What evidence did the departmental officers have to accuse the President of "surreptitiously" taping a meeting. Surely they have not simply listened to his opponents and taken their allegations as proved? Surely the President was given the opportunity to refute the allegations before using it as grounds for suspending the Council? If so, obviously the evidence held by the DLGC is rock solid and they can now publish that in the media to support their claim - or can they? That is a challenge MInister.
Goodness me, the reporter's name is Peter Law. I wonder if there is any connection between him and the Jenni Law from the Department of Local Government mentioned in the 35 page Show Cause Notice issued on the Shire of York?
IF the Dept. of Local Government had given the President the opportunity to refute the allegations it would indicate they handle things in a fair and reasonable manner. This is NOT how they work. If the DLG were fair and reasonable they would have issued a Show Cause Notice on both previous Shire Presidents Boyle and Hooper.
Another challenge for the Minister - Ask Ms. J. Law from the Depatment of Local Government to explain why she failed to intervene with Boyle and Hooper when she knew there were serious issues here. Does he consider residents being yelled at by the Chair, refused the opportunity to ask questions, questions not being answered, announcing the Chair DOES NOT recognise a (named) ratepayer as complying with the Code of conduct.
If those named in the Fitzgerald report had not been so willing to take part in the bullying, if they had done their own research and sought the facts and the truth instead of being such close buddies with the ex ceo, believing every word he spoke, then the Fitgerald report would never have happened. They were all voted into positions of trust. Had they acted with integrity they would all still be there and the Town would not be in free fall.
Part 8 of the local governemnt act makes interesting reading. 8.10. Protection from liability (1) An action in tort does not lie against an authorised person for anything that the person has done, in good faith, in the exercise or purported exercise of a power under this Division.
Now, were the "probity squad" authorised persons or not? Publishing unfounded allegations dressed up as a "timeline" and not authorised .......ooops surely not!!!!!
The key question is WHY has the DLGC gone to such an effort to protect the previous Councillors and CEO's and instead hone in on the current council? There must be a hidden political, business or family link somewhere that is exerting behind the scenes influence on the DG or Simpson, or both.
I suggest delve into the background of the ease with which SITA made significant headway towards approval before the residents knew anything about the prospect of Perth's (note PERTH) rubbish ending up buried in prime farmland, within the water catchment zone AND IN the water table. Of course, they didn't say any of this in their proposal, nor did any authority check their claims. RH indicated years ago, when angered by his failure to push something else through under the radar, that something much worse was coming to York. Could this be the reason for the 'hands off policy' during his autocratic rule???
The whole SITA proposal was well under way when residents eventually found out. RH always planned anything he did not want the community to know about behind closed doors in the hope it would be too late to stop when it became public knowledge. Check Shire records when the original applications for the CEO's position came in. Then check who it was who insisted on RH application be included in the interview round. This was after certain applications had been rejected as not suitable.
RH application for the job of CEO in York did not make it through to the short list. Check the name of the councillor (with a property on Grt. Sth. Highway) who made sure he got an interview, this might give an indication of how long the landfill plan has been incubating.
Karma. Why should Matthew Reid be given a right of reply. He didn't give those named in the Fitzgerald Report a right of reply before distributing it to certain locals and the press!
They do have a right of reply: online, in the media, in the courts. Why haven't they exercised it, e.g. by issuing a reasoned, detailed rebuttal of the 'lies and fabrications' you refer to? Perhaps they should take a leaf out of Matthew Reid's book. He has dealt very effectively with the lies and fabrications contained in the Minister's ill-advised Show Cause Notice.
Yes, Matthew Reid was responsible for the distribution of the report and with his 2 followers Smythe and Wallace, all of this mess, including the Minister's actions!
