Shire of York

Shire of York

Monday, 5 January 2015

York Shire suspended by WA Local Government Minister Tony Simpson following complaints

Updated
The Shire of York council in WA's Wheatbelt has been suspended for six months following complaints about its ability to provide good governance.
In November, Local Government Minister Tony Simpson wrote to the council, outlining numerous concerns regarding staff conduct and procedures.
He was also unhappy with the shire's failure to properly manage and control a leaked report into the dealings of its former chief executive, Ray Hooper.
Today, Mr Simpson said the council could not prove why it should not be suspended.
"I have formed the view that there is sufficient evidence that it is inappropriate for the Shire of York's council to continue without intervention," he said.
"Nothing submitted to me by the Shire of York has changed my mind about the need for the council to be suspended and a commissioner appointed, so that's what I have done."
Councillors will now be required to undertake training in leadership, governance and meeting procedures, while business consultant and former South Perth Mayor, James Best, will be appointed as the shire's commissioner.
Mr Best will assume control of the council from midnight tonight.
The Minister said the appointment should help restore public confidence in the shire.

Investigation finds 'significant' number of issues

The decision followed a two-month investigation into the shire's activities by the Department of Local Government and Communities.
"During the monitoring period, a significant number of issues emerged, giving rise to concerns about the council's ability to effectively manage the operations of the shire and to provide good government for the people in its district," Mr Simpson said.
In the department's report, it was alleged the shire failed to maintain a proper documented record of its decision making processes, failed to deal with a code of conduct complaint in a professional manner and failed to control public question time at council meetings.
A number of allegations were directed at Shire President Matthew Reid.
It was alleged there were ongoing conflicts between Mr Reid, the former acting chief executive Michael Keeble and other staff, which compromised their ability to make good decisions.
In September, Mr Keeble resigned over abuse from ratepayers and a lack of council cohesiveness.
Mr Reid was also accused of inappropriate behaviour towards other council members and inappropriate conduct towards shire staff which had the potential to the cause significant industrial relations and welfare issues.
It was also alleged he secretly recorded conversations he had with Mr Keeble, a claim Mr Reid denied.
In its response to the Minister's letter, the shire admitted there had been shortcomings with its processes, but maintained suspension was unnecessary.
It said much of the information about the shire provided to Mr Simpson that formed the basis for his decision was not based on facts.
The shire called for an inquiry panel with the powers of a royal commission to investigate its past operations and affairs from June 2004 onwards, during the tenure of Mr Hooper.
Intricate details of an internal investigation into Mr Hooper's conduct were leaked on the internet last year, which the Minister said impacted community perception of the council and its ability to provide good governance.
Mr Hooper resigned in April 2014 amid allegations he misused his corporate shire credit card.
Mr Hooper denied the claims, telling the ABC he decided to resign following a "vendetta" by community members.
"It was a continual vendetta by two or three in the community who used signboards and letters to the editor and complaint systems and Freedom of Information applications," he said.
"Just general vilification of council, the organisation, staff, individuals over seven or eight years - it's just been unending."

Ratepayers will feel 'slighted' by the decision: acting chief

Current acting chief executive Graeme Simpson said he believed there were no grounds for suspension, but welcomed the Minister's decision.
"I accept that he has had the right to make that decision, but to say would I personally welcome it, no, I think there are other ways of fixing issues in a democracy like the Shire of York," he said.
"I just thought that they perhaps needed to get the message and be given advice while they're actually in office.
"They should have been left in situ, they haven't been, but that's the Minister's decision.
"We will be working with the commissioner, undoubtedly he will ask for opinions and make his own judgements on matter, but I can only make suggestions the same as I would to any council, so we'll see how it goes."
Mr Simpson said while councillors may benefit from training and guidance, ratepayers will feel slighted.
"They'll be disappointed that their democratically elected people have been stood aside," he said.

58 comments:

  1. Now we know the corruption we were uncovering got too close to the bone!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Time to consider a 'Class Action' against Councillors named in the Fitz Gerald Report and Ray Hooper

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How will a class action against past councilors help with what's happening now?

      Delete
    2. It will not change what is happening now, however, it will give justice a chance. The chance that was not given by Minister Simpson.

      Delete
    3. I agree, enough is enough and these people need to be made accountable for their actions. I have already been in contact with a legal firm experienced in class actions. Subject to a meeting and provision of details, they are keen to hear the claim.

      Delete
    4. We now know we cannot rely on the Minister, the DLG or our Council to hold these people accountable for what they have done. I am all for a Class Action. Keep us posted and let us know what we have to do to make this happen.

