 |
| Mr Brad Jolly |
Here's a copy of the letter I received from Mr Brad Jolly of the DLG in response to my letter of 6/12/2014 to Minister Simpson, posted on this website.
Mr Jolly declines to answer the questions posed in my letter because, he says, 'the Show Cause process is not complete'.
That is disingenuous of Mr Jolly. Several of my questions related only indirectly to the Show Cause process. Instead, they referred to the activities as detailed in the Fitz Gerald Report of previous shire administrations going back several years. Among other things, I wanted to know whether the DLG had during that period received complaints from residents and ratepayers about aspects of those activities; what action, if any, the department had taken with respect to such complaints; and why it had taken no action, if that was in fact the case.
Those are questions Mr Jolly could easily have answered without compromising the Show Cause process.
He could also have been a bit more forthcoming as to what kick-started the process, i.e. what impelled the department in the first place 'to monitor the situation at the Shire'. Did it do so in response to complaints from ratepayers and other residents, or merely at the insistence of a quadrumvirate of disgruntled councillors and former CEOs? (I think we know the answer to that one!)
The 'monitors' would have come to the situation primed to find fault with the Shire President and council proceedings.
By the way, I wonder if senior state government bureaucrats like Mr Jolly could get through a working week without using the weasel words 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate'. On the evidence of this letter, as well as of the Show Cause Notice, I rather doubt it.
I've got one exactly the same as that, which, in itself is insulting, coupled with the bullshit contained in it, doubly so!
ReplyDeleteMine from handsome Mr Jolly dated 17th December, re e-mails I sent to the Monister (oops: Minister) on 5 and 8 December, is verbatim with the above in almost every respect. I wonder if we pooled them all after this is all over we could have some fun with them all. The analysis of linguistic themes would be a scientific approach, but I'm also very much in support of the poetic approach.
DeleteMaybe we could launch a spate of poems to the Minister, do you think? (Illustrated of course by the cartoons that one amongst us has suggested.)
Another suggestion: after this is all over we advertise a party in the Town
Hall or in the courtyard of the Shire, and enjoy revealing who we all are, having a poetry reading, having posters of the desired cartoons, and altogether discovering who we all are who are of a common mind, supporting each other, and who all these creative writers (and artists to appear) are. Maybe we could sing some of the poems, or invite persons in town known for their poetry reciting to perform for us. Maybe we could have an Award for various categories of contribution to this site, with a suitable title for the major award to the mystery blogmaster or whatever you call him or her. Any ideas for a theme for the party?
James, you ask the question:
Delete"What impelled the department in the first place 'to monitor the situation at the Shire'. Did it do so in response to complaints from ratepayers and other residents, or merely at the insistence of a quadrumvirate of disgruntled councillors and former CEOs"?
Had you been around a little longer, you might have had a grasp on what's gone on over a decade.
The Departments latest action, the probity audit, is merely a means to an end, a smokescreen to stop the allegations contained in Fitzgerald Report being investigated further.
If the allegations were investigated, the Department would find itself in an extremely precarious position. For example; the Department staff investigated the adequacy of the financial reporting of the Shire of York in 2008 - 2009, unfortunately, the Department chose to accept the word of the then CEO Ray Hooper, who assured them that everything was hunky-dory and then proceeded NOT to publish certain financial records.
One blatant example of this is the recent decision by the Freedom of Information Commissioner (published on this blog). In his decision, the Commissioner identifies that financial records that should have been available, were NOT!
The Department has been aware of all the obvious secrecy surrounding the Shires financial activities over the years but total ignored the warning signs, effectively making themselves complicit.
So what "impelled" the department in the first place?
Self presentation, not the Departments but individual egos, reputations and careers! Jennifer, Brad, David and Jenni.
My question was of course rhetorical, but you've added considerably to my understanding of the answer. Thanks for that.
DeleteEverything you say makes sense to me and fits neatly with what others have told me. It's vital that we don't lose sight of the corruption allegations (or perhaps more correctly implications) arising from the Fitz Gerald Report. Nor should we forget that corruption isn't only about money; it's also about power and control exercised for their own sake, as in the many instances of people being persecuted by council staff allegedly because they got on the wrong side of a former CEO.
(I apologise for the 'allegedly', which is an insult to the complainants. It's my cowardly way of avoiding a writ, though to be honest I haven't seen much to indicate that the Gang of Four are keen to defend their rather bedraggled reputations in the Supreme Court.)
Whatever Minister Simpson decides to do with his Show Cause Notice (and that probably won't be what most of us would advise him to do with it, namely, inter it in a place where the sun doesn't shine), we need to press relentlessly for a full, impartial and above all disinterested inquiry into every matter canvassed in the Fitz Gerald Report, not only those matters, like the sale of the Old Convent and construction of the Recreation Centre, that raise questions of financial probity but also those that allege bullying and persecution of dissident elements - or as Ray and Tony would say, 'perpetual agitators' - among the residents of York.
I would be surprised if such an inquiry did not lead to criminal prosecutions and to censure at least of some senior bureaucrats in the DLGC.
By the way, I've been around for maybe a bit longer than you think. My wife and I have owned property in York since the beginning of 2008. We moved here at the beginning of 2009. Since then, we've watched the slow and painful dying of this beautiful town; businesses disappearing, pubs closing, tourism in decline, and everywhere houses for sale. All the town needs for a coup de grace is a giant rubbish dump just up the road, and lo and behold, here it comes...
On that topic, I recall SITA saying in some context that it had reached 'an understanding' with York Shire Council regarding planning permission for the proposed landfill at Allawuna.
My guess is that the understanding may have been in the first instance between SITA and the then CEO, with certain councillors (who afterwards changed their minds in response to public pressure) perhaps coming later to the party.
If there was such an 'understanding', however tentative, at some early stage it would likely have been committed to paper, possibly as a 'memorandum of understanding', which is Onanese for 'agreement in principle', which is Onanese for - oh, never mind. Does anyone know of or has anyone seen such a document?
Had I been a Councillor accused of some wrongdoing in the Fitzgerald Report, if I believed I was innocent, I would have insisted the Shire, at municipal cost, instruct a suitable impartial person to fully investigate the allegations.
DeleteOf course that's what I would do if innocent!
If I was not so innocent, I would do everything in my power to bury the Report, which is exactly what happened on the 25 July last year. Quite what the three Councillors (Hooper, Boyle & Duperouzel) expected to happen next is uncertain. At this point, human nature prevailed and it would be safe to say that the public interest would have quadrupled with Councils censorship of the Report.
