A ‘Q & A’ FOR RAY.

BACKGROUND: The so-called public exoneration from accusations in the Fitz Gerald Report has come from the Commissioner for York, James Best. The Department of Local Government has refused to investigate any allegations of impropriety prior to the resignation of CEO Ray Hooper in April 2014.The WA Corruption and Crime Commission is too busy investigating impropriety in its own ranks. So what has allegedly happened? The Shire of York investigated itself and decided it had no case to answer! Funny that, but it’s never over until the ‘fat lady sings’.
                                                     

                                                      
                                                     A ‘Q & A’ FOR RAY.

                  (Ray Hooper steps onto the stage to loud, local community applause.)

Mr. Ray Hooper, you have continued to protest your innocence of any wrongdoing as the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of York and recently claimed, publically, that you had been exonerated by the authority with appropriate investigatory capacity and therefor appropriate jurisdiction, being the Shire of York.

You should therefore have no hesitation in answering questions that have intrigued the York community for years, on the understanding that your answers have been accepted as fact by the arbiter of exoneration, the Shire of York.

Q. Mr. Michael Fitzgerald of Fitz Gerald Strategies arrived at the Shire of York Offices to commence his investigation on April 15, 2014. You tendered your resignation on the same day. As you have always claimed your innocence why did you resign on that day or any other day?
A.  

Q. Subsequently you stated publically that your Corporate Credit Card statements had been subject to audit. The auditors denied this had occurred and it was clearly stated that your credit card had never been reviewed or authorized by anyone prior to any payment being made.
Do you claim these auditors are liars?
A.

Q. It is alleged that two councillors on the Shire of York Audit Committee, responsible for ensuring the proper and appropriate use of Shire of York municipal funds, received goods and services that they should not be entitled to, paid for by your Corporate Credit Card.
Do you deny this?
A.

Q. It is alleged that what could be constituted as endemic and systemic impropriety within the Shire of York commenced sometime after 2004 and legitimate public concerns were raised regarding this in 2008.
Do you recall what these concerns were?
A.


Q. It is alleged that, ignoring community expectations, you employed staff without the relevant qualifications, skills, knowledge and adequate experience to undertake important financial and senior management roles. This compromised safe and secure financial practices resulting in the theft of municipal funds from the York Tourist Bureau Inc.
What do you have to say to this?
A.

Q. Similarly, there is the matter of $220,000 in municipal funds that, apparently, disappeared in 2010.The public is still unaware of the current whereabouts of this substantial sum.
Would you be able to enlighten them?
A.

Q. You may have four (4) still unexplained claims and expenses totaling $2,058. The terminology for this expenditure without due and proper explanation is “stealing as a servant’ and there maybe four (4) individual, potential indictments.  Each indictment has a penalty of up to ten (10) years imprisonment under the Criminal Code WA
What is your response?
A.

Q. There is prima facie evidence suggesting that you took considerable personal advantage regarding your rental payment for the premises you occupied for nine (9) years, paying three times below the property’s current rental value. This has never been declared as a Fringe Benefit Tax component by the Shire of York and may result in future penalties and taxes issued to the Shire by the Australian Tax Office.
What is your response?
A.

Q. There is a question regarding the deliberate falsification of public records by a public official in 2012. This has a penalty of up to seven (7) years jail under the Criminal Code WA.
Do you know who it was? Do you feel lucky?

We will now take questions from the audience. If he does not answer, answer them for him and fill in any blanks.

David Taylor.

Mr. Colin Murphy                                                                                                    Dated August 31, 2015
Auditor General for Western Australia
Office of the Auditor General
7^th Floor Albert Facey House
469 Wellington Street
PERTH WA 6000

Dear Mr. Murphy

RE: SALE OF THE YORK CONVENT  TO THE SHIRE OF YORK COMMISSIONER
                                                                  MR. JAMES BEST

It is claimed that the purchase of the commercial property, Lots 800-801, South Street, being the historic York Convent building and surrounds, Circa 1873, is through a loan issued by the WA Treasury to Commissioner James Best, the Shire of York, at his request.

The borrowing is the full amount of the purchase price being $625,000, with the Principle & Interest repayment for the Financial Year, 2015-2016, set at $72,000.

It has been lent by the WA Treasury to Mr. Best, as the Shire of York, without commercial justification, any, known, economic rationale and local community expectations evaluation.

In the absence of any publically accessible financial data the guesstimate is that the loan is at a commercial interest rate of five (5) per cent, for fifteen (15) years, with the total repayment being
$1,080,000.

It is assumed that, under the authority of the Auditor General,  a WA Treasury loan is considered, by you, to be ‘State Government monies’ and its use is under your jurisdiction and possible scrutiny.

It has been suggested that if any bank valuation on this property was done, it was on behalf of the vendor, not the purchaser. This is the standard procedure in the case of a domestic housing loan, but should be considered a failure in due-diligence and financial duty-of-care when a loan is provided from State Government monies for the public purchase of a private, commercial property.

The financial debt in comparison to the return in any community value expectations, in this instance, has no visible, positive computation.

Given that this property has been on the market for a period of two years, the supposed current valuation may well be outdated and overpriced.

You would be aware that the WA housing market has fallen by at least twelve (12) per cent over the past two years. Given the purchase price was $625,000 the current market value could be $550,000, or much less, if there has been a similar reduction in commercial property valuations.


As per my previous correspondence, the convent building contained within the property is dilapidated and possibly structurally unsound with some suggesting that the cost of the urgent, remedial maintenance required being as high as $200,000.

For the Shire of York to rent the property for commercial purposes it, firstly, has to ensure that the building is structurally sound, at its cost.

 As rental income in the WA domestic property market has fallen by at least ten (10) per cent, if the commercial property rental market has had the same devaluation, then it is highly unlikely that any annual rent return for the property would even cover the annual Interest repayments, let alone reducing the principle. (The devaluation is even more marked in rural towns.)

It is my personal opinion that there is a number of ‘red flags’ regarding the property that would probably preclude a major Australian bank from providing any loan for its purchase.

