THE LEHMANN REPORT.........WHERE IS IT?
Sent: Tuesday,
October 21, 2014 11:19 AM
To: David
Taylor
Subject:
RE: GUY LEHMANN/ YRCC
Hello David,
It business plan will be ready shortly.
Thank you for your suggestion about
publishing a summary in the Community Newspaper.
I will ensure that occurs
Regards
Michael
Michael Keeble
Chief Executive Officer
From: David
TAYLOR
To: GRAEME SIMPSON
Cc: JAMES BEST cc TONY SIMPSON
Subject: GUY LEHMANN/ YORK RECREATION AND CONVENTION CENTRE.
To: GRAEME SIMPSON
Cc: JAMES BEST cc TONY SIMPSON
Subject: GUY LEHMANN/ YORK RECREATION AND CONVENTION CENTRE.
Gentlemen,
Firstly, I hope that as you reflect upon the content of the Shire of York Blog you begin to realise that you are both just PUBLIC SERVANTS, meaning that you are hired through the public purse to provide-
Firstly, I hope that as you reflect upon the content of the Shire of York Blog you begin to realise that you are both just PUBLIC SERVANTS, meaning that you are hired through the public purse to provide-
1. reliable, relevant information to
the public,
2.
the services required by ratepayers
3.
appropriate, adequate local community support.
This means to YORK- not Tony
Simpson! (If this is not correct can you please advise exactly what you are
supposed to be doing.)
Secondly- the BLOG stays. If you and Mr. Simpson want it removed, do it the way Joe Public would have to. Seek a court injunction to ban its broadcast and personally sign the affidavit so everyone knows who you are and what your problem is with it. The name for this act is showing ‘intestinal fortitude’. However, the injunction could be considered as an unconscionable attempt to supress public debate and thereby the democratic process. Something I suggest you should think very carefully about doing.
You will note from the above correspondence from your foul-mouthed, former colleague, Michael Keeble, that the development of a business plan by Guy Lehmann for the YRCC is the ‘it(sic) business plan will be ready shortly’. Do you James, and you Graeme, consider that four (4) months is “ready shortly” and that it takes six (6) months or more to come up with a new business plan for a financially viable, public funded, $7.8 million community asset?
The extremely honest and honourable, Mr. Keeble, promised me that a summary of the report would be published for all the York community to view. Are you James, and you Graeme, going to honour your colleagues promise?
At a meeting with the forthright, Mr Keeble, he told me that the YRCC could be considered close to being a financial basket case and that the local sporting clubs should staff it, thereby reducing, what he intimated as being, a $150,000, plus, per annum, un-recouped debt to the Shire of York. We did not discuss that Keeble’s salary package was around $100,000 more than the YRCC’s staff debt accrual. (I am sure, in combination, your salary packages are in excess of $500,000.)
So James, and you Graeme, is the YRCC a basket case? where is the report? or you have you even heard of it?
Minister Simpson was alacritous in giving the Shire of York just 21 days to respond to his infamous“Show Cause Notice”.
Seeing this report, like the Fitz Gerald Report, could be fair and reasonably claimed to be the property of York Ratepayers not a government agency, let’s give you ten (10) working days to come up with a satisfactory public statement in reply regarding the Lehmann Report. That is satisfactory to the people of York, not you. Your time is up as of 5 pm (WST) 10 February, 2015.
Otherwise a letter of complaint will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecution demanding where the report is, but more importantly where the municipal funds used to pay for this currently non-existent document are!
DAVID TAYLOR- YORK RATEPAYER.
Secondly- the BLOG stays. If you and Mr. Simpson want it removed, do it the way Joe Public would have to. Seek a court injunction to ban its broadcast and personally sign the affidavit so everyone knows who you are and what your problem is with it. The name for this act is showing ‘intestinal fortitude’. However, the injunction could be considered as an unconscionable attempt to supress public debate and thereby the democratic process. Something I suggest you should think very carefully about doing.
You will note from the above correspondence from your foul-mouthed, former colleague, Michael Keeble, that the development of a business plan by Guy Lehmann for the YRCC is the ‘it(sic) business plan will be ready shortly’. Do you James, and you Graeme, consider that four (4) months is “ready shortly” and that it takes six (6) months or more to come up with a new business plan for a financially viable, public funded, $7.8 million community asset?
The extremely honest and honourable, Mr. Keeble, promised me that a summary of the report would be published for all the York community to view. Are you James, and you Graeme, going to honour your colleagues promise?