      Delete
  3. A terrible, terrible let-down from http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/pages/StatementDetails.aspx?listName=StatementsBarnett&StatId=8975
    More reinventing the wheel to happen, good people shamed, and so on and so on and so on.
    So now within 16 years, 4 CEOs, 2 Commissioners, 5 Shire Presidents and the worst betrayers have got away with character assassination, destroying businesses, dragging York down, nearly destroying some citizens, and leading observers to wonder at the way York has lost so much that it used to have that people can be heard bemoaning — long-term citizens and tourists alike.

    "When will they ever learn?
    When will they e-e-e-e-e-ver learn?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm trying to look on the bright side: now the Minister has made his decision, and the Show Cause Notice is no longer an issue, he can answer the questions I put to him in my letter of 6/12/14.

      Delete
    2. Now you have a point there, James (unless he's decided he can now bin all 'irrelevant' mail, just as some school principles have been known to do, in my experience).

      Delete
  4. Congratulations Minister Tony Simpson for making the only rational decision that could be made. Not that I think that training Councillor Reid will reduce his arrogance or need for control!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now I wonder who is the most likely candidate for writing the denigration immediately above!?! A known citizen who considers his/her self York Royalty, I imagine.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree with the original comment. Wonder what Reid's minions are going to do with themselves??

      Delete
    3. No congratulations are due to Minister Simpson. His appointment of this 'ideation and visioning strategic facilitation' specialist smacks of jobs for the boys and worse.

      Mark my words, which as usual are in plain English, not 'managementspeak', this means open slather for SITA and the unceremonious and unjustified dumping of the Fitz Gerald Report. Sleep easy, scoundrels, the nightmare is over, you may never be brought to account.

      No doubt most of us will treat your spiteful, gloating and unfounded remark about Cr Reid with the contempt it deserves. I would have more respect for your opinion - but not much more - if you had the courage to identify yourself instead of attacking from the shadows. What are you afraid of?

      Delete
    4. So does the 'Denigrator' want to believe that at least one other recent Shire President did not a have super domineering temper and super need for control and need to seem a hero in the Fiefdom of York? And another former President who stood for the position because of his need for the love of his Lady?

      Fiefdom = n. noun
      The estate or domain of a feudal lord.
      An organization or department over which one dominant person or group exercises control.

      Delete
    5. My sentiments exactly.
      They never accepted Matthew was a tad more popular than those who think they are York Royalty.
      .

      Delete
    6. Isn't it amazing how the 'denigrator' (self proclaimed royal?) has slunk from the shadows to feed on, and and gloat over, the carcasses of those who have just been kicked. Once a coward always a coward.

      Delete
    7. Yes James, the 'denigrators' spiteful remarks about Cr. Reid should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
      A thought just occurred to me. It may be a case the 'denigrator' suffers from the syndrome referred to as as 'mirroring' . 'Mirroring' is when a person sees in others the defects they themselves have. Possible? Yes, I think so.

      Delete
    8. Our new Commissioner or Minder had "clients including oil and gas multinationals" (ref: http://www.integral.org.au/people/james-best). So SITA now need have no fear; neither they nor people who want quarries on their farms, as in the past; maybe not even people who want big swimming pools too close to their neighbours' properties, etc...

      Delete
    9. I'm not sure who you mean when you use the word royal,
      But it seems the whole town has gone right off the boil.

      Delete
    10. Does "Reid's minions" refer to the 900+ people who voted Matthew Reid in as a Councillor (the highest York Election vote ever for one person, I believe), or the Councillors who voted for him to be President????

      Dictionary meaning of Minions:
      n. noun
      An obsequious follower or dependent; a sycophant.
      A subordinate official, especially a servile one.
      One who is highly esteemed or favored; a darling.

      Now isn't this terminology very much like the reference to "acolytes", the word used by Ray Hooper in a vile and slanderous and totally disgusting and erroneous letter to Simon Saint on Shire Letterhead this last April!?!?!?!

      I'd say the comment using the work "minions" could well be written by the same person who wrote that letter to Mr. Saint. (Either Ray Hooper or one of his own minions or acolytes who might possibly be the person who actually drafted the letter for Ray.)

      Whoever they are they are fond of the concept of minions and acolytes. Maybe they now want their own to return to be in ascendance?

      Delete
    11. James, Yes you are quite correct!
      The self opinionated - ooops appointed - royals I have come across in my life have a few problems (1) they crave adoration (2) they MUST control (3) they are cruel and very spiteful to those they perceive to be of a lower station. (4) They are vicious towards anyone who appears to achieve.