I believe they expected it to end there, suppressed, never to see the light of day, however, as is normally the case these things have a habit of surfacing.
It will be interesting to see what happens next, my money is on a by-election, this gives the Minister an out by doing the democratic thing. The Department staff will never be held accountable, the public service never are.
Whatever happens, the allegations contained in the Fitzgerald Report must be investigated.
I'd like a cell with a window...?
DeletePerhaps four cells in a row would be in order, or six if we include Randell and Scott!.
DeleteJames, in response to your questions about SITA. Your guess was spot on.
Delete(My guess is that the understanding may have been in the first instance between SITA and the then CEO, with certain councillors (who afterwards changed their minds in response to public pressure) perhaps coming later to the party.)
Some years ago an application was lodged for a large gravel pit out west of York (not on Alawana) residents fought that application and stopped it.
Ray Hooper was livid.
Ray made a comment that mean little at the time.
It went something along the line of 'you just wait, something much bigger than this will be coming to York'.
I think that sneaky little sod was getting his ducks in a row well before the councillors knew about SITA. When finally confided in, Crs went along for the ride (to the bank??).
It begs the question, what exactly was Ray Hooper going to get out of this deal with SITA?
A by-election will not make this go away.
DeleteHow many remember Jenny Law coming up to Monitor one of the elections to make the residents feel all was above board.
Little did we know her and Ray were the best of mates!
Ray Hooper was the returning officer.
The councillors were mistaken that there visits to Ray after he left, they thought he was still in power and could get staff to wrap the fitz gerald Report up in FOI paper work never to be released, honest mistake when its been happening for so long.
DeleteAll comments out of that office are coming out carbon copies, I and another person asked separate questions and got the same letter returned word for word generic crap.
ReplyDeletethey want us to go away, but alas they are out of luck ,they have been sprung. Now they will have to pass the buck or suffer the consequences. I'm Guessing they will all pass the buck. The DLG needs to be investigated and for a change instead of moving people left or right or even up, get rid of all the tossers if it was you or me we would have no job, now its there time and no severance or bonus pension either just the sack for everyone involved in the coverup weather directly or indirectly.
Those who have been 'involved' in trying to get things investigated here in York discovered years ago Government Departments make habit of sending out generic letters. Thankfully, this blog site is publicly exposing this practice!
DeleteRay Hooper used the same approach.
Yes, it is insulting to the recipient, in the extreme.
Mr. Jolly may be a 'contract' public servant. I doubt he even penned (or read) the letter.
Mia Davies sent out generic letters to a couple of York residents as well.
DeleteAre they hoping to completely destroy our self esteem or what?
Do these people think we don't talk to each other?
How many remember the Mr. Jolly touted as the 'friendly' Electrolux Vacuum cleaner representative, guaranteeing to 'suck' our carpets clean.
ReplyDeleteNo relation, I'm sure. That Mr Jolly removed dust from our carpets. This one blows it into our eyes.
DeleteOur Mr Jolly sucks more than carpets, I'm not to sure what he's been blowing?
DeleteHold on, Sticky Beak, forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but while it's acceptable to criticize or even poke gentle fun at someone on a professional basis, it's entirely unacceptable to make indecent inferences about that individual's personal life. Your comment is much too close to the bone!
DeleteMy apologies for your misunderstanding James, I meant Mr Jolly, Executive Director, Sector Regulation and Support, in his professional capacity.
DeleteSticky Beak - that is not funny!
DeleteSad to see Sticky Beak lowering the tone of the comments.
DeleteIt's just occurred to me that 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' are weasel words much like 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate'. Mea maxissima culpa! We're all doing it nowadays. What I should have done was spell out the reasons for my disapproval of Sticky Beak's comment. Who am I to say the comment was unacceptable? I'm sure some people would consider it perfectly acceptable and be surprised that I don't. The truth is that I was expressing my own opinion, and using the word 'acceptable' to give my opinion the appearance of being universal, the natural deliverance of morality and commonsense. Which is more or less what Mr Jolly and the Minister were doing with 'inappropriate' in the Show Cause Notice.
Delete'Noli dolare' James, confession may be good for the soul, but it's bad for the reputation! I must say I was a little surprised at your response but whether the comment was inappropriate or unacceptable is another matter for democracy to decide.
DeleteBearing in mind good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement, over time I have managed to 'put my foot in it' on many occasions. It's been a bit of a sore point but then I realised that time wounds all heels.
The levels of wit are rising exponentially. Hooray!
DeletePerhaps, Veritas, but I took my cue from Matthew 7:3. My using the word 'unacceptable' in the way I did was unconscious, not deliberate. That may also be true for Mr Jolly's use of 'inappropriate', though less likely so. In both cases, what we have is a lazy approach to language and argument. If we want to describe something as 'unacceptable' or 'inappropriate', we should give a clear reason for doing so - as Mr Jolly did in the ante-penultimate paragraph of his letter to me, though as I think I have shown his reason was as limp as lettuce left out of the fridge.
DeleteI don't worry too much about 'the bubble reputation'. I would rather be reputed an honest man than a clever one.
Ha ha James, I am sure you are both as your reputation precedes you!
DeleteI was bought up in an environment where humility, gratitude and empathy were the norm and I believe that it may have been the same for you. My father always used to say 'be considerate......just be considerate'. It took a while to fully understand what he meant.
A saying which has been with me since I was a child, (and way before Scooter or facebook got hold of it)!
IT'S NICE TO BE IMPORTANT BUT, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO BE NICE!
OMG, OMG, BTW.....I wonder if the DLG have a facebook page? I could post it as a suggestion for a token New Year's resolution 'Coat of Arms' ... "Sed magis est maximus ut wisi ut wisi" with protocol being a crest where the Lion has his arm around the startled deer!
Firstly, they might not accept me as a friend
and
Secondly, they would probably un-friend me for sending "inspirational quotes". LOL x
(as might the moderator of this blog if I'm not careful).
Ok the DLGC has had its chance to be open and accountable - those great weasel words - so now the target has to be Simpson. He is responsible for the DLGC so has to make the choice of going down with them and being part of the incompetence and cover ups or covering his own arse. Everyone that lodged a complaint with the DLG in recent years (Fitzgerald) now needs to press the minister for answers. Cc to the local member, opposition and media.
