure ... tactics; be prepared to walk away from a deal that does not ‘feel’ right. It could be an unreasonable or oppressive deal.
• HOW TO AVOID ENGAGING IN UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT:
e.g. ensure you have clearly disclosed important or unusual terms or conditions of an agreement;
give customers the opportunity to seek advice about the contract before they sign it (We hear that this may not have happened with a recent Shire document people were asked to sign); if things go wrong, be open to resolving complaints; do not reward your staff for unfair, pressure-based [tactics].
• PENALTIES AND REMEDIES:
"If the court determines that unconscionable conduct has occurred, a variety of remedies may be ordered including:
compensation for loss or damage
financial penalties
having the contract declared void in whole or in part
having the contract or arrangement varied
a refund or performance of specified services."
Enough said. Well its a start anyway.
The more I think about it, after Commissioner Best's behaviour at the Council meeting on 2 July, adopting a Policy to deal with unreasonable conduct is probably what they really do intend to do.
ReplyDeleteIt will not be to resolve complaints made against the Shire, it will be about Council protecting itself from the community and being able to shut them up subject to their adopted 'policy'.
Civilian Hooper threatens - do as I say or I'll take action - (against who and what for you silly little man).
Understand this Hooper and cohorts, no battle has been won and no war is over contrary to what Best is telling everyone....no closed book, just a few more pages to be written.
The comment from Just as expected at 21:32 about Ray Hooper being offered a deal is so plausible and I can see the logic behind it as nothing would surprise me with this lot anymore.
DeleteNasty Prancer, I presume your post refers in part to Ray Hooper's letter of 8 October 2014 (from a previous main post Sunday, 21 June 2015, 'Commissioner Best tying up loose ends') and to the ABC news article posted on line on Friday 3 July 2015 (Shire of York in WA's Wheatbelt distances itself from self'-commissioned FitzGerald Report).
Regardless of the extensive level of protection afforded to him by the DLGC and James Best, I doubt Ray Hooper (and possibly others) will walk away from this unscathed.
The ABC news have reported incorrectly or may have been misinformed.
In the article they state ..........Mr Hooper resigned last year amid claims he misused his credit card - those claims were later quashed through an independent audit.
When were the claims later quashed through an independent audit ?
As I recall, at the Ordinary Council meeting on Monday 22 April 2015, the Shire were challenged by two people about this 'Auditors Report' and were asked to confirm further details of the final report, its date and when and to whom it was presented.
The Minutes of the meeting record that one of the very pertinent questions was taken on Notice and it will be interesting to see the response which needs to be provided in written form in the next ordinary council agenda.
So, did the ABC actually obtain a copy of the mysterious report or has this also become another 'suppressed report' in which case - just another unsubstantiated verbal statement from Best or Simpson.
I am looking forward to seeing how they wriggle their way out of this one.
Error alert in post from Anonymous 4 July 2015 at 04:44
DeleteParagraph 6 - the date of the Ordinary Council meeting should read Monday 22 June 2015 and not April.
A policy for unreasonable conduct that would have to also have a clause for wrongful accusation of unreasonable conduct, it would also have to be absolutely based free of malice.
ReplyDeleteUnreasonable conduct and for that matter vexatious is usually determined by judicial departments such as courts, ombudsman, who already have those policy's.
Who in the Shire is going to be qualified enough to state if someone is unreasonable?
It would have to be a reasonable thinking person (sorry couldn't resist putting that in) back on track. whomever the person was, would have to be really careful as deeming someone unreasonable or having unreasonable conduct is a fine line.
Findings would have to be substantiated with documentation, their complaint would have to have no legal or lawful or factual ground the department would have to make sure that they followed all protocol and procedure and codes of conduct.
looking like the community should have their own unreasonable conduct policy.
Best really should be having an emergency meeting to run through a communication policy instead and within that policy communication to be honest open and accountable and he wouldn't have had a problem with his own conduct.
"Best really should be having an emergency meeting to run through a communication policy instead and within that policy communication to be honest open and accountable and he wouldn't have had a problem with his own conduct".
DeleteNever ever put Best in a sentence which contains honest open and accountable, the man couldn't lie straight in bed!