(a) It is a designated historic building, therefore there may be major restrictions regarding any
     external and internal renovations and/ or improvements and additions to the property to
     potentially increase its value.

(b) It is 142-years-old, situated in one of Australia’s most active earthquake zones and is built on clay
     soil. This provides the potential for a high, ongoing maintenance impost.

(c) It is a commercial property in a rural community, so the purchaser’s ability to service the loan
     through a local commercial venture would be considered a high lending risk.

(d) Should a bank have decided to provide the loan, it would be at no more than eighty (80) per cent
     of the purchase price. (In this case- it would be $500,000.)

(e) The bank commercial interest rate would be higher, increasing the interest paid to service the
     debt, also the term of the loan would probably be much longer.

(f) Some major banks have a distinct aversion to providing loans for the purchase of any property in
    rural WA. This is because of relatively low domestic income, low housing market value, only slow
    increases in housing market value and the higher risk of loan default where the sale of the
    property may not recover the loan debt.  
   
(g) It is highly likely that the bank would require a caveat over another property as security for the
     loan.

It should be once again noted here that the whereabouts, content, relevance and quality of any documents pertaining to a review of a York planning strategy, directly relating to the development of a village square, or town centre, incorporating the historic, York Convent building, is not known to the York ratepayer .


There has also been no proper, appropriate and necessary community consultation regarding any Shire expenditure required to be spent on such a project up to this point in time.

Given that a genuine, reasonable current valuation for the York Convent could be around $400,000, not $625,000 and that it requires $200,000 of immediate, necessary maintenance, then there is an additional cost to the community of $425,000.

You can add to this $455,000 in accrued interest and $44,000 for unseen, unapproved development plan. Therefore, the total infrastructure capital cost for a nebulous proposal currently stands at $1.3 million.
 
It is my opinion that the WA Treasury has provided an unwarranted loan to be paid for by the ratepayers of York at the unsubstantiated request of Commissioner James Best. It has been delivered in a commercially irresponsible manner, with no proper probity assessment and justification as being in the community of York interest.

This loan certainly comes under the province of the office of the Auditor General and as such deserves its investigation.

Yours sincerely

David Taylor.
Shire of York ratepayer

PAYMENTS AUTHORIZED BY COMMISSIONER JAMES BEST SHIRE OF YORK

Mr. Colin Murphy                                                                                              Dated August 28, 2015
Auditor General for Western Australia
Office of the Auditor General
7^th Floor Albert Facey House
469 Wellington Street
PERTH WA 6000

Dear Mr. Murphy

RE: PAYMENTS AUTHORIZED BY COMMISSIONER JAMES BEST SHIRE OF YORK

In your previous correspondence addressed to me, dated June 4, 2015, you advised me that you do not currently have the authority to audit the Shire of York per se, unless State Government monies are involved.

But, that you did have the authority to audit the State Government’s Royalties for Regions program and you had added my concerns regarding the York Recreation and Convention Centre (YRCC) for potential, future performance audits. (As an adjunct to this, the tennis courts installed at the YRCC, by the YRCC, are now in a state of dilapidation and disrepair with the installers refusing to honour the warranty because a proper maintenance regime was not put in place.)

I did raise the issue with you that there appeared to be no authoritative, legal definition of what constitutes ‘State Government monies’ and that it could include unspecified grants, loans and any and all forms of funding raised from all forms of taxation, whether direct or indirect. That, all-in-all, it was a potential conundrum with regard to what constitutes ‘State Government monies’ and what does not.

In January, 2015, the Minister for Local Government and Communities, Mr. Tony Simpson, personally hired Mr. James Best as Commissioner of the Shire of York, after suspending the Shire of York Council for six months. Effectively, Mr. Best became the Shire of York, in toto, acting on-behalf-of the Minister.

The fee for his services, negotiated with Mr. Simpson, was, allegedly, $63,000. This money could easily have been from, so called, State Government monies as the suspended Shire of York Council had no authority, jurisdiction and responsibility for Mr Best’s actions or, in particular, his remuneration package.

It is alleged that, Mr. Best, acting on-behalf-of, Minister Tony Simpson, then paid his own company, BBC Consulting, an additional gratuity of $39,000 for holding visioning and ideation seminars with a few York residents, that were conducted using butchers paper and ‘post-it’ notes as fundamental, albeit  extremely rudimentary, communication devices. 

Another company, Hames Sharley (WA) Pty Ltd, of whom Mr. Best is a former director and then consultant, was, allegedly, paid nearly $42,000 for its involvement in providing a review of York planning strategy as requested by, Mr. Best, acting on-behalf-of Minister Simpson.

Hames Sharley was employed in the designing of the Pathology Building at the Fiona Stanley Hospital, paid for by State Government monies, and through Ministerial Cabinet Meetings, would be known to Minister Simpson.

As architects, designers and urban planners it is highly likely that, Hames Sharley, advised Commissioner Best regarding the purchase of two properties in York, being Lots 800 and 801, South Street, for a purchase price of $625,000. The building contained therein is dilapidated and possibly structurally unsound and was purchased without the commercial safeguards such as a bona-fide commercial Real Estate property evaluation, then an objective, certified valuation.

It should be noted here that the whereabouts, content, relevance and quality of any document pertaining to a review of York planning strategy by Hames Sharley, or any third party is not known to York ratepayers. However it is understood that the purchase of Lots 800 and 801, South Street, was directly related to a conceptual urban planning design for a village square, or similar.

The payment to Mr. Best of $63,000 as a salary for the position of Commissioner is fair and reasonable other than the fact that it would have been sanctioned under Minister Simpson’s authority only.

The following payments and a purchase by Commissioner Best, resulting in the additional expenditure of $706,000 is highly questionable, including the distinct possibility that a large amount of State Government monies has, and/or will be used for purposes that have no economic rationale and commercial justification.

I believe this does come under the province of the office of the Auditor General and as such deserves its investigation.