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteMr. Simpson, Just because we are writing excellent (and very very funny) Poetry, it does not mean we have forgotten the goal we set.
We are going to keep on until we get justice.
According to todays West Mr. Simpson has had ' A tough year' and it is only the 3rd January 2015. Perhaps it was a premonition.
DeleteYes, this could be a really tough year for Mr. Simpson, particularly if he continues to allow Mr. Jolly to reply to letters for him.
Mr. Simpson I am inviting you to come to York, meet with the people interview by FitzGerald. I will buy the coffee.
You do not need senior staff or advisors to tag along, just come and meet us face to face.
If you are a Minister 'for the people' you will be prepared to do this.
Yes, come to York and meet the people and find out the truth about the damage done to them by he previous councillors and their mate Ray Hooper.
DeleteThis is what Mr Jolly says about himself on the FIGJAM website LinkedIn:
ReplyDelete"Executive Director, Sector Regulation and Support
Department of Local Government and Communities (WA)
July 2013 – Present (1 year 7 months) Perth Area, Australia
My appointment to this new role came about as a result of the amalgamation of the Department of Local Government with the Department for Communities.
In this position I lead a division comprising over one hundred dedicated people who collectively deliver all regulatory, legislative and legal services across the local government and community services portfolio areas. Key areas of focus include building the capacity and performance of Western Australian local governments and the early childhood education and care sectors.
I am appointed to a number of positions that are allied to my primary role including Presiding Member of the Local Government Standards Panel, Deputy Chair of the WA Local Government Grants Commission and as a member of the national Early Childhood Policy Group."
This young chap is a real high flyer, destined for mighty things. He holds a Grad. Dip. Management from UNSW, an MBA (Advanced) from UWA and a diploma from the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he has been observed walking on water in King's Park.
I hope it will not be considered 'inappropriate' if I respectfully recommend to Mr Jolly and his colleagues two books by Don Watson - 'Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language' (2003) and 'Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Cliches, Cant and Management Jargon' (2004), both published by Knopf. He will find them a jolly good read.
My goodness, not another one who thinks he is Jesus!
DeleteI am becoming very confused by the number of people believing 'they can walk on water'.
DeleteWe've got Politicians, Public Servants, Shire Councillors and of course we all remember - Ray thought he was God!
A great laugh again. I think I'll buy a copy of 'Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Cliches, Cant and Management Jargon'. Should be a really good read. Might even buy both books. A family member in a certain (not LG, I hasten to say) Govt. Dept might well enjoy them, too!
DeleteYou won't regret buying it. I've just looked up Watson's definition of 'appropriate': "1. Suitable, proper, fitting. 2.Convenient. Useful. Advantageous. Whatever...And more, much more than this, I did what was appropriate". It's that 'whatever' that gives the game away, because the various bureaucratic uses of 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate are so vague as to be virtually meaningless (see the Show Cause Notice, for example) but they usually amount to nothing more than a prissy buzz of approval or disapproval.
DeletePeople like Mr Jolly and his more than a hundred dedicated myrmidons (see LinkedIn) are daily doing violence to the language of Shakespeare, the Bible, Cranmer and so on down to Churchill and beyond... and even me on a good day!
It's we ordinary folk who keep our language from turning into a toxic verbal slurry, poisonous to logic and commonsense.
I love this site - it is like a free University. I am learning so much, thank you
DeleteJames, you definitely have to put your hand up at the next Shire Election!
ReplyDeleteGood heavens no! I'm too old, too odd, and only allowed out once a month under close supervision.
DeleteAnother laughter line created - thank you :-)
DeleteAlso, I look like a cross between Nosferatu and Uncle Fester. And my wife says I'd have to keep my teeth in to get any votes at all.
DeleteAbsolutely love it! James, you are a breath of fresh air — even if only once a month under close supervision. Mind you, you seem to be getting out a bit more now that this blog gives you a voice.
DeleteYes, I do get out more, but nowadays, because of this blog, I have to venture forth heavily disguised or under cover of darkness accompanied by a large dog and armed with a cudgel. Add to that having to check the house and garden daily for listening devices, and you'll understand that posting on this website is taking a terrible toll. It's got to the stage that I feel I'm being followed even when I'm sitting down watching the telly.
DeleteChuckle...only be careful, James; lately the police have seized weapons from cars they have stopped; they might take to seizing large dogs and cudgels if they see who are out under cover of darkness accompanying said large dogs and bearing grudgels (oops, cudgels).
DeleteOops: now my own paranoia is surfacing, you say? Or maybe its mania in my case.
Ah, but what fun we are all having now we have moved past denial, anger, bargaining, and depression. We have reached the stage of enjoying the ludicracies of the the oppressors' imaginings and conspiratorial acts and [in some cases faded] hopes of permanent honour and glory, if not a corrupted form of royalties otherwise known as deals with the devil.
MORE JOLLITY!
ReplyDeleteDeck the Blog with smells of Jolly
Fa la la la la, la la la la
Read his words - he's a seasoned Poli
Fa la la la la, la la la la
See the statements - some are peaches
Fa la la, la la la, la la la
Troll the web for his corporate speeches
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Get facts first from their creator
He can then distort them later
Enquiry pending - what a joke
Two words only - screen and smoke
There's no reason to be Jolly
Good Governance is but mere folly
Serious questions have been posed
Now the truth has been exposed
Years of problems he's denied
He's one who needs to swallow pride
'Appropriate' action - how absurd
He might just choke on that bloody word
INVICTUS
There've been more than several learning curves, we've learnt in different ways
But only a few with stamina got through the painful maze
There's those who learn from watching and those with a listening ear
Then those who peed on an electric fence to learn their lesson, oh dear!
You didn't pay attention to those you've tried to break
So they watched and were the first, to discover your mistake
So, don't kick a man when he's down unless you're really sure
Be certain that he won't get up and come right back for more
We've battled, we're just amateurs, but are no bloody fools
Hooper finally met his match, we've dared to break the rules?
The DLG, from what we see have erred - their future's grim
Professional Corporate bureaucrats while they sink, we will swim
To all who run for cover, be under no illusion
There's still accountability, just so there's no confusion
A lesson learnt, your fingers burnt, a peoples' resolution
It doesn't cease, there is no peace, we still want retribution
We've shocked and rocked them to the core, they're acting rather manic
And....it was 'Amateurs' who built the Ark, 'Professionals' built Titanic!