      Given the above problems, I surmise they may also have low self esteem - sad really.

      Delete
    12. In response to Anonymous 6 Jan at 06.05; Thank you, I think rather like being referred to as one of the little darlings!
      On a more serious note, what will now happen to Ray Hooper and as you quote his 'vile and slanderous and totally disgusting and erroneous letter'? Do you think that it will be another example of a document being torn up or discarded as if it didn't happen? As was previously quoted on the blog 'the facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored'.

      Delete
    13. Perhaps it is time for some of the documents. ie Ray Hoopers slanderous letter to be released to the public on this blog. The Minister will not be able to hide from them.
      Those convinced RH and several councillors are innocent may start to realise the damage done.
      Of course there will always be those who may have partaken in the fruits that will also want the truth buried.

      Delete
    14. The facts exist in copies of the documents that are in hands of various people around and elsewhere. Never fear: tearing up one copy won't end the chance of some form of action.

      Delete
  5. So is this the latest method the State Government uses to amalgamate rural Shires?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 29 August, 2012 9:54AM AWST


    'Too modern' Mayoral portrait voted down

    By Emma Wynne

    |Comment 1 comment



    The South Perth Council last night voted to remove a portrait of its former Mayor James Best because it depicts only one hand and half his body. Council policy says both hands and three-quarters of the body should appear in mayoral portraits.

    Print
    Email
    Permalink

    Share
    8









    James Best says he stunned by the decision, which means that the $5000 painting by Western Australian artist Len Zuks will now sit in storage.

    The motion was moved by Councillor Colin Cala, who proposed that Mr Best be invited to sit for another portrait or a photograph to replace the Zuks portrait.

    Mr Best says he's not willing to sit for another portrait or provide a photograph, slamming the council for wasting rate payers' money and council time over the issue.

    "There's a bit of history at South Perth of controversy and focussing on micro matters."

    "I'd like to come back to what the purpose of the council is - it is not to decide whether we need an extra hand in the portrait, it's to decide whether the community needs a hand in deciding the future," he said, saying the council should be concentrating on Climate change, population growth and traffic congestion in the city.

    James Best rejected suggestions that the artist should have followed council policy P678 more closely.

    "We gave the policy to the artist but artists are a creative and innovative."

    "If the policy was rigidly adhered to you'd basically just have one of those seaside cut-outs where you just stick your face in."

    "Policy is a guide not a statute."

    Mr Best said he want the space where the portrait was hung to be left blank to make a point.

    "It's a great platform to shine a light on local government and how effective they are."

    "The sort of council that our community expects is one that is listening and actually providing some leadership."

    Mayor Sue Doherty is currently overseas and was not at last night's meeting. Deputy Mayor Kevin Trent has been contacted for comment


    Wow a commissioner in town that doesn't like wasting ratepayers money this will be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since when do Mayors have portraits done of themselves at ratepayers expense? How vain.

      Definitely time for some cartoons on this site.


      Delete
    2. Going to go into mayor portrait painting not even a nice painting ....

      Delete
  7. We need to see the DLG response to the shire response to the show csuse notice. What manipulation has taken place? Simple easy question - who signed the purchase orders? The DLG and shire can't both be right. Let's see the evidence minister. And surely the commissioner is not a liberal - surely ....

    ReplyDelete
  8. After reading Mr Graeme Simpsons comments in the latest press release, I have changed my mind about him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meaning? Which comments of Mr. Simpson? What do you now think of him?

      Delete
    2. Don't get your Simpson's mixed up!
      He (GRAEME Simpson), believed there were no grounds for suspension.
      He also stated: "I think there are other ways of fixing issues in a democracy like the Shire of York".
      "They should have been left in situ ratepayers will feel slighted".
      "They'll be disappointed that their democratically elected people have been stood aside".

      Delete
    3. Does that mean you are now one of Simpson's acolytes?

      Delete
    4. Mr Graeme Simpson is right. There were no grounds for suspension.

      The Minister knows that. He ought to explain in detail his reasons for suspending our democratically elected shire council, but I don't believe he will. He seems to think that nothing more is required of him than merely to say that he has decided to suspend the council. Such is the arrogance of power.

      I don't say the Minister is corrupt, though in that respect, because he is a politician, the burden of proof rests with him. What I will say is that he has acted to conceal corruption and to protect those who have acted corruptly in the past.