I hope to have your response to the content of this letter at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

David Taylor.
Shire of York ratepayer

THE COMMUNITY MOUSE THAT ROARED

Last year the citizens of York came out swinging, punching well above their weight and proving to be formidable scrappers. It was in response to the whole community being maligned by the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson, and later, his Commissioner, James, ‘don’t call me Jimmy’ Best, who decided, York, was awash with self- interested extremists.

Much of the roaring came in the form of the on-line content of the shireofyork6302.blog with an initial focus being on the leaking of the clandestine Fitz Gerald Report.

The lengths that the ‘Powers that Be’ finally went to, to keep this document a secret, could be described as herculean, an abject failure- and extremely disturbing in a modern, open society sense.

It is pretty hard to control the whereabouts of the 25 copies held by the Shire of York, the single copy’s held by the Department of Local Government (and Communities), the Minister, Tony Simpson, the WA Corruption & Crime Commission( CCC) and last but not least, the naughty person we will call “Brian”. (Why so many copies were created, originally, is a mysterious abrogation of responsibility for any form of confidentiality in itself.)

You could probably add some photocopies printed out at the offices of Michael Fitz Gerald Strategies office and from the other 28 copies floating around the traps. But especially the 25 copies held at the Shire of York offices which is no Fort Knox.

There were certainly enough self-interested, sycophantic worshippers of former CEO, Ray Hooper, to ensure a copy was hand-delivered to his private eerie in Alexander Heights before the ink had dried.

Yet a super-sleuth from the CCC was adamant that it was “Brian” who had given a copy to be published in The West Australian Newspaper and used it for other nefarious purposes such as broadcast by social media.

Did “Brian” have a copy of the Fitz Gerald Report at that time? No he did not! Did” Brian” give a copy of the Fitz Gerald Report to The West Australian Newspaper to scour through? How could he, he did not have one!

Members of the Perth Press think that the CCC is ‘insidious and sinister’ and a recent external investigation found there was ‘systemic misconduct” within its ranks, including theft. In the life of “Brian” you can add false allegations to the CCC’s impressive list of negative achievements.

So what did some usual suspects in the Shire of York set about doing with that beastly Fitz Gerald Report and a disgusting social media site?

In August last year there was a flurry of high priority ‘panic room’ emails sent between F……….r, Commercial Lawyers and International Attorney’s and the Shire of York regarding the Fitz Gerald Report and http://shireofyork6302.com.au .

Little verbatim cliché’s like ‘ this is going from bad to worse, ‘the Shire needs to get an injunction’ and ‘we need to discuss this urgently’ were bandied about. (At a substantial fee of course).

Then came advice like ‘time though is of the essence’, I have rung two IT forensic experts I hold in high regard. Both reverted (probably means referred) to me’.

Mr…………..’ is looking at what can be found to assist your objectives of identifying the blog and taking steps to take it down’.

‘The other is Professor………………. (This Professor is an Adjunct/ Assistant Professor at the Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Western Australia. (Why an academic would soil his hands with such a low rent activity as removing a Vox Populi, blogsite escapes me.)

It goes on-and-on.

“Try and make a call on who might have done this (the blog) and target them directly’ was one friendly sentence of expensive advice.

Then ‘The relief might lie in what is known as the as an Anton Pillar (it is actually Piller) Order which is an ex parte order allowing the ceasing (I am assume this should be seizing) of computers for limited specified purposes’. This is a polite way of putting- let’s kick a few doors in and confiscate a lap top or two- with several spelling mistakes thrown in for free.

Next came ‘ Go after Google to get the site taken down; go after the likely suspect who put the site up………..neither option is cheap’.

The way that the Shire of York went about the business of burying the Fitz Gerald Report, cheap was never an option. Why such an attempt was made to pervert a cause for justice, should make those responsible hang their heads in abject shame.

Everyone should remember what was and is the Fitz Gerald Report. It was a substantial, substantive record of interview describing the ill treatment meted out by some councillors and some staff of the Shire of York to nineteen (19) members of the community. It suggests malice, the possible use  of municipal funds for personal rather than definable, appropriate council matters and certainly suggests inappropriate actions that do not  come close to satisfying the new buzz-phrase ‘reasonable community expectations’.

Maintain the rage and never stop roaring. It is your personal right to do so.

THE HOW TO HANDLE TREVOR RANDELL RECIPE BOOK

O-M-G, Trevor?, Trevor? Trevor? Is it really you? And you’ve found Facebook. 

It is so exciting, Trevor- ‘the cook’. The last time I heard you were writing ‘Trevor’s Gourmet Guide to York (the fifty York restaurants for a Straight& Bi to try before they die).

There were fifty restaurant’s in York when you were a Councillor wasn’t there?

Regarding boxes of fact, I think it was a Wheaties Packet, not Kellogg’s box you should have alluded to? You really should remember, it may have been where you got your graduation certificate from, but then again, allegedly you are the Chef and should know what plastic ‘Muppet’ character it came with.

So what have you really been up to?  some paralegal work experience? “Does she want a lawsuit”? has that really exciting legalese zing to it.

However, “good luck with the Mad Woman” also has that wow, let’s talk to my lawyer, kinda feel.
Otherwise it’s who gives a rat’s ass about the on-line twittering of a Randell.

“The load of crap” you refer to-- is it what happens very soon after eating one of your perfectly prepared Fillet Mignon?

Then it is “they just get worse” Are you referring to your fellow councillors during those halcyon days when you came out into public office?  The time of “taken on notice” replies when no councillor knew the answers to any questions at council meetings.

 Or when vitriolic, misogynist attacks were launched at a fellow female council member?  Is this -when you first got to use the quintessentially quaint and nominally offensive nomenclature of, “Mad Woman”?

Let’s be honest here, Trev old boy, you were part of the ’Beyond your wildest Dreams Team’, the Shire Council that was robbed blind by a probable kleptomaniac, certainly not a mad woman.

In 2011, the Council’s excuse was ‘No member of the Visitor Centre Committee was qualified as an auditor and the Committee took the financial information presented at face value”.