Love them both. Do so love the 'Amateurs' built the Ark, 'Professionals' built Titanic!" line!
DeleteI am going to get my laughter lines back.
ReplyDeleteThey shrivelled up about ten years ago!
Can we have a York Poetry Festival?
ReplyDeleteWe could have a Hooroo Ray section.
The poetry on this site is brilliant!
ReplyDeletePoetry Festival for York is the way to go.
I think it bloody rude that you received a response from pretty boy when you wrote to the Minister.
ReplyDeleteWhat has happened to our Politicians? They appear to have lost their manners.
DeleteThey won't reply to our letters, they won't answer the direct questions about the proposed Landfill, they won't come and see us to talk about our problems here.
Hang on, I know what is wrong. There's still a couple of years to the next election!
Now that's a point — the 2 years to the election.
DeleteThere is nothing new about this process, for every letter I have ever written to the Minister there has been a response penned for him by a member of the department. Most are generic responses which basically thank you for bringing whatever matter to his attention! In any event, it is said that any solution proposed by a politician will cause more problems than it solves. I once read that bureaucracy is just a means of transforming energy into solid waste and that Politicians and nappies have one thing in common, they both need changing regularly and for the same reason.
DeleteSome beaut intelligence in here!
ReplyDeleteWhen I first discovered this page I thought it was an excellent idea. A good way to keep the citizens of York informed about the goings on of council. BUT..after reading the continuous amount of diatribe on this site, is it any wonder that your letters to the ministers are given the replies they deserve. This blog site only confirms to the politicians that a minority amount of conspiracy theorists are alive and well in this little Shire of York. As far as intelligence in here, I would say that is debatable. High IQ doesn't equal common sense and decency.
ReplyDelete'diatribe'...n. a bitter and violent denunciation, attack or criticism' (Macquarie).
DeleteAfter reading the obfuscatory nonsense our politicians feed us, is it any wonder that we give them a whack over the head now and then?
How could any politician deduce from studying this site that York is home to 'a minority amount of conspiracy theorists'? (I suppose you mean 'a small number'). When they and their officials treat us with contempt, as in the matter of the Show Cause Notice, why should we give a damn what they think of what we post on this site? A retired politician of my acquaintance always used to refer to us everyday folk as 'the punters', a contemptuous but, as election after election reveals, a far from inaccurate description. I doubt they take much account of anything said here - though we can hope.
Do you think Fitz Gerald was the work of 'conspiracy theorists'?
It's true that high IQ doesn't equal common sense and decency. Neither does intelligence itself, however defined. What do you mean, in this context, by 'common sense and decency'?
This site seems to serve several purposes, not least of which is giving people a chance to express their anger and frustration at how this town has been (mis) managed for many years. Unless I'm much mistaken, it isn't meant to be like a government gazette or church bulletin, though like such publications it does allow for a useful exchange of information.
I don't like or approve of everything posted on this site. On sober reflection, I don't like or approve of everything I've posted. Sometimes contributors (me included) go a tad over the top. But thank goodness the site isn't infected with the virus of political correctness in any of its mutated forms. I'm happy to have associated myself through this blog with people who aren't afraid to express their thoughts and feelings freely.
Most sincerely, Elizabeth, I congratulate you on having the courage to identify yourself. I wish everybody would who posts on this site. The tyrants are toppled, some exiled, the reign of terror is over - why go on hiding in the shadows?
Elizabeth, first of all we have never seen you in a Shire Meeting that I know of, secondly this site is indeed letting people in York (and any beyond who discover it) know what has been going on, and I can guarantee you that a fair number of people who have written to the Minister have written totally cogent, respectful, letters, putting the cause of the people of York forward as meaningfully and rationally as anyone can. They do not deserve your comment "....after reading the continuous amount of diatribe on this site, is it any wonder that your letters to the ministers are given the replies they deserve." You are insulting some of those who have done and continue to speak for us all.
DeleteWe continue to 'stand up and be counted' whenever there is an opportunity, whether it be in a public meeting or writing private letters to Ministers and other officials.
This has been and remains a long haul. People have been vilified, businesses destroyed, a home lost, reputations smeared, and all sorts; and yes we do not give up. No way!
But a little humour is good for the soul, and currently is keeping us from going down altogether with the ship.
You need to think what you are doing to seriously hurting people and their supporters when you belittle us. I can tell you, there is more than a reasonable proportion per population of common sense and decency in York!! But the secondary trauma (you can look the term up on Google) coming from statement like that one you made is unjustified and I hope you will not do that to our good people again.
Elizabeth, maybe you can enlighten us, at what point did the blog cease to be a good idea and become diatribe?
ReplyDeleteAfter you read the very first post, the Fitzgerald Report (the reason for this blog) what was your take on it?
Obviously not diatribe!
When I first read the copy of the Fitzgerald report, I thought finally things are coming out into the open. We'll get to the truth of what is happening etc...now all I see on here is bitter and abusive verbal attacks on others, name calling and innuendos. Do you really think you are doing the cause good by bad mouthing the very people you want to take you seriously and help us. I think this blog page has degenerated and lost it's true purpose of actually getting some positive action happening....in other words, just a place for the few to vent their spleens and 'show off' their literacy skills. Like you, I too am waiting for the DLG to put this fiasco to rest and bring the perpetrators to account. Only then can York move forward and flourish!
DeleteThose people (the DLGC) will not take us seriously, whatever we say or however nicely we say it. It would not be in their interest to help us, if, as many believe, they have been complicit in some way in the injustices of the past. If York 'moves forward and flourishes' it won't be because of what they do but in spite of it. Our best hope is to convince them that we mean business and regardless of lies and prevarications will have our inquiry into the sins of the past, whether they like it or not.
DeleteHave you yourself taken a stand and written to the Minister and other officials? Can you put yourself in the shoes of those vilified and persecuted? Do you want York to become a satellite of somewhere else? Do you want those [later-in-history] Councillors who are trying to move York forward to be stymied by being stood down? Do you want a Commissioner or such to take over and thereby automatically take us back to "square one"? That is what would happen if the current councillors are not with us to continue carrying on the pieces which have already been picked up from the previous 10 years' hiatuses. In case you do not know: in the last 16 years (as someone stated in a public meeting) we have had 4 CEOs, 1 Commissioner and 5 Shire Presidents. With each change we have had expensive and conscientious work done put aside either because the next personnel in place were not interested, or did not know about it, etc.. And as the person said: each time these facts were rediscovered, the Shire staff had to go and dredge the materials up from wherever they were stored. And so the wheel had to be re-invented again and again.
