Shire of York

Shire of York

Tuesday, 6 January 2015



Local Government minister Tony Simpson
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

15 comments:

  1. A photo of Boyle, 2 x Hooper and Mazuik would be appropriate next to him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I seriously take offence at seeing the face of this man staring down at me. Was the person who posted it trying to make out that he was a Prophet staring down at us from the clouds and pronouncing everlasting destruction on a particular set of York citizens?

      Delete
    2. Yes, I can see your point there.
      He does not look a very happy chap. Do you think he might feel a bad about what he has been told to do?

      Delete
  2. Perhaps one should be careful re to whom one attributes the term 'Lord'. We don't know whether this item above comes from someone who genuinely means it and would be applying it to all persons and all sides of this debate in York, or someone claiming for Mr Simpson a title he is not entitled to.

    Whoever the attribution was intended to be about, yes: haughty eyes, lying tongue, innocent blood (metaphorically) shed (certainly by letters written and false claims against lawful citizens), hearts devising wicked plans, people doing evil with glee (as in gloating over their enemies and actively lobbying people over coffee or talking in parked cars etc...to work against good people), false witnesses breathing out lies, and the sowing of discord among Councillor brothers — certainly all these things have happened here.

    By whatever Code (religious or formalised WALGA ones, or basic human ethics) you judge, these things are wrong.

    Discord among brothers, if it applies to the citizens of the whole town? Yes, this also has been rife. Are the hurt to blame or the originators who did the initial injustices? This is a hard one. The difficulty arises when we consider whether one should speak up to prevent further oppression, or just let it continue. People decided to speak up. When there are such contentious issues we naturally have discord among brothers.

    The question is: How to resolve it? Standing a Council aside, shaming them all by so publicly declaring they shall undergo training, and causing despair in the populace as to whether York will ever arise from the ashes to be as good as it was is surely not the way to. The whole town has been hurt with this act; the whole town (and I mean people of York) has been shamed. This is a very sad day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You guys need to get over it. The problem is, you have too many people trying to interfere in the running of Council and are now paying the price. The City of Canning Councillors were dismissed and you don't see them carrying on like spoilt brats.

    Have a look at how the Council was led since April this year!!!! That's where the problem lies. The Shire President had less than .01% of ratepayers trying to tell him how to run Council. What about the remaining 99 % plus of the ratepayers???? The Minority has screwed it up for the majority!!!!

    Take a bow you lot !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is incomprehensible, self-contradictory rubbish. First you say there were too many people trying to interfere in the running of Council. Then you say the Shire President had fewer (not 'less', let's keep it literate) than .01% of ratepayers on his neck. Where does that figure come from? Who were those importunate ratepayers? At every town hall meeting I attended it seemed obvious that Matthew Reid had the support of a majority of ratepayers. Nobody was telling him how to run Council. We trusted him to do right by the town, and I have no doubt that without the scheming of the old guard councillors and disgruntled former CEOs, and unwarranted interference from the Minister, he would have more than met our expectations.

      What gives you the right to speak for '99% plus of the ratepayers'? Where did that figure come from? Did you run a survey?

      Exactly how has 'the minority screwed it up for the majority'?

      Did you actually take thought before writing your post?





      Delete
    2. Don't lose sleep James, it's more than likely to be someone like Daggy German stirring the pot.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, moronic I can take, but when it's oxymoronic as well something snaps in my head. I'll try not to lose sleep, though, thanks for your concern!

      Is there really someone in York called Daggy German?

      Delete
    4. Not enough council listening to the people has got us here.

      Not enough council heading warning signs has got us here.

      Not enough council checking finances has got us here.

      Not enough council realizing that they are the boss of the CEO not the other way round has got us here.

      Not enough council having the morals to know that attacking members of the community is disgraceful has got us here.

      Not enough council communicating effectively with the community has got us here.

      Not enough council researching what they were reading for them self has got us here.

      Not enough council taking responsibility for wrongs that could have been easily made right got us here.

      Not enough council integrity if the fitz gerald report is untrue what were they trying to hide go us here.

      Not enough council expressing to the CEO codes of conduct to staff got us here.

      Not enough council saying stop can we afford this what qualifications has this person got us here.

      Not enough council thinking hey lets talk to this person before we waste ratepayers money taking them to court got us here.

      Not enough council thinking what would I want to happen if this was happening to me got us here.

      Not enough council saying where is the legislation that sais we can do this can I see it got us here.

      Not enough council with common sense got us here.

      I know bow.

      Unless you understand what has actually transpired, or know what the role of your council is and how the system works or supposed to work, then don't comment.
      Better to say nothing and be seen as a fool than to pass comment and remove all doubt.

      Delete
    5. Well said in the original comment!

      Delete
    6. 'Not enough council realizing that they are the boss of the CEO not the other way round has got us here; truer words never said. As a past SOY employee, I had to apologise to the CEO in writing for speaking with a Councillor regarding an issue within their portfolio! Not only did I get in trouble from the CEO, but so did the Councillor!!!

      Delete
    7. Another employee speaking out. You are to be commended.



      Delete
  4. I'm no physiognomist, but I'd surmise that this is the face of a man who knows he is out of his depth but is doing his best to look intelligent, strong and resolute, secure in the belief that he has a jolly good executive director to make decisions for him.



    ReplyDelete
  5. What interfere in running the council the council is supposed to be a conduit of the people. it seems that you are a friend of either hoopers or boyle or a staff member and have never been manipulated, or victimised if you got off your high horse for 5 mins canning council was a different circumstance, with the shire of york this has been a long time coming, there will be an investigation into the behaviour of council because Ray Hooper it has been proven was doing the dirty on our community and not only ours several community's such as Kalgoorlie and chittering. so take a bow yourself for not even knowing what your talking about. all document s and proof that York's council was defunct for over 8 years one court case will see how much interference in the truth actually transpired proud to be on the side of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To the original commenter-One of Matthew Reid's legacies was to format community consultation groups to ensure he and other Councillors were doing what the community wanted. These consultation groups have a wide variety of community representatives. Have you volunteered your time and expertise to a group and had your say? Have you contributed to York's forward action plans? Probably not. So how is it that the original commenter thinks Matthew took directives from 0.1% of the community? As well there are other Councillors too. Is the original post suggesting Denise and David had no say? You are at the very least ignorant to the facts.

    ReplyDelete