This Committee included the President of the Shire of York, Pat Hooper, who was representing the Shire Council in the hope of protecting what CEO, Ray Hooper, lovingly called ‘municipal funds’, otherwise known as yours’ and my rates money. (You do own property in York, don’t you?)

In 2013, there were fits of incredulous laughter regarding the Shire of York’s municipal fund protection effort when it was mentioned at the Magistrate’s Court Sentencing Hearing.

Ray Hooper even sent a letter to the Court saying the poor lamb may have been enticed to steal by those incompetent Committee people. Unfortunately his Shire President and his Deputy CEO were both on that crime friendly committee.)

It was well known, by the Court, and most others that the alleged kleptomaniac had already done the time for the same type of crime and it was considered that putting money in front of her was like giving an arsonist a matchbox.

So Trevor, why don’t you do something good for the York community and fill your Facebook page with all the fantastic stuff you did for your community while you were a Councillor. It shouldn’t take you very long.

Oh! And Dear Trevor, you have every right to gaily flaunt your opinions in public, along as they are clean, not mean and have a reasonable element of truth to them.

SHIRE OF YORK ACCOUNTABILITY

The Hon Colin Barnett MLA                                                                                                             Date August 19, 2015
Premier of Western Australia
1 Parliament Place
WEST PERTH 6005

CC The Hon. Tony Simpson
Dear Premier,

Last month I wrote to you regarding the following article:- “Barnett casts blame for Rates”/The West Australian, Friday July 17, 2015, page 13.

You were quoted as saying that it appeared at least 7 of the 29 metropolitan councils intended to lift rates by twice the projected consumer price index rise this Financial Year (2015-16), being at least 2.5 per cent above this rate. It has now been reported that at least one metropolitan council has lifted its rates by 8 per cent.

 As you rightly said at that time and I quote ‘above inflation increases are not acceptable’.

I then drew your attention to the Shire of York’s intent to raise its rates, for the 2015-16, Financial Year, by a staggering, arguably unconscionable 13.5 per cent. This is 11 per cent above the projected rate of inflation from the WA Treasury for the fiscal year and 5.5 per cent above any metropolitan council rates increase.

Anyone seen James Best?

As of yesterday’s date, August 18, 2015, Shire of York Residential Rates Notices have become due and payable, whether whole or in part, including the additional severe impost of the 13.5 per cent rate hike.

One can assume one of three things, that the Shire of York has ignored your public statement that ‘above inflation (Rate) increases are unacceptable, or, although unacceptable for metropolitan councils, it is acceptable for those councils outside the metropolitan area, or as Premier of the State, you and your Government currently have no jurisdiction and authority over Local Government Area Councils being, in particular, any unfair, unreasonable and inequitable financial actions they may take. (The latter is the problem!)

Given the fall in state revenue and burgeoning state debt, it should be a time of austerity and frugality within the state’s two tiers of Government, state and local.

Therefore, it should be extremely galling to note that Minister Tony Simpson’s, appointed Commissioner for York, James Best, has shown scant regard for good financial governance or has made any attempt to curtail a formidable, indefensible rate increase.

During his tenure, a company named Hames Sharley (WA) Pty Ltd, of whom Mr. Best is a former director and occasional consultant, was paid nearly $42,000 for its involvement in what has been defined as “a review of York planning strategy”. (The whereabouts, content, relevance and quality of this strategic document are not known to the vast majority of York ratepayers.)                                  

An up-market public relations company, Professional Public Relations, Perth, (PPR) is listed as having been paid $26,000 over a period of just four (4) weeks for public relations advice and services to the shire. (What exactly these services were, their relevance, quality and any end result are not known to the vast majority of York ratepayers.)

However, it is alleged, Mr. Best, has close personal ties with PPR and one of its senior employees is now the author of a bi-monthly publication titled the’ Voice of York’. An initiative credited to Mr. Best that one would assume comes at some financial cost to the York community.

Recently you are quoted as saying “many of these local governments are grossly overstaffed and paid too much”.

Former Commissioner Best, acting as the Shire of York Council, has forced a small rural community to pay at least $68,000 to contractors above and beyond normal staff salaries, with these payments being excessive, and well beyond what is deemed to be reasonable ‘community expectations’.

In addition, Mr. Best, acting as the Shire of York Council, has purchased a dilapidated and possibly structurally unsound property for $625,000 for and on behalf of the shire. It is alleged that the property has not had a proper Real Estate market valuation or any other appropriate commercial property valuation- and the price paid, exorbitant.

Given this- no commercial bank in Australia would lend on this property.  It means, as always, its purchase will be funded by ratepayers, and through State and Federal Government loans, without the proper financial checks and balances that should be required under law.

You have also made a public comment that within local government ‘there is a culture of increasing rates with a lack of accountability”.

As you would know the Local Government Area residential rates system is based on the Gross Rental Value (GRV) of a property. If the rental value of a property is $650 per week, then the GRV and rates are assessed as being $1,870 per annum.

The rental market in York would have an average weekly rent return of less than half the GRV of most residential properties in the Metropolitan Area, yet yearly residential rate payment requirements are similar.

The rates payable in the Shire of York are therefore excessive, based on a sheer lack of accountability and as suggested by Minister Simpson, should be subject, in future, to a lawfully enforceable capping system.

Regarding the previously mentioned potential court action for damages against the Shire of York, and, possibly, former staff members, it is alleged that a mediation process to be entered into was stymied by Mr. Best.  He refused to accept the Shire of York’s lawyers’ nominated and preferred mediator in favour of a close personal associate. The mediation process failed.

This recalcitrance shown by Mr. Best could lead to litigation procedures that could cost the Shire of York a significant sum in damages awarded, and legal costs.

Finally, in a letter to a York resident, Mr. Best, said that after becoming aware of Minister Simpson’s ‘ Show Cause Notice’ he attended two  public meetings in York, December 2014, with the intent of approaching the Shire of York in the New Year offering his business consulting services and experience in governance and leadership.

