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.