DeleteYes, there is the Fitz Gerald (two words, by the way; it's author's name can be found on Google) Report, and then we had the unjust monitoring of the [now diminished] Council's meetings (when there would have been more point in those of the previous few years being monitored), and the unjust Show Cause Notice. ALL of these and the matters that led to them need to be dealt with and aired — not only by the DLG and any other relevant officials, but also by the Council and the people of York.
What is more, the people of York are finding empowerment in being able to 'speak' among themselves in this forum, and some are finding commonalities they never knew they have. It is a bit like a Group Therapy, but online. And there is a Moderator who counts as a Facilitator, and can put a stop to or not accept material that crosses a line — if need be.
This is another way of looking at it.
And the 'showing off of literacy skills' is as much as anything else a little playing in the spirit of trying to keep a little humour and sanity boyed up.
Elizabeth Corbett appears to have no understanding of the damage (both mentally and financially) done to some here in York.
DeleteDid she ever attend a Council meeting and witness the ignorant behaviour of Councillors who consider their name and position to be No. 1 priority? These Councillors had two faces, one ugly face at meetings and the other, a false smiling face for those they were lying to in the wider community.
These councillors cared nothing about York, it's residents, or it's businesses closing. The only thing they cared about was metering out as much venom as their bodies could produce whilst lying and deceiving anyone in the wider community who would listen.
To set the record straight. Those targeted have been trying for years to politely seek assistance from the DLG. Efforts were futile, with those complaining treated with utter contempt. You will find no abuse, name calling or innuendoes in any of the letters sent.
The DLG are attempting to put this fiasco to rest, by ignoring the issues raised in the Fitz Gerald Report. Why? Because the DLG failed to believe anyone other than Ray Hooper, Boyle and Hooper and now they have egg on their face, right to the top!
This blog site has given those involved a voice, something ripped from us by Ray Hooper and past Councillors.
This blog lets the entire state know what and who destroyed our Town.
I was bought up High Church of England and I am struggling to understand how those involved in the cruel, vindictive behaviour can still hold their heads up, and in some cases go to Church on Sunday.
My Mother taught me: forgiveness makes you a better person than those who wronged you.
Elizabeth, I am working on genuinly forgiving those Councillors and staff who bullied me, it is not easy I can tell you.
I too want York to flourish - I live here.
Please don't judge those involved, before you have walked in their shoes.
"Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than the evil you see in others"
Delete- Confucius -
Gee that is heavy, I will have to sleep on that one.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Elizabeth has had few dealings with the Loc. Gov., (maybe paying rates and visiting the Library etc.) and the DLG, she is not aware of how their system works. I say 'their' because 'they' created it.
DeleteWe (those bullied) believed Loc. Gov. was here to 'serve the people' within communities and the DLG was there to ensure fairness provided by the Loc. Gov. to those communities.
Experience (and research on Ray Hooper) over the last 10 years has shown Loc. Gov. and DLG were both created to protect their own positions, nothing more, and nothing less.
Elizabeth, the Fitz Gerald Report is just the tip of the iceberg. Only a full inquiry will expose the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe Councillors who blocked any further investigation (up until now) did so, because THEY know exactly what will be revealed and they are terrified they will be exposed.
Not one Ratepayer in York knows the cost of the Forrest Oval Recreation centre.
Tricia Walters attempted (using FOI and her own money) to ascertain the $$$ for the people of York.
Both Gail Mazuik and Ray Hooper refused point blank to provide the documents to the Information Commissioner, why? What are they both hiding?
The recreation centre project was nothing short of a 'dogs breakfast'. It still has no car park or landscaping and when it rains the area turns into a quagmire. Wheel Chairs and prams become a nightmare to use. The area IS NOT disable friendly, in fact it may not even comply with the regulations.
We have had sink holes and plumbing replaced. Our (ratepayers) money is still being poured into band aiding the place because it is running at a loss.
Those attempting to expose the ineptness of councillors, staff and Ray Hooper were punished in the worst way possible.
I would like to think the majority of the residents of York having read the Fitz Gerald Report would be standing solidly behind those people now, supporting them, not criticising them.
So what's happening now as regards to the Fitzgerald Report? Why aren't the police investigating if there has been criminal activity going on? Didn't the CCC investigate? And what about the show cause notice? In the paper it said that the councilors didn't know what they were doing and had made lots of mistakes. Have they been sacked?This must be such a stressful situation for the Shire President, will he be capable of leading the council if he is unwell? This is what worries me....the people who are in council now might not be able to do the job because they are so stressed out. Maybe a commissioner/s, like Canning, is what's needed. Someone completely removed from the local politics with no bias or hidden agendas. This will give the present councilors time to regroup before they come back that's if they can come back? Then again do we want them back if they have been doing such a terrible job and are as corrupt as the Fitzgerald Report and the Show Cause notice states. I'm just worried York will never recover and will continue to be the laughing stock of the Wheatbelt. Maybe amalgamation is the answer, let Northam deal with the problems! Now I'm feeling really depressed!
ReplyDeleteConcerned Citizen: PLEASE read my comment listed as being on 4 Jan at 22:31 and that written at 23:07.
DeleteFirstly, the suggestions you made here will not work and would take us backwards even further. Secondly, the Fitz Gerald (2 words in this case) Report refers to actions undertaken when others (not Matthew Reid) were Shire Presidents and when we had Ray Hooper as CEO, and before two of the recent Councillors resigned.
In fact, one of those recent Councillors who resigned came in on it all towards the end. (Not that he didn't let us down re the SITA business, but at least he was not impolite in responses to people asking questions in meetings, and never had a 'black mark' from the Department regarding going against the Code of Conduct, which in Cr. Boyle's case required and resulted in a Public Notice to that effect being posted in newspapers by order of the Department.)
We still have 4 Councillors who, with these old elements gone, could already re-group and work together in harmony for the good of all citizens if they all have a will to do so.
So far as I know, nothing is happening regarding the Fitz Gerald Report. It seems there are people in power who want to bury it.
DeleteThe police should be investigating, but so far as I know they are not.
No, the CCC haven't investigated, so far as I know. Has anybody asked them to?
The show cause notice is a sham. Don't believe everything you read in the papers, especially in the Avon Valley Gazette, which seems to have taken the side of a former CEO who resigned in what some might consider disgrace and appears to have been busy persuading the Minister and his department to make trouble for the present council.
