6 December 2014

 

Hon. Tony Simpson, MLA

Minister for Local Government

8^th Floor, Dumas House

2 Havelock Street

WEST PERTH 6005

By email to Minister.Simpson@dpc.wa.gov.au

Dear Minister,

Local Government Act Section 8.15B(1)—Show Cause Notice, Shire of York

As a resident and ratepayer of York, I have a number of concerns regarding the above Notice.  Some of those concerns are reflected in the questions that follow.  I hope you will take the trouble to answer them.

Impartiality

1.  The contents of the Notice seem to be based to a considerable extent on complaints made to your department by two former shire presidents, Crs Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper, and two former CEOs, Mr Ray Hooper and Mr Michael Keeble.  The Notice seems to assume without question or substantiation that their complaints have merit.

Did our current shire president, Cr Matthew Reid, enjoy similar access to your department?  If so, was what he may have said in his own defence given the same degree of consideration as the views of those complainants?

The Fitz Gerald Report

2.   The Fitz Gerald Report alludes in detail to a broad range of alleged misconduct on the part of several past and present councillors, a former CEO, other former staff of the shire and a local businessman.   Those individuals stand variously accused of systematic suppression of ratepayer dissent, vindictive persecution of dissenters, cronyism, nepotism, favouritism, deceit, bullying, spreading slander, misusing corporate credit arrangements, and failing to ensure the proper accounting and management of Council funds.

This misconduct is alleged to have occurred during the respective presidencies of Crs Hooper and Boyle and while Mr Ray Hooper was CEO. 

Is it the case that, during that period, your department received complaints from York residents and ratepayers about aspects of that alleged misconduct, but failed to investigate them or to intervene in any significant way in the operations of the Shire Council?  If so, why was that?

3.  Do you agree that your Department has a duty to investigate the allegations contained in the Fitz Gerald Report—in particular, but by no means only, those that allude to financial misconduct?

4.  If you do so agree, why have you limited your review of the governance of the Shire to the activities of the current Shire Council headed by Cr Reid and not extended it to cover previous years, perhaps as far back as 2008?

5. Would you consider authorising an independent and disinterested inquiry into the procedures and activities of the York Shire Council, including matters raised in the Fitz Gerald Report?  If not, why not? 

6.  By suspending the Council, does your department aim to distract attention from its past failure to act on ratepayer complaints? 

7.  Further, does your department aim to protect persons adversely mentioned in the Fitz Gerald Report from legal and political consequences that might flow from their alleged misconduct?

8.  It is rumoured that the WA Government has given tacit support to SITA’s proposal to establish a landfill near York, and that an administrator, if appointed, will be instructed to discontinue the Shire Council’s opposition to the proposal. 

Will you assure ratepayers that the rumour is untrue?

9.  In paragraph 2.2.1(3) of the Notice, you take Council to task for failing ‘to properly manage and control the distribution of the Fitz Gerald Report’.  

I understand that some unknown person or persons leaked the report to the public. There is no evidence I know of that a councillor was responsible for the leak, or that Council as a whole, or the Shire President, could have prevented it.

The Notice implies that the report should have been withheld from circulation.  How would withholding the report have benefited the York community (other than those persons adversely mentioned in it)?  What damage has our community suffered, or might suffer, resulting from the report’s publication?

(Individuals who were targeted by the very precise allegations contained in the report have the right of open reply and rebuttal or to seek redress in the courts.  So far as I know, nobody has pursued either course.  I find that surprising.)

10.  How would suppressing the report have squared with the principle of open, honest and accountable local government, something York seems not to have enjoyed for a good many years before the election of Cr Reid?

11.   In paragraph 2.2.1(6) of the Notice, you refer to ‘the standing down and termination of CEO Hooper’.  It is my understanding that CEO Hooper tendered his resignation, which Council then accepted.  Which version of the story is correct?

 Public Question Time

 12.  In paragraph 2.2.2.(1) of the Notice, you allege that the Shire President and Council have accepted ‘inappropriate questions in relation to staff and human resources matters’. Can you provide specific examples of such questions, and explain how and why they were ‘inappropriate’?  In this context, exactly what does ‘inappropriate’ mean?  ‘Inappropriate’ in relation to what?

 13.  Would you agree that the purpose of public question time is to permit members of the public to exercise their democratic right:

 (a) to seek clarification of issues that concern them;

(b) to offer suggestions as to how Council funds might be applied;

(c) to raise questions regarding aspects of Council’s activities, including the conduct of councillors and staff; and

(d) to express support for, or dissatisfaction with, the scope, direction, implementation and enforcement of Council policies?

 14.  If you do so agree, would you not also agree that what your Notice implies is that the Shire President and Council should censor questions from the public—presumably including questions that may be embarrassing to Council or staff, but are not malicious or defamatory—rather than simply maintain order during public question time?

 Conflict among Councillors and with former CEO Keeble

 15.  Why was it ‘inappropriate’ for the Shire President and Council to use the Shire’s audit committee to ‘conduct investigations into alleged financial matters’ (paragraph 2.3.2)?

 16.  What exactly was ‘inappropriate’ about the Shire President’s management of debate in Council meetings (paragraph 2.3.3), bearing in mind that he has been opposed and obstructed at almost every turn by certain other councillors and, it is said, by former CEOs?

 17.  What exactly has been ‘inappropriate’ (2.3.4) about Cr Reid’s conduct towards former CEO Keeble and administration staff?  How has his conduct towards staff had the ‘potential to cause significant industrial relations and welfare issues’ (2.3.5) for staff other than Mr Keeble, whose own conduct towards Cr Reid is very much open to question?  Is there a single instance of that ‘potential’ becoming actual?

 18.   Given the apparently toxic nature of the relationship of Mr Keeble and certain councillors with Councillor Reid, it seems wise of Cr Reid to have made audio recordings of his meetings with those individuals (2.3.6), although it would have been wiser not to make them surreptitiously, if that is in fact what he did.

Are you aware that on one of those recordings Mr Keeble is allegedly to be heard ordering Cr Reid to sit down and calling him ‘a fucking c*^t’ in earshot of administration staff?  Do you believe that is proper behaviour and a proper use of language on the part of a local government CEO towards a shire president, especially when other staff can easily overhear it?  Would you not agree that such behaviour must cast doubt on Mr Keeble’s credibility regarding accusations he may have made against Cr Reid?

Since becoming Shire President, Cr Reid has shown that he has a positive vision for York and a determination to ensure that Council’s activities and proceedings are open to public scrutiny.  He has strong community support, and consistent support from some of the other councillors.  I am confident that a by-election resulting from the recent resignation of one of the councillors opposed to him would give him clear majority support on Council.  He would then have the chance to restore community confidence in Council and develop policies directed towards a happier and more prosperous future for our town. 

Suspending Council at this time would be very much a retrograde step and, judging from my conversations with other ratepayers, an extremely unpopular one.

I am not personally acquainted with Cr Reid.  However, I have seen and heard enough to have faith in his ability as President of the York Shire Council to lead our community towards a brighter future.  Please, Minister, leave him to get on with the job.

Yours sincerely,

James Plumridge

(Dr) James V Plumridge, Ph D

 cc           Cr Matthew Reid

                Hon. Colin Barnett, MLA

                Hon. Mia Davies, MLA

                Hon. John Hyde, MLA