If there is no current complaint handling policy, this agenda item may be an ideal opportunity for Best and Simpson to present us with an excuse why neither appear to have resolved any of the complaints that relate to unreasonable conduct during the Ray Hooper days.
ReplyDeleteIt seems due to their own actions and inactions, Best and Simpson are likely to have received even more complaints since they arrived.
Best was forced upon us as Commissioner in January 2015 in a blatant attempt to sort out 'York's problems', bury the past issues, wipe out the allegations in the Fitz Gerald Report, further discredit the suspended Council and a few in the community. He knew exactly what he was taking on and did it thinking he could notch up a tick or two on his CV and jump on the political ladder in the process, shame the rungs were rotten.
Six months on, Best has failed miserably and Graeme Simpson looks all set to soil his pants in anticipation of the ramification from the poor decisions made at recent Council meetings.
The town has regressed not progresses and James Best, like other despicable people in the community, thinks he can move on with his head held very high.......it can be up his own backside for all we care.
"We were expecting a Knight in shining armour
he turned out to be a Knave in aluminium foil".
Then what about the shame Best and his DLGC cronies have laid at the feet of Minister Tony Simpson. I guarantee that in the not too distant future, the Minister will wash his hands of any involvement with this debacle and sever any link with Best. The DLGC will be forced to come up with an explanation for its involvement and at that point, I suspect Ray Hooper and a few Councillors would start to feel rather vulnerable. Whatever happens, someone is going to have to 'take the fall' - interesting times ahead.
(Knight = rescuer, saviour, champion, deliverer, liberator)
(Knave = scoundrel, rogue, merely a boy or servant)
I beg to differ Interesting times ahead on one of your points. I don't think the town has regressed the town is finally coming together there were people at that meeting that for years have opposed certain veterans working to clean up the Shire of York's act now joining together united to say NO MORE it was wonderful as one of those veterans to see such an amazing turn out to the last meeting. Everyone has now had enough..........
DeleteOn another note JB fancy spending money on a building in theory to make a park geographically square and I am sorry forgive me if I am wrong the building is going to house the Visitors Centre does the Visitors centre pay rent?
Yes, Communis as another veteran truth seeker, it was rather wonderful to see the number of well known York people turn up to the Special Shire Meeting and speak out. It seems they may have finally realised the false rumours about the people tarnished with the name 'trouble makers' over the last decade were just that, political false rumours and propaganda to keep the majority of the residents in the dark as to what was actually happening.
DeleteI was rather pleased to sit back at the meeting and let them finally take up the reins. It's only a pity they didn't step forward earlier and provide a bit of support to the few residents who stuck their necks out for the Town. If a few more had showed support earlier, York may not be in the mess we currently find ourselves and there would be a few less emotionally and financially damaged people in York.
Unfortunately, it has taken a further debt for Ratepayers in York, over and above the YRCC, hitting people in the pocket before anyone would believe there has been a serious problem with the way the York finances have been managed over the decade prior to the new Council with Matthew Reid as Shire President.
Yes Veteran Truth Seeker their was so many people there with questions, I don't even believe we got 15 minutes of questions 4 people got to ask questions and then JB chucked the sad, and it went down hill from there with him asking people to leave.
DeleteWhat sort of visionist has an audience of 240 plus people and because he is not happy with questions asked, closes question time? While it is more than apparent that more people wanted to ask questions.
Disgraceful behaviour he knows he has done wrong and now he's trying to blame us, by making out we are unreasonable.
Yes, the meeting reminded me of previous meetings run by dictators Hooper, Boyle, Hooper. They did the same thing if they did not like the questions because we got too close to the truth for their liking, they just shut down Public Question Time.
DeleteI have heard Best is bringing in heavies from the Department of Local Government to back him up tonight. People need to remember, these heavies are ONLY public servants!
The same thing has just happened in Serpentine Jararhdale. Certain Councillors didn't like the questions being asked so changed the policy to suit them and gave the President the power to vet all questions before the meeting to see if he will allow them to be asked.
DeleteThe Local Government Department needs to be sacked!!
SJEaE
They cant do that by law SJEAE there has to be valid lawful reason and vetting questions you don't like isn't one of them.
DeleteOh dear Communis, yes James $$$$ did say it could be a Visitors centre. You can bet he will stitch up the VC and get them to take out a loan !
ReplyDelete