No, the remaining councillors haven't been sacked. The Minister and his department have threatened to suspend them for 6 months and require them to undergo training.
Yes, I believe our current Shire President, Matthew Reid, has been placed unfairly under a great deal of stress by the Minister and his department, apparently at the instigation of a few disgruntled councillors of 'the old guard' and members/former members of council staff. Those are people who seem to be in some danger if the Fitz Gerald allegations are investigated. In my opinion, and not only mine, Matthew is the best hope for this currently moribund town. If he is forced to withdraw from the fray, the 'terrorists' will have won!
No, we don't need a commissioner. We need a shire president and council committed to open, honest and accountable government - the buzz word is 'transparency' - with fresh elections to replace the councillors who have resigned with new folk who have York's interests at heart. And we need policies to revive the town, especially to develop its tourist potential. And if it exists at any level, we need to root out corruption mercilessly.
No, Matthew Reid and his supporters on council have not been doing a terrible job. They are not the ones targeted by the Fitz Gerald Report. They've been doing their best in the teeth of opposition from the old guard and unwarranted interference from the Minister and his department.
Yes, York will recover, if we support Crs Reid, Smythe and Wallace and elect new councillors of a similar calibre to work with them. It's a beautiful town full of beautiful people. Keep the faith!
Northam deal with the problems? You must be joking!!!
Thanks James...the Northam comment was 'tongue in cheek' as I know they too have had their fair share of trouble in the past.
DeleteCan you tell me what qualifications Cr. Smythe and Wallace have, I know Cr Reid owns the chemist. Also, what happened to the recruitment of a new CEO. I think York will be hard pressed to find someone qualified and experienced enough, not to mention willing to take on the position. I'm not sure what the acting CEO is like but I did read a comment back along about him being a sleazebag...so I take it he's not much good either? And is isn't he related to Cr Reid?
Anonymous10 December 2014 at 00:59
Mr Graeme Simpson is the latest in a long line of sleazebags to join the ranks of the Shire of York.
According to our newest CEO, any matter which is mentioned in the Fitzgerald Report could have legal implications, therefore, the Shire will not comment on any matter remotely related to the report.
Cr Reid has tertiary qualifications in pharmacy and business. I don't know what qualifications Crs Wallace and Smythe have. There's probably some pertinent information on the Shire's official blogspot. I've met them both and they struck me as good people, not lacking in brains!
DeleteQualifications are important but not decisive in public life. Integrity coupled with shrewdness are worth a dozen degrees. I can say this with some confidence because I have a fair swag of letters after my name, including the magic PhD, but I don't think I'd make a very good councillor or MP because I'm a poor public speaker, introverted, mildly self-opinionated and probably a bit 'on the spectrum'. However, I fancy myself a good judge of character, and I'd trust Crs Reid, Smythe and Wallace to take care of my interests way over Minister Simpson or his underlings in the DLGC.
Nothing I have heard or read about Acting CEO Simpson indicates that he is a sleazebag. Quite the reverse. Yes, he is related to Cr Reid by marriage - I believe he may be Mrs Reid's uncle. Cr Reid declared this when Mr Simpson was appointed.
I support Matthew Reid because I believe he is the right man to lead York out of 'the slough of despond'. He and I are not personally acquainted.
I am a ratepayer of York and I would trust Cr. Reid over Minister Simpson or anyone in the DLG.
DeleteCr. Reid has not let us down - the Minister and the DLG have.
HAAT...I find your comments a little patronizing. Are you aware of how 'their' system works? What dealings have you had with them? DLG and Loc Gov are not 'things', they are people like you and I that have faults and aren't perfect but are doing the best they can. I believe the majority of people who work in LG are there for the right reasons, same as there are many elected members trying to do what's right for their communities. If we don't believe this then where are we to go? I think it is very sad that you have become so cynical that you think LG is there just to make life hard for a select few. Maybe, as someone said earlier, you should try walking in the shoes of someone else...someone who has been a councilor or worked in LG, for example.
ReplyDeleteI'm not here to make enemies or deliberately try and upset anyone.
Elizabeth, I think you are mistaken on almost every point, but I would be very sorry to think that speaking your mind honestly will make enemies for you. I congratulate you again on having the courage to identify yourself while expressing unpopular opinions.
DeletePart 1: Elizabeth, you have said: "I believe the majority of people who work in LG are there for the right reasons, same as there are many elected members trying to do what's right for their communities. If we don't believe this then where are we to go?"
DeleteI personally believe that many people who go into politics (whether federal, state or local) do so with good intentions to serve the people etc.... However, once they are there they are under pressure from colleagues and the community to move in certain directions. Sometimes they end up wanting to pander to e.g. a CEO or a community faction to move towards certain ends. Sometimes they can benefit by being given contracts from companies who put the pressure on for their products to be promoted, or benefit from gaining clients to their businesses as a result of their new position, etc.... There is always a chance that their good intentions will get corrupted and they change the views of what would otherwise have been 'their better selves', or in effect 'sell their soul to the devil' for the sake of something they desire or that would raise their esteem among their particular set of friends, or be beneficial to their family.
They have to declare an interest, but even then if they have lobbied their supporters in the community, merely declaring it may not prevent all potential corruption.
The people of York who bother to speak out do so BECAUSE they have been the victims (or even just observers) of corruption, or activities designed to stymie just actions, or bullying, or poor communication skills, or unintended errors even.
Part 2 of Reply to Elizabeth:
DeleteCorruption such as putated misuse of the CEO's Credit Card is one of the more obvious forms, but there are subtle varieties. It can even go to lobbying of friends by e.g. a one-to-one quiet word to one's friend out in the main street, standing talking to the driver of a parked car where one cannot be overheard. Lobbying is not necessarily wrong, but is if its purpose is to cause advantage to one set of citizens (one's friends)and disadvantage to others.
Stymying of just actions happened, for instance, whens the Fitz Gerald Report in draft at least was blocked from being available to those named and those who brought their complaints to the investigator when the opportunity was provided) — by stealth in this instance). The 3 particular Councillors (2 of whom since then read the writing on the wall and left Council) met with the CEO and took action to bring this blockage about. In blocking the distribution to these people, they caused them to be denied the opportunity to correct any instances where they may have been misquoted, for instance. And that is just one such act that has been exposed.