      Remember that corruption isn't just about money. It's also about the abuse of power. I suspect that previous shire councils and administrations have tolerated or perpetrated both species of corruption, and that officials in the Minister's department, if they have not connived at that corruption, have turned a blind eye to it.

      How else are we to understand why, ignoring the pleas of residents, the department made no attempt to intervene in the shire's affairs at times when to do so would have been entirely justified and would have met with general approbation?

      Perhaps it would be wrong to put all the blame for this fiasco on Minister Simpson. Perhaps, in matters such as this, he feels no obligation to exercise independence of mind, but is instead content to jerk awkwardly along like a marionette manipulated by his officials and other advisers.

      I hope there is more to him than that, but on present showing, I doubt it.

      I'm sure we'll all feel better about the Minister if he tells us that he is going to order an inquiry into allegations made in the Fitz Gerald Report, or if he isn't going to do that, tells us why not. Well, Minister, how about it?

      Delete
    5. Don't forget G Simpson is related to M Reid, and that he has been in town 5 minutes.

      Delete
    6. Acolytes of which Simpson: Graeme or Tony?

      Where does one of you find the comments of Mr. Graeme Simpson you report; viz "He (GRAEME Simpson), believed there were no grounds for suspension.
      He also stated: "I think there are other ways of fixing issues in a democracy like the Shire of York".
      "They should have been left in situ ratepayers will feel slighted".
      "They'll be disappointed that their democratically elected people have been stood aside".?

      I would like to see where these words quoted are written. In the local Newspaper, or where?

      Delete
    7. God give me strength! Am I missing something?
      Read the article at the top of the page, please!

      Delete
    8. Don't forget that the council voted that the show cause notice the response and all documents and proof are sent to an investigative authority?

      Delete
    9. The decision to send the documents and proof to an investigative authority - that vote is still valid.
      Why can't Matthew Reid send the documents to the Police - they investigate fraud?

      Delete
  9. I read Ministers Simpson's (or was it Jolly's) press release in which it stated Mr Best will assume control of the council from midnight tonight.

    Comment: Not another one that works late at night behind locked doors!!

    The Minister (Jolly?) also said the appointment should help restore public confidence in the Shire.

    Comment: I think you left off the word 'Administration' in that sentence.
    We actually have confidence in the Shire of York, it is a beautiful place. It is the Administration we have no confidence in and without an independent inquiry you will have Bucklies mate!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Be in no doubt, the Department will investigate the Fitzgerald Report.
    They will do it over a coffee during morning smoko, then that will be the end of it.
    Unless of course, you don't let them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, may I suggest that we don't allow that to happen. We're not helpless. We can maintain the pressure for a proper inquiry. We can use every available platform to keep our cause in the public eye. I was going to say we must shame the Minister into taking 'appropriate' action, but on reflection I doubt that would be possible.

      Delete
    2. Do you mean he's shameless, James?

      Delete
  11. Response from Shadow Minister David Templeman MLA

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the suspension of the Shire of York, and for all your correspondence regarding your concerns about the Shire of York and the Minister’s actions.

    Parliament is currently not sitting, however, once Parliament resumes it is my intention to hold the Minister to account by asking questions in Parliament, to ensure that the Shire of York, and its current President Cr Reid are treated fairly, transparently and that due process is carried out.

    In respect of the show cause notice and the suspension, the Minister for Local Government is acting within his powers as per the Local Government Act 1995; whether or not you personally disagree or agree with his decision.

    I trust that you are also in contact with your local member of Parliament, the Hon Mia Davies who as well as being a member of the Government, is also a Cabinet colleague of the Minister for Local Government.

    Regards
    David Templeman MLA

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Fitz Pause Gerald so called report is a waste of time. If the consultant had of done his job properly, he would have ensured that natural justice was delivered by making sure the report was balanced by reporting both sides of the story. Then it could have been dealt with. Right now its just a biased useless document that means nothing as its all hearsay without facts.

    Oh here we go, the non-believers will say different.

    Remember, the circulation of the document was stopped before it cost the Shire a pretty penny.

    thank god my name wasn't in it.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We shall see, a means to an end.
      Sounds like you work in the circus tent?

      Delete
    2. It was Blocked by three councillors who didn't even have faith in their own actions what does that tell you. If they were firm in their resolve they had done nothing wrong what was the problem. what Ray Hooper may have sued the council? rubbish there is enough evidence to send that man behind bars he was the king of the fear factor and the trouble with the fear factor it don't work on those who have the knowledge and proof.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 6 Jan. 22.57 Are you saying it was okay for residents to be bullied and lied about?
      It appears you are more concerned about $$ than the truth being exposed.