Mr Best was appointed Commissioner on January 7, 2015, without being asked by Minister Simpson to attend any Council or Elector meetings in York.

What Mr. Best was doing, prior to being appointed Commissioner, was intending to openly tout his own business with the intent of being a contracted employee of the Shire of York.

The problem that should be addressed by a Ministerial enquiry is did Mr. Best accept payment for both his role as Commissioner and as a consultant for ‘futures and ideatation’ to the shire?
Also, given the level of previous connection between Mr. Best and the company Hames Sharley, acting as the York Shire Council, was his employment of this company  against any legal definition of ‘conflict-of-interest’- and unacceptable under the term  ‘reasonable community expectations’.


If anyone thinks that I get any perverse pleasure in raising uncomfortable issues pertaining to the Shire of York, which really is a beautiful town, you can guess again.

WALGA and a minute number of local, aggrieved parties, think the Shire of York and Local Government in general ‘aint broke’ doesn’t need fixing’ and ‘let’s move on’.

This is an admirable assumption in theory- but not in practice.

The local government overall compliance system is close to breaking point. Because of this and in numerous cases their own intractability, in the future Shires could become close to being broke financially and face continual investigations for impropriety.

When this is fixed, then we can all move on.

Yours sincerely

David Taylor.

IGNORANCE CAN BE BLISS

I was slightly perplexed by the recent newspaper publication of a verbal attack on Dr. James Plumridge by a Mr. Richard Bliss.

Mr. Bliss, I assume, is the person who goes apoplectic when referred to as Dick, Dickie or Dicky, and then threatens to hold his breath for five minutes.

The content of Mr. Bliss’s personalized harangue suggests he may not be the really sharp tool in the shed that he may not have a shire permit for.

“Beware Dr. Plumridge” has the connotation of a personal threat that is a rather mindless effort.

President Reid and his ‘Cheer leader’ Councillor Smythe have had nothing to do with the Bliss financial position regarding any sale of any property and any supposed damage to the Bliss brand.

If Mr. Bliss has a problem with the current elected Council, then he should nominate to become a Member. The Local Government Election is due on October 17, 2015 where any ratepayer can ‘put up- or shut up’.

A twist to an old adage is ‘people who live in glass B&B’s, should not throw stones’.

At the time that an already convicted criminal, Ms. Kate Watts, was taking both the York Tourist Bureau Inc. (YTB) and the Shire of York to the financial cleaners, it appears that a member of the Bliss dynasty sat on the YTB board, next to the Shire President, Pat Hooper.

Mr. Bliss proudly enunciates that “in my business the buck stops with the boss”. President Hooper was the boss when the YTB was cleaned out. The buck in this case was an overall $115,000.

Accordingly, in interpreting the wise words of Mr. Bliss, boss, Pat Hooper, should have resigned.

Post the Watts debacle, a Bliss remained on the Board of the YTB when it was investigated by a Mr. Will Morgan, Manager of Associations & Charities, from the Department of Commerce back in 2013.

The investigation was regarding potential breaches of the Associations/Incorporations Act 1987 including possible problems with Conflict-of-Interest. There is no longer a York Tourist Bureau Inc. or its board.

I truly admire Mr. Bliss’s attempt to raise a mass-debate regarding whether masturbating or coitus-interruptus is some form of esoteric sin. It certainly does not appear to be part of any Provisions in the Local Government Act, 1995.

I am not quite sure of the intent of Mr. Bliss’s last paragraph regarding Ango (Anglo)-Saxon, possibly Australian vernacular and masturbation per se?

Maybe he considers Commissioner James Best use of the word “worker" in response to a less flattering anecdote possibly made him feeble minded.

To:- Beware Mr. Bliss “call me Dick”

David Taylor.

A LETTER TO THE PREMIER

TWAS a long way from Elections, when through Parliament House, not a Liberal stirred, not even a mouse.

WE Write, WE Question, THEY Shred.

                                                           

The Hon Colin Barnett MLA                                                                                    Date July 21, 2015
Premier of Western Australia
1 Parliament Place
WEST PERTH, 6005

CC The Hon Tony Simpson
Minister for Local Government & Communities

CC Graeme Simpson
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Shire of York

Your Ref:   Barnett casts blame for rates/ The West Australian , Friday July 17, 2015, page 13.

Dear Premier,

I commend your comments in the above mentioned article and fully concur with your assessment
of blaming the huge rate increase impost on some city ratepayers- through their reluctance to allow the amalgamation of smaller, financially non-viable councils.

I quote the article in saying that it appears at least 7 of the 29 metropolitan councils intend to lift rates by twice the projected consumer price index rise this Financial Year, being at least 2.5 per cent above this rate. As you rightly say “above inflation increases are not acceptable”.

Therefore I would like to draw your attention to one of the 121 other councils in Rural, Regional and Remote WA that may have escaped your notice.

It is the Shire of York which has raised its rates for the, 2015-16 Financial Year, by a staggering, unconscionable 13.5 per cent, and 11 per cent above the projected rate of inflation from the WA Treasury. (A reasonable assumption of why this has occurred is that the Shire of York is on the cusp of self-inflicted insolvency. An assessment strongly denied by those expected to do so)
It includes a domestic land and property rating of around $1,800 on houses with less than half the market value of the median sale price of similar dwellings in Perth and where 1,000 square metre blocks, within the town boundary, are valued at less than $80,000.

Unlike in the Metropolitan Area, this monstrous rate increase cannot be blamed on the Shire of York refusing to amalgamate and/or co-operate with similar councils of Local Government Areas in close proximity.

York was an integral partner in the South East Avon Regional Transition Group (SEARTG), a precursor to a suggested unenforced amalgamation, which was involuntarily closed by your Minister for Local Government and Communities (DLGC), Tony Simpson.

The problem has, allegedly, been caused by the fiduciary compliance incompetence of two past Shire Presidents, two Chief Executive Officers, one Acting Chief Executive Officer, one Deputy Chief Executive Officer and several senior staff members of the Shire of York.