Bullying of the public has taken place in the form of such things as: (a) Shire Officials sending letters ordering actions which were not required by the Shire or Department regulations; (b) Council gagging certain people from asking reasonable numbers of questions per meeting in Public Question time; (c) officials being apparently sent to lay false accusations against citizens who spoke up, or their animals' behaviours; (d) vile (and I mean truly vile) letters impugning the recipients' character being sent by both CEO and Councillor (a former President); and so on.
You think this is doing things for the right reasons?
Blind belief in the never-tainted goodness of public officials is contraindicated in the case of certain councillors (more past than now) in York. (Not that we cannot easily find instances in other Councils and Towns in the past. Newspapers and sackings of other Councils have exposed this a number of times.)
Not only Councils or Councillors. Former CEOs and some Officers have been guilty of unduly and corruptly pressuring citizens and defying orders from e.g. the Freedom of Information Commissioner (or even in some cases orders of an interim CEO) to produce documents which people had a right to see.
Citizens of York have in reality been stung by wrongdoing (acts of commission) and by failures to do right (acts of omission). They are not making it up. Can not you try to understand why many of York have lost faith in the DLG and other agencies who have ignored (often, even if not always) repeated evidence of inappropriate (sorry, James, about using this weasel word) acts of commission and omission sent in by individual citizens in justified letters to the officials?
And this does not even cover things like misreporting of some questions asked in Shire Meetings in the past, or poor communication, or impolite things said in public forums, or unintended errors.
Give the grieved the benefit of believing that they might, indeed, have a point.
DeleteElizabeth, you are quite correct in what you say, " they are people like you and I that have faults and aren't perfect". However, the DLG and Local Government are "things", by definition they are Corporate Bodies. Therefore, a public legal entity is a public law legal person, the institutions thereof or other similarly institutionally formed person, who has an administrative procedural capacity to act. Where the Local Government Act states, "the local government has the legal capacity of a natural person", this is only for the purposes of entering into contracts etc.
In a perfect world, an entity is devoid of emotion and personality, in the real world this is not the case.
Yes, the DLG and Loc. Gov. are people and yes they have their faults and they are not perfect. That is the very reason why the Fitz Gerald report was done!
DeleteThere may be people in these organisations who mean well. Unfortunately they are not the ones we have been dealing with.
We can only go on our experience Elizabeth. For many dealing with the previous council and Ray Hooper was like hell on earth and it was not just 'a select few'.
One of the complainants in the Fitz Gerald Report WAS a former York councillor and she is walking in her shoes! AND we walked beside her!
Of course Councillors Reid, Smythe and Wallace were not mentioned in the Fitzgerald Report ... they commissioned, controlled and released it! The Report was a witch hunt from the beginning.
DeleteAnonymous 6th Jan. 17.50
DeleteSorry, you got that wrong. Six councillors (Reid, Smythe, Wallace, Boyle Hooper and Duperouzel) voted unanimously to conduct the inquiry (Fitz Gerald Report) - refer to Special council minutes April.
April 14 2014 council meeting
DeleteVoting to engage Fitz - Gerald strategies to investigate a staff member ( Ray Hooper I believe he jumped ship on the 15th please correct me if I am wrong) If Reid Wallace or Reid had done anything wrong I can assure you they would have been in the report. but they had not common sense tells you if your names not on the list your not included. any ways as you can see it was voted unanimously by all councillors actually.
9.6 Confidential Reports
9.6.1 Matter Relating to a Member of Staff
RESOLUTION
170414
Moved: Cr Smythe Seconded: Cr Duperouzel
“That Council:
Go “Into Committee” to consider the Confidential Report at 5.13pm.”
CARRIED: 6/0
The Gallery and all Staff were requested to leave the room. Helen D‟Arcy-Walker was requested to remain for the recording of the Minutes.
get your facts straight better to remain quiet an be perceived a fool that make comment and remove all doubt .
I confess I know very little about the background to the building of the Recreation Centre. I'm eager to learn more.
ReplyDeleteFrom personal experience (visiting the Centre on a couple of rainy nights) I can vouch for the accuracy of the description 'quagmire'.
The centre is advertised in the York Business Directory as having a licensed bar and restaurant. Do these do good business? What about the 'conference and convention facilities', also advertised in the business directory - have they made any money, and if so, how much? Were targets set, what were they, have they been achieved?
Was a feasibility study undertaken before the council decided to build the centre? If so, when and by whom? Did the study generate a report, and if so, is it available to the public, and where can we get copies?
If the centre is in fact the white elephant it seems to be, why keep throwing money at it? If it isn't, what can be done to make it worthwhile?
And of course, how much has it cost so far and what is it forecast to cost over, say, the next 3 years? Aren't we entitled to know?
It seems unfair that the public-spirited Ms Walters should have had to spend time, money and energy trying to get information through FOI that should have been freely available to all of us. We owe her a loud vote of thanks.
James, this has always been Trish's baby, she's the one who has all the facts and figure, be patient though.
DeleteEx Cr.Trish Walters said for months and months there must be a whole of life costing done and they (Boyle and Hooper) just shut her down and treated her appallingly.appallingly. Agreed, Trish can be frustrating but is a lovely person and did her research on this project.
DeleteMany ratepayers asked questions at council meetings about the funding to build the Rec Centre as it just didn't add up. Pat and Tony always said they would support it unreservedly because it didn't cost us (the community) anything as it was all fully funded- but it just wasn't! I am not an accountant but it was glaringly obvious even to me.
Of course questions were shut down from the public as well on this issue.
Soon after completion they realized they forgot to get tables/chairs etc, oops another $80K, then the oval was all wrong and their were drainage problems, oops another $80K, sinkholes etc etc etc etc and it is still a band aided amenity today.
Tony and Pat always claimed "We are not accountants." I've got news for anyone who is intending on running for Council. You do not have to be an accountant but you must have a basic understanding finances at least. If you are not sure you MUST ask questions and clarify what you are being asked to decide and the implications of that decision.
What you should absolutely never do is blindly follow the CEO or anyone else. Ignorance is no excuse when you have been elected to manage OUR MONEY!
Perhaps instead of taking offence to ratepayers querying their decisions and making it personal thereafter Boyle, Scott, Randall, Duper and Pooper should have listed carefully to the ratepayers questions because ratepayers did the homework they were too ignorant or too lazy to do.
Please Matthew don't give up otherwise it was all for nothing.