At a meeting with the forthright, Mr Keeble, he told me that the YRCC could be considered close to being a financial basket case and that the local sporting clubs should staff it, thereby reducing, what he intimated as being, a $150,000, plus, per annum, un-recouped debt to the Shire of York. We did not discuss that Keeble’s salary package was around $100,000 more than the YRCC’s staff debt accrual. (I am sure, in combination, your salary packages are in excess of $500,000.)
So James, and you Graeme, is the YRCC a basket case? where is the report? or you have you even heard of it?
Minister Simpson was alacritous in giving the Shire of York just 21 days to respond to his infamous“Show Cause Notice”.
Seeing this report, like the Fitz Gerald Report, could be fair and reasonably claimed to be the property of York Ratepayers not a government agency, let’s give you ten (10) working days to come up with a satisfactory public statement in reply regarding the Lehmann Report. That is satisfactory to the people of York, not you. Your time is up as of 5 pm (WST) 10 February, 2015.
Otherwise a letter of complaint will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecution demanding where the report is, but more importantly where the municipal funds used to pay for this currently non-existent document are!
DAVID TAYLOR- YORK RATEPAYER.
David-Over $4000 was spent on a Events Policy as well. Another great initiative my Matthew Reid to get all the wrongs righted. It was done and presented to Council to go out for public comment for 28 days. Michael Keeble never bought it back to Council. Where is that document? If not finalized, no doubt in years to come it will be paid to be done again.
ReplyDeleteWell that's easy answered Mr Simpson said every one will be paid because the council voted on it and that's just how it is and well everyone is still waiting and wondering.
ReplyDeleteSome pungent points here.
ReplyDeletePungent definition: adj. adjective
Affecting the organs of taste or smell with a sharp acrid sensation.
Penetrating, biting, or caustic.
pungent satire.
To the point; sharp.
Glad two of you have pointed out some stats re Rec. Centre (I have refrained from using the popular spelling in vogue here for "Rec."), David, and the Events Policy, Bill.
Missing documents, overspends, failure to put things on public record which should be there, und so weiter (etc.).
It is a genuine question as to whether Good Mr Best and Mr. Graeme Simpson have ever seen and read, let alone been advised of, the Lehmann Report and the Events Policy and what happened to someone who was given a job in connection with Events but not the requirements necessary for doing the job. So that also fell through.
To make progress in this town and shire it is necessary for the people 'in charge' to know what has been done, where it should be, and who should be informed about the outcomes (us); because if this is not so, then, as Bill says, no-one knows where they stand and what might need doing about it, and: yes, these reports could become more of the same — reinvented at new cost, and waste of taxpayer money, some time in the future.
And thank you, David, for apprising Minister Simpson of yet another stuffup, coverup or deliberate sabotage (whatever it is and may be called) that cannot be laid at the door of Cr. Reid, but elsewhere.
A few sphincter's will be twitching with disquiet after reading this post. I heard of this report, the matter has been raised during public question time, the 'Lehmann Report' has/will cost $10,000, that's 10K which will go down exactly the same pan as the Fitzgerald Report, the same pan as Mr Best will take a dump.
ReplyDeleteIf the Lehmann Report contains anything embarrassing or throws up any anomalies Best and Simpson will bury it. It appears there is NO limit to the lengths the mob will go to to protect itself.
We all know the Rec Centre is a damp squid, you only have to visit the place when its open, it's a morgue, ironically looks like a morgue with the white tiled surfaces everywhere!
It was doomed to fail from the start, a psychopathic CEO managed to convince six weak Councillors (which wouldn't have taken much) that he was capable of overseeing the construction of the new pub. Then at some mandatory annually allotted time, has his subordinate to appraise him on how f*****g great he is, and no one from the Reich Chancellery noticed!
The pious psyco's smoko buddy was up to her neck in unaccountable management practices during the construction of the morgue, to date she would be the only person who has any idea of how much its cost.
Mr Best's first port of call should be Gale Mastic the FOI queen (Fuck Off Idiot, how dare you question me) and get her to spill the beans on the true cost of the project.
I'm sure this subject is not going to disappear, regardless how hard Mr Best and his cronies try!
there is a paper trail that has been collected by a very concerned ratepayer regarding the true cost of the rec " morgue" and at last count it has had 12 million poured into it.
DeleteMaybe this concerned citizen would like to share it, or is it to be one of those famous rumours which tend to get exaggerated each time its told, York's renowned for it!
DeleteYes Peter, York is renowned for rumours and those targeted by the SOY were subjected to the cruelest of rumours, rumours that were generated by Councillors Boyle, Hooper, Scott, Lawrance, Randell and Ray Hooper.