Add to this, the penultimate failure of the appointed Commissioner to provide even a modicum of appropriate, fiscal accountability and adequate future-direction ideatation, strategic facilitation and visioning guidance during his six-month tenure.

However, the ultimate failure of the Shire of York to be assured of future financial viability rests with Minister Simpson and the DLGC who have failed to provide and enforce proper probity guidelines within the Shire of York Council, and its administration, since 2008.

The DLGC Shire of York, Probity Compliance Audit Report, 2014, suggested that other than problems associated with the performance of Elected Members of Council, the Staff of the Shire of York had issues which required to be rectified.

These included the inability to take proper minutes of official council meetings, not knowing what financial year it was and not filling in financial returns correctly. (It was suggested by the DLGC that this problem could be rectified by filling in and signing these records post the date of submission. I am not quite sure if this could be considered falsification of documents?)

Worst of all is that these senior staff did not keep any proper records (thereby being in breach of the State Records Act 2000). One particular record they failed to keep in their custody and care was the Business Records of the Shire of York Council.

It should come as no surprise to anybody that the Shire of York may well soon be forced to pay a fairly large sum in compensatory damages to certain ratepayers. (It can probably ill-afford another self-inflicted financial faux-pas.)

This is because of allegedly negligent, reckless and malicious actions taken by persons within the Shire of York Council administration, over a period of time, who showed total disregard to their own Local Government Lawyers’ legal advice and proceeded to threaten and harass certain ratepayers without due cause.

Now it would appear that the current Shire of York Council administration staff, not its’ returning elected members, have chosen to re-employ one of these persons on a contractual basis.

Given that the current employer should legally, “be a person who should reasonably have known”, having prior knowledge of the potential litigation- and the alleged offences, this may well increase the adjudged legal culpability of the Shire of York, as an entity, in this matter.

It also raises the question does the current employer empathise with, support and or/agree with the illegal harassment of members of the York Community. If it does, it may have a serious problem.

Yours sincerely-   

David Taylor.

For those who suggest that I should use a nom de plume (I like Johnny.B.Good personally) please do not worry, there is nothing to fear in York than fear itself

*************

Excerpt from the Department of Local Government and Communities Governance Bulletin for August 2015.

Legislation update

The importance of understanding rates

Governance Bulletin – August 2015

With the preparation of budgets well underway for the 2015-16 financial year, now is an opportune time for elected members to remember their role in the process of determining proposed rates; particularly proposed differential general rates.

The Local Government Act 1995 requires that a local government prepares and adopts a budget before 31 August each year. In preparing a budget, it is important that consideration be given to the planned expenditure for the year and revenue and income received (independent of the rates). Once the estimated budget deficiency is identified, the proposed rates in the dollar can be determined. However, this can only occur if the budget is developed to the stage where a reasonable estimate of the budget deficiency is ascertained. It is not sufficient to just increase rates by a fixed amount (for instance, 5 per cent) without due consideration of the deficiency.

Proposed differential general rates should be adopted by council (and not decided by the CEO) before local public notice of these is given in accordance with the Act. Local public notice cannot occur until after 1 May each year. The local public notice must advise of the objects and reasons for each rate and minimum payment or advise of where they can be viewed. Separate objects and reasons are required for each differential general rate and minimum payment. These must be clear and provide reasons for the difference in the rates proposed. That is, they must provide the justification for a rate being imposed that is different from that imposed on other categories of ratepayers.

Elected members must ensure that they are making informed decisions when it comes to making a determination on the proposed rates. This includes having a full understanding of the budget deficiency, objects and reasons for the rates, and why rates have varied from the previous year.

Elected members must also give due consideration to every submission received and the council minutes should clearly demonstrate that this has been done. Following the end of the submission period, Ministerial approval will need to be obtained if any differential general rate is more than twice the lowest proposed or there are minimum payments on more than 50 per cent of vacant properties. The budget cannot be adopted until approval is received, and once a rate has been approved by the Minister, it cannot be altered.

While a rate that does not require approval may be altered following the submission period, in accordance with the Act a note must be made in the budget as to why it was changed. This also applies to rates subject to Ministerial approval that are different from those advertised.

DLGC has prepared policies, application forms and a training webinar to assist local governments in submitting the necessary applications for differential rates or minimum payments that require Ministerial approval.

APOLOGY FOR A PUBLIC APOLOGY

(You should never say you’re sorry, if you do not know what you are doing)

‘The Shire of York’ cannot extend an unreserved public apology to anyone because, as of the  July 6, 2015, the ‘Shire of York’ still consisted only of Commissioner James Best, Acting, or not acting, Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Simpson and the Staff of the Shire of York Administration, not any Elected Council Member.

Only with the agreement of a quorum of elected Councillors does an apology take on the significance and, potentially, serious implications of a formal statement by the Shire of York as an entity.

July 6, 2015, the date of the release of the contentious ‘agenda report’, was the final day of the Council’s suspension. It is therefore impossible to think of any valid reason why any councillor would wish to apologize for something that he or she had no involvement in.

Graeme Simpson suggests in his letter of July 17, 2015, aptly titled ‘An unsustainable path’ that he may well have no real idea if any member of the Shire of York staff had been ‘sacked’, ‘terminated’, ‘got the boot’, ‘was delisted’, ‘was part of a downsizing exercise’, ‘was surplus to requirements’ or ‘had just decided to seek greener pastures’.

What he said was “personal information is covered by legal agreements with the records sealed even from my access”.

It is very much suspected that this referred to agreements reached with departing staff. ‘Even from my access’ infers how potentially damaging the content of these legal agreement(s) may be, that there is more than one of them and Mr Simpson may suffer from a slightly bruised ego.
The offending term was not ‘termination’ it was ‘sacked’ and was published twice. It was written by an employee of the Shire of York as a member of the Shire of York Administration and all acceptable apologies must be nominated as exactly where it was sourced from.