Of course the Shire President was given the copies of the report, that would be what is referred to as protocol. Keeble it seems ignored the Shire President's directions about the release of the report and it all went leg up. Keeble seemed to forget he was an employee of the Council and MUST follow directions given by the Shire President. I must say it is more than disappointing to find the Keeble we met when initially employed was not the real Keeble. The true personality was carefully hidden until his contract was signed. I am thoroughly shocked at the language this man used. Here I was thinking he was a softly spoken Gentleman.
Every person who had their name in the report, whether those reported on or those who were interviewed by Mr Fitz Gerald, had a RIGHT to see the Draft of the report to see whether they had been quoted correctly and their complaints had been correctly recorded, or whether an action or communication attributed to them had been misinterpreted by the complainants.
By withholding the Draft from these people (ALL of these people) Duperouzel, Boyle and Hooper denied or blocked natural justice for ALL of them, not just for those against whom complaints were made, including themselves. They have also made losers of the whole town, because the whole town has been denied a chance for the claims in the Report to be either verified or negated.
Neither those against whom the claims were made, nor those who made them, have been either vindicated or shown to be in the wrong — other than in so far as there are supporting documents held by themselves and Mr Fitz Gerald (in some cases even perhaps held by third parties for safe-keeping). They themselves know whether they have reported the truth, and the accused know whether they have really been misrepresented. In BOTH cases, they know the truth, unless they are either deluded (easy to self-delude when one wants to) or for some reason have genuinely misinterpreted some otherwise innocent instance of communication or action. Both are possible explanations of otherwise patently obvious truths being denied.
Of course the people know the truth themselves, it is being misrepresented in public or slandered as it is placed in the public forum 1st, exactly Mr Reid's complaint himself.
James Plumridge, I notice you sign your name as a Professor, I am curious to know what your are a Professor of and from what institution. None of my Professors when I attended University ever condoned or supported untested or unproven statements or reports.
No one interviewed was given the DRAFT of the Report to verify what was written because Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel panicked and blocked the process. One guess as to who gave them that advice.
As a person who made accusations in the report I was pleased to know the Shire President asked the CEO to make copies and distribute them to the accusers and those accused in the report.
It was important that we who made complaints were able to see what Mr Fitzgerald had reported was a true and correct record of what we had told/showed him.
Likewise it was important that those accused were given an opportunity to have a rebuttal. The accusations made against them were questions we had been trying to ask for years but we were silenced or vilified as a result.
The Fitzgerald report was a chance for both parties to resolve some of the differences and move forward. Boyle, Hooper and Duper were the ones who chose to bury the report and are now crying out about no right of reply.
To the anonymous person who wrote that I always sign my name as a professor: no, I don't, and I never have. I have never held such a position in any institution. However, I am a Doctor of Philosophy, entitled to the title 'Dr' and the letters 'PhD' after my name. For the record, I graduated from UWA many years ago with first class honours in education. I also hold a master's degree in applied linguistics, a diploma in modern languages, and other qualifications from the training sector.
It isn't my practice to be rude, but the fact that you assumed from my use of the title 'Dr' and the letters 'Ph D' that I was signing myself as a professor suggests that you have never attended a university as you claim, or if you have, that you took very little notice of what was going on around you. Perhaps you were there in the 1960s!
I believe there is ample evidence to support most if not all of the claims made in the Fitz Gerald Report. So, I suspect, do you.
Well said james. Most people who read the comment made about you signing as a Professor realised it had been written by someone who is (sadly) uneducated.
What evidence did the departmental officers have to accuse the President of "surreptitiously" taping a meeting. Surely they have not simply listened to his opponents and taken their allegations as proved? Surely the President was given the opportunity to refute the allegations before using it as grounds for suspending the Council? If so, obviously the evidence held by the DLGC is rock solid and they can now publish that in the media to support their claim - or can they? That is a challenge MInister.
ReplyDeleteGoodness me, the reporter's name is Peter Law. I wonder if there is any connection between him and the Jenni Law from the Department of Local Government mentioned in the 35 page Show Cause Notice issued on the Shire of York?