DeleteFred, please read the comments properly before responding. What you have done is spread another rumour which has no relevance to the question Peter asked. He asked Anonymous if factual documents exist to support the costing for the rec centre as opposed to that information being supposition or rumour..
DeleteBlogmaster you know those nights when you just can't sleep, you remember something and your paper work is stored away for that day when certain people realise that the bums they covered were not worthy,
ReplyDeleteSo you go on line to the Shire of York website click on council, click on minutes, enter the year.
OMG the minutes there's meetings were no ratepayers asked Questions when did that happen some one has edited minutes from 2007 to well into 2011. well that's how far I got to look! need my beauty sleep at 5 am.
MR Best, Mr G Simpson, Mr T Simpson, this is terrible, some one has doctored them OMG, how does this happen.
Oh its ok were not that stupid fear not!!! either we have several copies of the minutes as posted by the Shire of York and our own notes.
Lucky hey hate for all those questions about misconduct credit cards convents to be lost now that would be sad. Bet that's a relief.
Who would have done such a thing? Tsk Tsk.
Really its incredible.
If this is true, it has to be outed publicly in every detail.
DeleteYes, and if true, it needs to be checked rigorously for every year since 2007, by more than one person.
DeleteI've just done a quick random search of minutes for 2009. It looks to me very much like the minutes have been doctored with regard to public question time. I'd be grateful if others would search other years and post their results.
If anyone has collected council minutes over the years, please do a random check and comparison with the minutes in your possession and let everyone know what you have found.
Meanwhile, I intend to seek advice as to whether or not doctoring minutes is a criminal act. I think it is.
This has serious implications for FOI inquiries now afoot. If - I emphasise that 'if' - the department is involved in a cover-up of which doctoring minutes is a part, we can expect to see little or no evidence that ratepayers complained to DLGC about council activities during the long reign of presidents Boyle and Hooper and CEO Ray Hooper.
People who sanction the destruction of minutes would be quite capable of shredding embarrassing correspondence and notes of conversations.
That could torpedo our campaign for an enquiry, as it would be intended to do.
Of course, there might be a simple and legitimate explanation...If so, let's hear it.
"incredible" in the truest sense of the word. I'd also add "doubtful" to the claim.
DeleteNever mind the permanently retained hard-copies, copies that are retained at State archives and/or presumably available at the local library and the countless electronic versions repeatedly stored in backups and in the vast array of email mailboxes of councillors and shire workers past and present (and similarly backed up over and over and over again).
Never mind the fact that every page of minutes must be endorsed thereby necessitating the creation of at least one hard copy.
Never mind a whole bunch of rules, regs, obligations, and practices regarding the taking and keeping of minutes.
Never mind any of that for moment (and a lot more I cannot be bothered to type).
Simply bung, say, www.york.wa.gov.au minutes 2007 pdf into google and see what comes back ... and realise it would be utter folly as well as a damning exercise in futility for anyone to doctor minutes that have at any time been published to the internut.
As you can quickly see, google finds much, caches much ... and more often than not can provide quick and easy access to much that might not be obvious to locate on a website.
And that is just google.
There is also a wonderful online service called "the way back machine". Try it some time and be amazed.
All that said, I personally would think it awesome if a shire employee has doctored or been instructed to doctor past official minutes and it could be proved.
What an excuse that would be for the CCC to Really get involved.
Mmmmm, over the years, all those emails flying between all sorts of (presumably) exchange databases that have been backed up over and over and over again at both source and destination.
And that would be just for starters.
In short, anything that has already made its way out into the public domain (such as minutes that have at any time been published and viewed online), is there basically for keeps.
Surely everyone knows that these days ... which is why I find it doubtful that any attempts at doctoring have taken place.
... but here is to hoping that it has. :-) ;-)
Thank you for a realistic and a good post - far too many conspiracy theorists at play on here at the moment. I say, if you don't have the fact don't bother to post or if you do have the facts - share them!
DeleteJames, I am one who is/am going through the Minutes when I have time. Will take a few days. In 2011 there were only 3 meetings out of all the general and the special meetings in which there are no Questions (plus the meeting that endorsed the newly-elected Councillor in October). The other 14 all had questions — in some cases plenty of them. For some reason, one October meeting's Minutes were put up twice (once in the expected place and once down near the set of Appendices). I will go through the other years, but I can pretty safely say that the 2011 Minutes seem to accurately reflect the actual questions. If they were doctored they would not expose the questions so openly and as far as I can see hiding nothing. But, over the weekend I will go through more.