Therefore ‘On behalf of the Management and Staff of the Shire of York Administration I apologise for the error and any hurt and suffering that may have been felt as a result of this mistake. As the Acting Chief Executive Officer I am ultimately responsible and I accept full responsibility for this error’ is the only correct and acceptable apology.

The Shire President and Councillors should refuse to acknowledge and ratify this apology, demand an explanation from Graeme Simpson, and then demand that he and any other staff members directly concerned should be stood down pending a full investigation.



David Taylor




Footnote:

This is with regard to the Planning Department of the Shire of York of which Mrs Jacky Jurmann was Manager.

As the owner of a property in York, my wife and I investigated subdividing our property into two 900 square meter blocks. We were advised that, should we do so, we could build four dwellings on the new vacant block.

Our preference was to build two houses only and we approached the Planning Department to ascertain the building requirements of the Shire within an inner precinct within the town boundary.

We were advised by Mrs Jurmann that we would have to remove a pre-existing shed, the size of a single vehicle garage, because we could live in it while we developed the block.

The fact that we owned the house next door where we could live comfortably while we built two new houses on the other block, and that we had no intention of living in them anyway, seemed to escape the Planning  Department’s attentive comprehension.

What we were told was that, if we wished, we could place a substantial bond with the Shire that we would forfeit if we chose to live in a small metal box for at least six months.

Needless to say, because of the sheer stupidity of this edict and that ‘our word is our bond’- we will not be proceeding to build two new houses in York and the shire does not have two new rateable properties.

The York property market has listed a “Reduced to absolute rock-bottom, any reasonable offer will be accepted” house for sale in the town.

The new York Council must reverse this trend as of now.

IS GRAEME SIMPSON JUST ACTING?

The Local Government Managers Association, LGMA, could be described as another tentacle of the Local Government employer/employee octopus.

In a case of ‘ad nauseam’, this self-confessed leading professional association for Chief-Executive-Officers’, throughout Australia, the Keeling and Christmas Islands and any other Local Government Area, rocky outcrop in between, spouts the typical mantra defining its undying commitment to the development of, and improvement of, local government management. Of course there is the usual ‘cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die’ promise of setting high professional and ethical standards and assuring its members are at the forefront of change and innovation.

Does the ratepayer have access to information showing the LGMA members meet any of these supposed KPI’s?-of course not!

The LGMA, lists Bruce Walker, Matthew Humphrey, Gary Clark, Ian Hill and Carl Askew as the Acting
CEO’s in WA.  A familiar name but maybe not the same person, Mike Fitzgerald, is reported to have the same gig in the old gold-mining metropolis of Menzies.

All the rest are listed as full-blown CEO’s, including, Mr. Graeme Simpson, named as being the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of York- on this day of  August , 2015. No ‘Acting’ here says the LGMA.

Last year the DLGC’s, Jenni Law, proved, in writing, she did not know what year it was, the spelling of her own occupation, and her Christian name looks a bit suspect too. There appears to be no (lack of numeracy and literacy skill) impediment to her career as a highly paid public servant, seriously interfering in the local government democratic process.

Now we have the ultimate professional association representing local government managers (LGMA) not knowing exactly what one of its members’ occupational-status is. In instances like this ‘Acting’ and CEO are polar opposites, synonym versus antonym.

Of course, the other alternative is that 
no-one has bothered to tell the York community it has a Chief Executive Officer who is not ‘Acting’ and could be in the job longer than anyone expects?

Or, it is just the usual blunder, boo-boo, clanger, stuff-up, even abject failure by another fraternity-member of the mind-blowingly huge and expensive, hierarchical Local Government, mega- franchise. (Something like McDonalds- without the cholesterol- but with lots of added bullsh..t?)

Now let’s move on to (ex) Senator Bronwyn Bishop.

It is well known in local government circles that a minority of CEO’s boast they run the show. They claim that a few Elected Council Members are so bereft of the statutory knowledge required to be councillors they are easily manipulated as being compliance and financial probity inept putty.
The DLGC has been advised of this by highly qualified academics since 2005, but loved its’ ‘see no evil; hear no evil, what compliance? policy’ the way it was. That is until York popped up and Tony Simpson belatedly did what he certainly should have done when Ray Hooper was in full flight.

Everyone knows that Hooper turned the Shire of York, in the Boyle and Pat Hooper era into ‘Hooper’s Tours’ travel agency where he very briefly attended numerous interstate conferences that should have been well above even his enormous pay-scale and had nothing to do with the day-to-day management of, and any benefit to, a small rural shire council’s community. However it was fun for his wife and lucrative for the Eastern States tourist industry.

It was also Local Government Council money-tree manipulation on a grand scale, with an estimated cost to the York community in excess of $100,000.

Along with every other piece of local government probity legislation, the DLGC does not consider itself responsible or accountable for allowing the highlife-style travel expenditure epitomized by Ray Hooper’s expensive meandering.

However there is not much difference between claiming all expenses for totally unnecessary, lightning quick, attendances at a local government conferences, prior to swanning around the tourist spots, than Bronwyn Bishop ripping all of us off by claiming everything for anything from her vastly expensive travel forays.

At least her efforts were paid for by every taxpayer in the country while Hooper’s was restricted to just the ratepayers of York. 

But both the Hooper/Bishop efforts failed the ultimate test- public opinion and the same probity compliance test on travel rorting should apply to Local Government as it, finally, appears to be with the Federal Government. 

As Tony Abbot now acknowledges “within entitlements (which is obviously not correct), but beyond “community expectations” (which is very much correct) is the litmus test for the misuse of taxpayer funds. 

But there one distinct difference, Bronwyn Bishop is paying money back, where Ray Hooper won’t be.

PROBITY COMPLIANCE AUDIT........David Taylor.

SHIRE OF YORK            

PROBITY COMPLIANCE AUDIT REPORT

         A RETORT

Probity Blues…………Former Commissioner, James Best, may be right in claiming in his ‘Open Letter to Residents’ there has been no known, finite evidentiary disclosure of corruption within the Shire.