      Delete
    4. I think it a pity that some people mentioned adversely in the report weren't given the opportunity to give their side of the story. (Some were, but turned it down.)

      However, they have had plenty of time and opportunity since the report was leaked to rebut the allegations made against them. So far as I know, not one of them has taken to the airwaves, the press or the internet to present a convincing defence, or has taken out a writ against the author of the report or anyone else connected with it.

      It is not true that circulation of the report was stopped 'before it cost the Shire a pretty penny' (I presume the author of that statement meant in legal costs and damages). Three councillors mentioned adversely in the report - Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel - privately convened a meeting to suppress it. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, they voted on a resolution to that effect. How fortunate for the rest of us that they could not prevent the report from somehow making its way into the public domain.

      Legal action remains available to the targets of the report, as does putting their side of the story. I don't think it likely that Messrs Boyle and Pat Hooper, and Mr Ray Hooper, will take advantage of that option - why should they bother, while it appears that the DLGC is looking out for their interests now as in previous years.

      Delete
    5. The Fitz Gerald Report was not hearsay. Mr. Fitz Gerald refused to put in the report anything for which there was not backup evidence/documentation. The reason some of you think it was hearsay was that the Report as presented on this website was the main text minus the appendices providing the supportive evidence.

      If the evidence in the form of appendices were made public on this site, it would (a) take up too much space for a blog; but (b) MORE IMPORTANTLY, if you give away all the evidence you have before it goes to court or other instrument of justice then the unjust will try and drum up some fake evidence to dispute the valid evidence (not that e.g. a statement from such police records as there are could be easily invalidated, nor documents in the hands of some citizens). The wise don't give away all their ammunition in time for it to be adulterated.

      Delete
  13. David Temleman MLA good on you someone needs to hold someone to account for this fiasco.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So Your not concerned about 200 thousand plus spent on legal fees over the years that saw the shire get nothing back. one year alone legal fees were in excess of 86 thousand. yeah didn't know that? did you know that council lied to the community telling them that a community member was taking them to supreme court? what the shire didn't know a phone call to the registrar of the supreme court reviled the truth that the shire was taking this person to court, did you also know ray hooper was the only person authorised to take people to court? did you know that when ray hooper was questioned about it he said that Graeme Stanley and Patrick Ruttries made the decision while he was absent? when made aware of these terrible actions done without his knowledge and the fact that the shire of York was the Appealent not the defendant and asked if he could stop it him saying yes. Did he ? have the paper work to prove it if ya need it. don't talk to me about wasting money why the F#@K do you think we have been on the councils case to get rid of hooper or is it just because we want to rule York? Tosser f#@K people amaze me shoot the people who are honest let the criminals go free. Amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people in York reacting to 'what they were told' by Ray Hooper and his merry men. Some of these people are making ill informed comments on this site and it is akin to secondary trauma for those who came forward with evidence. By the way, those who gave evidence were approached and asked to do so AFTER the six Councillors voted to hold the inquiry. They did not just turn up and demand to be included in the inquiry.
    The three Councillors (Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel) who blocked 'due process' of the Fitz Gerald Report inquiry are compounding the problem for their own purpose. If asked they will lie and deny there are documents of evidence against them. This is why they blocked the report! Those three people have copies of the complete report and so do a couple of senior Staff at the Administration. When I say complete report I mean it includes ALL the documental evidence given to Mr. Fitz Gerald.
    Mr. Fitz Gerald advised those he interviewed he would only include in the Report allegations that could be backed up with hard copies of evidence.
    The copy of the Fitz Gerald report on this site is in fact incomplete, that is, it does not include the documents provided as evidence.
    So please, those who are bleating about un-fairness to those named in the Report get your facts clear before you hurt any more people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Avon Valley Residents Association might just get what they deserve now, a tip!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Would not getting Today Tonight or Sixty Minutes to investigate the story and put this matter into the public arena where the politicians cannot cover their collective backsides be of benefit to the ratepayers and residents of York?I would welcome that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which one?
      All of them are piss weak, they wouldn't know a good story if you slapped them across the face with it.
      Even then it gets watered down in case the wrong person gets upset.
      The only way of doing it is like this, social media. Big bro will be watching this site, so will the media, make it spicy people it's your turn now so make it count!

      Delete
    2. I agree, Channel 7 & 9 have both been contacted over the years and they are not interested.
      You wait though, they will be scrambling to poke cameras in our faces to get stories when this story builds up momentum.
      Social media is the way to go because 'the people' have control of the content - to hell with the press, they had their chance.

      Delete