DeleteThe minutes have not been doctored, that implies they have been deliberately changed after the fact. However, some minutes do not reflect the meetings accurately, questions were 'summarised', some, to such an extent they no longer made sense.
DeleteOn occasions (especially in the early days), the questions simply were not recorded in the minutes and there is the problem, how do you prove it?
The only known provable occasion when minutes were deliberately changed (doctored) was after it was discovered that Councillors Boyle & Scott received municipally funded legal advice from Elizabeth Stevenson, Special Council, McLeods Solicitors in September 2012.
Councillors Boyle & Scott denied having such a meeting (recorded), Council then changed the minutes at the following Council meeting, effectively removing all reference for the reason of the meeting.
Over 12 months later, documents surfaced which categorically proved the purpose of the meeting and that it took place, as recorded in the original minutes.
The minutes were then 'corrected' for a second time to reflect the true purpose of expenditure of municipal funds.
The documents are in the CEO's office for public inspection.
I certainly agree that Minutes in the past did not always quote questions accurately, and did at times mangle questions so badly by (e.g. leaving out parts of sentences) that when read through they did not make sense, and at times misrepresented what the questioner actually said. One might think that there was collusion to make the questioner seem foolish or 'not quite there', but it might just as much have been incompetence on the part of the person typing up the Minutes. It was off-putting, though, and may well have put some people off asking questions for fear of being misquoted. Eventually they asked people to hand in written versions of their questions, but even then it is up to the accuracy of the transcriber. Sometimes hard to say what actually happened — mostly accident, probably; maybe not always, depending on whether the boss was overseeing; but not always possible to know.
DeleteI complained to DLG no less than 6 times over the last couple of years about questions being recorded which had no resemblance to the actual question which was asked. I sent the DLG a copy of the written question, the published question and the answer if any.
DeleteYou're right, in that most times the question was summarized beyond recognition and the answer therefore had no relevance or bearing. The DLG said "they only have to show that the meeting flowed." Ridiculous and completely pointless having question and answer time then really! It allowed Ray, Pat and Tony to ensure your voice is not heard if they don't like what you're asking.
I'm not talking pre-amble here I am talking about removing the whole context of a question.
I have many, many examples of this and so does the DLG. Yet the DLG have the nerve to say they had a problem with the way Matthew ran Council meetings? Truly amazing.
Also allows them to not let you ask a question at all like they did to one ratepayer. DLG told them they cannot exclude anyone form asking questions but they did it anyway for 18 months. What did DLG do about it? Nothing.
Thank you, everyone who has taken the trouble to put me back on the right path.
DeleteIt's not the minutes that were doctored. It's the truth that was doctored, when the minutes were written.
Who needs conspiracy theories when that kind of thing was going on?
(unable to add comment to latest blog post so trying here instead)
DeleteIn response to shireofyork6302 re: a shrewd course of action
Another shrewd course of action could be to google up and study a copy of the "Public Interest Disclosure Act of 2003" which is often located (along with a useful blurb as to what it is all about and the contact details for the local PID officer, etc) on the websites of other councils and shires.
Searching for that document via the Shire of York website does not currently bear a positive result and nor does there seem to be even the slightest hint on the website as to what the "Public Interest Disclosure" act is all about.
Not to worry though, for surely the webmaster for the Shire of York will soon be directed to address such an oversight, yes ?.
Has Mr Best actually done any Shire work yet? He is the Council but it seems that council meetings have ceased. Just another way to avoid public scrutiny, keep his boss Simmo happy that the York situation is under control and fleece the public purse.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand it right the suspended councillors are now to be retrained in North Korea and when suitably brain dead after six months Simmo may allow them back to run the council, but then there will be an election and some/all replaced by new councillors that have not been retrained in North Korea.
So where does that leave this new superbly trained compliant united group of councillors? Or do we have four retrained clones and the rest untrained? Gee that will see a steady as she goes resolution to the problem wont it. Pigs may fly yet.
This retraining strategy is nothing more than an excuse for Simmo to be seen as acting tough and trying to bury the past.
Sorry Simmo failed again. All you have achieved is to pour fuel on the fire and you are going to get burnt.
The Mia Davies post was to inform the community that she would be present at the Australia Day celebration, the post has been removed because it served its purpose and is no longer topical.
ReplyDeleteOk, i accept that. And was thinking something more sinister but i still maintain my concerns that the local member has deserted York in favour of her cabinet role. If anyone could get answers to our questions it should be the local mp especially a Minister.
ReplyDeleteShe may turn up for a feel good public event but missing in action for the most serious crisis to effect the community.