Blatant misconduct, being illegal harassment of individuals, and possible, attendant abuse of authority could be another matter.

The question of a competent administrative sector certainly is.

In his Official Probity Compliance Audit Report, the DLGC Principal Advisory Officer, Stuart Frazer, questions the abilities and performance of “Key Staff” at the Shire of York Offices, suggesting it needs to be improved to meet the requirements of good governance across a broad range of mandatory disciplines.

Despite the suspension furore, of the Councillors who were directly involved in non-compliant resolutions, two have resigned and most of the others do not appear to have anything to answer for.

Mr Best’s prognostications regarding so-called anonymous cowards hiding behind their keyboards, causing harm to good people- is an interesting enigma. Obviously the financial damage of having to pay out staff, some of whom were allegedly asked to resign, has harmed the good people of York. Maybe this is what he meant?

A synopsis of the DLGC’s , Shire of York Probity compliance Audit follows:-
For those of you who get lucky and have an opportunity to read this 29 page synoptic snap-shot
of where the Shire of York went wrong (according to the DLGC)- enjoy, but do not expect anything deep, meaningful,  fair and reasonable and understandable to leap from these pages .

It starts off with a Wikipedia style potpourri of what York is and where it is.

I think a lot of people know that it is 99.865 Km from Dumas House where Tony Simpson, the Mortician for Local Government, sits in his crypt. Also many of its 3,439 residents know that Mr. Simpson has clowns to the left of him, jokers to his right and York will be stuck in the middle withhim until the next election.


The only glimmer of hope is that Commissioner James Best has gone west.





Now, regarding the content of the Audit, in the beginning, God, created the heavens and the earth in just seven days. In fact it was six- as he took Sunday off. 

Stuart Frazer, Principal Advisory Officer for the DLGC, managed to conduct the Probity Compliance Audit, at the York Shire Offices, in just two working days or 15 hours if there was no overtime involved. (The importance of probity has only appeared to become an issue between the DLGC and York since Ray Hooper phoned his mates after he re-assigned himself (quit) on April 15, 2014.)

The DLGC is gracious enough to admit that although ‘the (Audit) report makes specific recommendations in circumstances where the Shire is not compliant with statutory requirements-as (the Audit) was conducted over a period of only two days ( it) does not represent a detailed examination of any specific issues that may need addressing by the Shire’. That is really deep, albeit contradictory and totally inane!

Add to this- that of the 16 listed circumstances of resolutions where the Shire was deemed to be not compliant, most were either moved or seconded by Councillor’s Tony Boyle, Pat Hooper and Mark Duperouzel.  Two of whom have resigned and the third, Pat Hooper, at one stage took a leave of absence without due and proper authority being granted.

So, if most of this Audit angst was created by Boyle, Hooper and co, why is it that the three other
councillors, including President Matthew Reid, and the community of York, have to suffer for the sins of others?

York’s audit report then goes on to describe, in depth, what ‘Probity’ means according to the DLGC.
That is ‘evidence of ethical behaviour, complete and confirmed integrity, uprightness and honesty, that accord equal opportunity for all participants, to enable all parties to deal with each other on the basis of mutual trust and respect’.

When the current Shire President, Matthew Reid (I assume) queried, on behalf of his fellow Council Members, David Wallace and Denese Smythe, what were any specific issues that may have involved them that needed addressing- and they had the trust and respect of the York community, Tony Simpson showed his personal trust and respect by suspending them for six months and sending them off to Local Government Probity and statutory requirement puppy school for being cheeky.

So what were the conclusions of the audit regarding the sharing of responsibility for non- compliance with statutory requirements by the Shire of York Council under the terms and provisions of the Local government Act 1995 (Act)?

It certainly blamed the CCC-Councillors, Committee Members and contractors. Then it casually mentioned a number of areas where there was the possibility that the quality of the overall performance of the Staff of the Shire of York could be improved.

1. They are, among others that “key staff need to have a clear appreciation of statutory meeting practice and procedures to ensure the quality and correctness of minutes to ensure compliance with the provisions of the ACT’ and that’ staff lack knowledge and understanding of timeframes for (Annual Financial) returns including the legislative framework and good practice governing the process for proper completion of (Financial) returns’.
“For example, the current completed annual return period is from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, completed returns and acknowledgement forms showed a return period of 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.

(Key Staff appear to have decided to do a leap year.)
“………..and employees(Staff) make the necessary corrections (on their return forms) to time periods, dates, missing signatures and blank sections of their returns by amending each return or replacing the return with the correct information where applicable’.
(If done in an inappropriate context, in any other industry but the Public Sector, this could be considered a serious offence through the backdating of documents.)

2. ‘A further concern is that important documents (assumed to be in the custody and control of key staff) were not retained in accordance with the Shire’s recordkeeping plan and State Records Act 2000 which also demonstrates the need for training in this area’. These documents include such material items as ‘full and accurate records, of the Shire’s business decisions and transaction into meet all legislative, business, administrative evidential and historical requirements and that ‘these documents were not retained in the Shire’s recordkeeping system’
(Now that is not a bad effort.)

3.Even better is that ‘council staff and in particular key members of staff, require training in areas of declaration of interest, recording declarations of interest in the minutes of meetings, report writing including the framing of recommendations and record keeping, and the retention of information.’
(Will they be trained? Who knows?)

4. In conclusion, a sort of Coup De Grace, this magnificently understated probity audit says that’ the extent of non-compliance with the Act and concerns with procedures and practices………. at officer level raises some concerns with the governance processes at the Shire’.

The terms ‘Key Staff, ‘Staff’, ’Council Staff’, ‘Officer’ and ‘Employee’ all refer to the staff- employed by the Shire of York Council-, who are paid to provide and facilitate all the required intellectual, material and physical procedures to allow the Shire of York Council to provide good governance as required by the DLGC.

This Probity Compliance Audit was conducted on September 15 and 16, 2014. Most of these staff are still employed by the Shire of York and the local community knows them well. Have any of them been suspended or chastised?-No!

Council Members took the brunt of the blame.