The DLG is the problem not the solution. Part 8 of the act spells out its powers and duties but it uses them selectively. Corruption includes omission as well as commission and a current example is this bizarre case in Queensland involving the palmer executive where the fraud squad allegedly did nothing with a complaint. York has only started to fight.
ReplyDeleteA very simple question is why has the DLG never investigated all the previous complaints about York? Try and get a straight answer from Simpson on that small fact. Perhaps admin needs to widely distribute this blog site to the ministers chief of staff, the pollies and the media. It is a reasonable question why has the DLG turned a blind eye to York for so long and then selected a very narrow time line. What are the 100 plus staff doing? Get your pens and keyboards out people and ask the questions of the minister. It will all be on the record what ever weak response. We now control the time line.
ReplyDeleteI recently wrote to Minister Simpson, cc'd Shadow Minister for LG: David Templeman, Leader of the opposition: Hon. Mark McGowan and Member for Wheatbelt Hon. Mia Davies enclosing countless emails both to and from the DLG dating back to April 2013.
ReplyDeleteI sent these emails to Minister Simpson as documented evidence of how the DLG handled complaints. The complaint was, the way Tony Boyle handled Public Question time.
The last correspondence I received from the DLG regarding this complaint was dated 27th May, 2013: 'Yes, we have received the Shire’s comments and we are in the process of finalising the matter. As you are aware, there do appear to be a few issues with the Shire’s Public Question Time processes, which we are currently looking at. We will respond to you in writing as soon as our assessment is completed. This should be in the next few weeks.'
The word FEW means: not many, hardly any, scarcely any, one or two.
I am still waiting for the results of the assessment 19 months on and Minister Simpson says York Council is the problem and has just suspended them for six months.
I asked Minister Simpson to inquire as to why the Director General of the DLG had not recommended a 'show cause notice' be served on the then Shire President Tony Boyle.
To date I have only received an automated acknowledgement.
if you search your emails, I think you will find a response on 12 July 2013
DeleteJust heard the York Council have been suspended...it was on the 6PR news this afternoon.
ReplyDeleteToday democracy died in York!
ReplyDeleteI will not be voting for the Liberals or the Nationals again!
Just emailed Shadow Minister for Local Gov.
ReplyDeleteGood Afternoon Mr. Templeman,
I am more than disappointed in the lack of assistance you provided to the people of York.
What exactly is going on? Has Minister Simpson ripped away our Council so we cannot fight the proposed landfill site?
Why should York become a receptical for the rubbish from the metropolitan area?
Now is the time for you to hold to your word - hold the Government to account.
If a team of 6 QC's believe there is a case to answer yet the CCC don't (and yes they have received a very detailed complaint.) So it just proves the cover up goes to the very top.
ReplyDeleteThis means those who were brave enough to be published in the Fitzgerald report are unlikely to get any justice and have once again been silenced at great personal and professional cost.
Just look at Laurelvillemanor who still don't have a license to operate. 66 letters of support and only 6 complaints, two of which don't live in York. That's what happens when you stick your neck out in York. Yet Jurman decides to license the old hospital just in case. There wasn't even an application lodged.
It's no wonder so many comments are anonymous. People with large mortgages can't afford to be targeted. At least the Reid led council put a stop to this sort of thing but alas people now live in fear of persecution again knowing the DLG will back the dark side even in the face of 4 very large files of documented evidence which show all if the ministers accusations were a complete fabrication of the truth.
Ccc and DLG won't act so who will?
This is astonishing and very disturbing. Is it true?
DeleteWho were the 6 QCs? Who submitted the report to them, and when? Is there a repository of their opinions, and if so, is it available for review?
Who submitted a detailed complaint to the CCC? When did that body reject it, and for what reasons?
Those who seek justice should never lose hope. Perhaps we need to form a residents' committee to hold those in power accountable and support the people they hurt. What individuals can't do, organised communities often can.
I am equally astonished to read the information above.
DeleteCan more information on who, when and why be published on this site.
I will be forever grateful to the person that created this blog site.
From one of those 'still hurting' - thank you James.
What about sending the four files, together with the findings of the 6 QC's to Four Corners.
ReplyDeleteNow that would be interesting!
DeleteI find it unconscionable that the Minister would say the council meetings have not run in a proper manner. DLG told me public question time must be open for 15mins. I submitted eight examples under Tony's reign where it was under 5 mins. DLG responded by saying that is not allowed unless there was swearing,inappropriate questions, ratepayers questioned compentcy of staff etc.
ReplyDeleteOn occasion I witnessed ratepayers ask questions about things that should be public record like credit card statements and financial reports for the recreation centre. Not only was question time stopped short but one ratepayer was not allowed to ask questions for 18 months.DLG of course said that is not allowed either. However they did nothing about it.
They went on to say it must be proved. You are not allowed however to record the meetings.
So I suggested DLG send a representative to a meeting or two suspecting of course Tony would toe. the line with DLG present however something had to be done.DLG explained that is not something they do. Yet when mathew becomes president and Boyle, Hooper and Duper start complaining they're here in a flash.
Councillors Hooper, Boyle, Scott, Randall and RH never could wrap their heads around our right to know financial answers. York's budget money and town amenities belong to all of us it is not theirs. We vote them in - well some of you did, to represent us. We have to assume they will act on behalf of us and share openly with us our financial status.
The DLG are toothless tigers and are going to bury this. You all need to start writing to Barnett.
If Ccc have received a complaint about misappropriated funds and have chosen not to act then we're doomed. From the credit card statements I have seen (available now at the Shire thanks to Matthew) there are some major anomalies.
Do I assume to know more than the CCC? Absolutely not, I question their honesty not their ability.
I do not believe we are doomed. The DLG and Minister have chosen to place an obstacle in our way. We just have to work out how to circumnavigate it.
Delete.
must be proved that someone was told they could not ask questions for 18 months what a ratepayers word isn't as good as a person in local government or just not as good as a corrupt CEO or Councillor, CCC they have already been investigated for corruption themselves. the worlds a joke and we the honest have to keep our wits about us not to fall into the quagmire of the things we detest the most.
ReplyDeleteAn obstacle in our way? We just have to work out how to circumnavigate it? I am dizzy from 8 years of trying to circumnavigate it. It just gets worse and worse. Matthew was my shining hope for a better future. At least now many of the apathetic York people who just labelled those trying to make a difference troublemakers are now standing up to be counted. Too much too late though I fear.
ReplyDelete