ReplyDeleteIF the Dept. of Local Government had given the President the opportunity to refute the allegations it would indicate they handle things in a fair and reasonable manner. This is NOT how they work.
ReplyDeleteIf the DLG were fair and reasonable they would have issued a Show Cause Notice on both previous Shire Presidents Boyle and Hooper.
This is bullying on the next level up.
Another challenge for the Minister - Ask Ms. J. Law from the Depatment of Local Government to explain why she failed to intervene with Boyle and Hooper when she knew there were serious issues here.
ReplyDeleteDoes he consider residents being yelled at by the Chair, refused the opportunity to ask questions, questions not being answered, announcing the Chair DOES NOT recognise a (named) ratepayer as complying with the Code of conduct.
oh so now you want natural justice for the Shire President, yet all those named in the Fitzgerald witch hunt weren't given any !! Go figure!!
ReplyDeleteIf those named in the Fitzgerald report had not been so willing to take part in the bullying, if they had done their own research and sought the facts and the truth instead of being such close buddies with the ex ceo, believing every word he spoke, then the Fitgerald report would never have happened.
DeleteThey were all voted into positions of trust. Had they acted with integrity they would all still be there and the Town would not be in free fall.
Part 8 of the local governemnt act makes interesting reading.
ReplyDelete8.10. Protection from liability
(1) An action in tort does not lie against an authorised person for anything that the person has done, in good faith, in the exercise or purported exercise of a power under this Division.
Now, were the "probity squad" authorised persons or not? Publishing unfounded allegations dressed up as a "timeline" and not authorised .......ooops surely not!!!!!
The key question is WHY has the DLGC gone to such an effort to protect the previous Councillors and CEO's and instead hone in on the current council? There must be a hidden political, business or family link somewhere that is exerting behind the scenes influence on the DG or Simpson, or both.
ReplyDeleteIt would not be the first time our State has seen the tentacles of corruption weave their way through the corridors of power.
DeleteI suggest delve into the background of the ease with which SITA made significant headway towards approval before the residents knew anything about the prospect of Perth's (note PERTH) rubbish ending up buried in prime farmland, within the water catchment zone AND IN the water table. Of course, they didn't say any of this in their proposal, nor did any authority check their claims. RH indicated years ago, when angered by his failure to push something else through under the radar, that something much worse was coming to York. Could this be the reason for the 'hands off policy' during his autocratic rule???
DeleteThe whole SITA proposal was well under way when residents eventually found out. RH always planned anything he did not want the community to know about behind closed doors in the hope it would be too late to stop when it became public knowledge.
DeleteCheck Shire records when the original applications for the CEO's position came in. Then check who it was who insisted on RH application be included in the interview round. This was after certain applications had been rejected as not suitable.
RH application for the job of CEO in York did not make it through to the short list.
DeleteCheck the name of the councillor (with a property on Grt. Sth. Highway) who made sure he got an interview, this might give an indication of how long the landfill plan has been incubating.
Karma. Why should Matthew Reid be given a right of reply. He didn't give those named in the Fitzgerald Report a right of reply before distributing it to certain locals and the press!
ReplyDeleteSo do you personally know for sure that it was Matthew Reid who distributed the report and if so, who are the certain locals he gave it to?
DeleteThose named in the report had 10 years of right of reply.
DeleteThere was no right of reply for those named. How do they reply to lies and fabricated allegations!
DeleteThey do have a right of reply: online, in the media, in the courts. Why haven't they exercised it, e.g. by issuing a reasoned, detailed rebuttal of the 'lies and fabrications' you refer to? Perhaps they should take a leaf out of Matthew Reid's book. He has dealt very effectively with the lies and fabrications contained in the Minister's ill-advised Show Cause Notice.
DeleteYes, Matthew Reid was responsible for the distribution of the report and with his 2 followers Smythe and Wallace, all of this mess, including the Minister's actions!
ReplyDeleteBit of a sweeping statement when Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel were the only ones with copies.
ReplyDeleteis that so, check your facts, and you will see the Shire President was given the report in the first instance, along with electronic versions
DeleteOf course the Shire President was given the copies of the report, that would be what is referred to as protocol.
DeleteKeeble it seems ignored the Shire President's directions about the release of the report and it all went leg up.
Keeble seemed to forget he was an employee of the Council and MUST follow directions given by the Shire President.
I must say it is more than disappointing to find the Keeble we met when initially employed was not the real Keeble. The true personality was carefully hidden until his contract was signed.
I am thoroughly shocked at the language this man used. Here I was thinking he was a softly spoken Gentleman.
Every person who had their name in the report, whether those reported on or those who were interviewed by Mr Fitz Gerald, had a RIGHT to see the Draft of the report to see whether they had been quoted correctly and their complaints had been correctly recorded, or whether an action or communication attributed to them had been misinterpreted by the complainants.
ReplyDeleteBy withholding the Draft from these people (ALL of these people) Duperouzel, Boyle and Hooper denied or blocked natural justice for ALL of them, not just for those against whom complaints were made, including themselves. They have also made losers of the whole town, because the whole town has been denied a chance for the claims in the Report to be either verified or negated.
Neither those against whom the claims were made, nor those who made them, have been either vindicated or shown to be in the wrong — other than in so far as there are supporting documents held by themselves and Mr Fitz Gerald (in some cases even perhaps held by third parties for safe-keeping). They themselves know whether they have reported the truth, and the accused know whether they have really been misrepresented. In BOTH cases, they know the truth, unless they are either deluded (easy to self-delude when one wants to) or for some reason have genuinely misinterpreted some otherwise innocent instance of communication or action. Both are possible explanations of otherwise patently obvious truths being denied.
Of course the people know the truth themselves, it is being misrepresented in public or slandered as it is placed in the public forum 1st, exactly Mr Reid's complaint himself.
DeleteJames Plumridge, I notice you sign your name as a Professor, I am curious to know what your are a Professor of and from what institution.
DeleteNone of my Professors when I attended University ever condoned or supported untested or unproven statements or reports.
No one interviewed was given the DRAFT of the Report to verify what was written because Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel panicked and blocked the process. One guess as to who gave them that advice.
DeleteAs a person who made accusations in the report I was pleased to know the Shire President asked the CEO to make copies and distribute them to the accusers and those accused in the report.
DeleteIt was important that we who made complaints were able to see what Mr Fitzgerald had reported was a true and correct record of what we had told/showed him.
Likewise it was important that those accused were given an opportunity to have a rebuttal. The accusations made against them were questions we had been trying to ask for years but we were silenced or vilified as a result.
The Fitzgerald report was a chance for both parties to resolve some of the differences and move forward. Boyle, Hooper and Duper were the ones who chose to bury the report and are now crying out about no right of reply.
They have played and are still you fools!!
To the anonymous person who wrote that I always sign my name as a professor: no, I don't, and I never have. I have never held such a position in any institution. However, I am a Doctor of Philosophy, entitled to the title 'Dr' and the letters 'PhD' after my name. For the record, I graduated from UWA many years ago with first class honours in education. I also hold a master's degree in applied linguistics, a diploma in modern languages, and other qualifications from the training sector.
DeleteIt isn't my practice to be rude, but the fact that you assumed from my use of the title 'Dr' and the letters 'Ph D' that I was signing myself as a professor suggests that you have never attended a university as you claim, or if you have, that you took very little notice of what was going on around you. Perhaps you were there in the 1960s!
I believe there is ample evidence to support most if not all of the claims made in the Fitz Gerald Report. So, I suspect, do you.
Well said james. Most people who read the comment made about you signing as a Professor realised it had been written by someone who is (sadly) uneducated.
Delete