The
relationship between the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for CEO Ray
Hooper's Corporate Credit Card Records and the suppressed 'Fitz Gerald Report'
CHRONOLOGY
25 February 2014 A ratepayer contacted the Shire of York to request
copies of the CEO's (Ray Hooper) Corporate Credit Card Statements without
having to use the FOI process or alternatively, to advise if a formal
application would be required.
26 February 2014 The CEO, Ray Hooper wrote to the FOI
Commissioner advising of the likelihood of an FOI application. In brief, the
CEO stated to the Commissioner that the intended information request was based
on a malicious and vindictive campaign of character assassination against him and....... advice is requested on whether a person can
be considered vexatious in relation to Freedom of Information matters.
28 February 2014 A Freedom of Information application (FOI) was
submitted to the Shire of York
requesting copies of the CEO's (Ray Hooper) Corporate Credit Card statements from 2004
- 2014 (subsequently the scope was reduced to the years 2007-2014).
4
March 2014, CEO (Ray Hooper) wrote to Ms Jennifer Matthews , The Director General,
DLGC with a heading 'Vexatious Unreasonable
Demands' asking for urgent advice
from the Department, to include.....
.... is there any scope or opportunity under current
legislation for Council to declare a person vexatious or unreasonable and to
direct staff to cease dealings with the person so declared?
The letter goes on to decry the FOI applicant and
other members of the community and clearly identifies 'the person' as being the
FOI applicant.
5
March 2014 All Councillors were informed that an FOI application for copies of
CEO's Corporate Credit card statements had been lodged with the Shire Council.
7
March 2014 CEO (Ray Hooper) sent a follow up letter to the Freedom of Information Commissioner.
7
March 2014 - CEO Ray Hooper sent a Memorandum to All Councillors, Tyhscha, Gordon, Jacky,
Graham and Gail (aka DCEO, Manager of Health and Building, Manager of Planning
Services, Works Manager & FOI Officer)
In brief the content describes...... a malicious and
vindictive campaign against himself and others by the FOI applicant. He asks
for Councillors to check the Credit Card statements and calls for necessary
support or justification for the expenditure. Then they must issue a public
statement that all transactions have been checked and declare that there is no
misuse of corporate credit cards by Shire staff.
.........he then continues with reasons to discredit
the applicant and the FOI request.
7
March 2014 An email sent from a Councillor (copied to: all Councillors, DCEO,
Manager of Health and Building, Manager of Planning Services and Works Manager)
and contains the following:
Cr Tony Boyle refers to the FOI applicant as 'this idiot' ...he must be stopped and
........action that I have already taken with the Department of Local
Government will see him declared 'vexatious' in the very near future.
8
March 2014 Cr Pat Hooper in response to the email (copied to the same recipients:
all Councillors, DCEO, Manager of Health and Building, Manager of Planning
Services and Works Manager)
"Yes Tony, You are right".
What then followed was an unnecessary and irrelevant
ranting commentary describing alleged actions by (and again decrying) the FOI
applicant and several other members of the community.
(It should be noted that facts (in the form of
documents) exists to support that several of Cr Hooper's statements contained
therein are false and misleading).
10
March 2014 Shire President Reid responded to all recipients of the Memorandum of 7
March 2014 from CEO Hooper (with the inclusion of Jenni Law with whom he had
spoken).
He recommended that the FOI applicant's request must
be carried out to provide transparency and build community trust. It was also
suggested that, following his conversation with Ms Law, the regular publication
of statements and clarification of expenditure items in the public arena is commonplace.
14
March 2014 CEO (Ray Hooper) received a reply from the FOI Commissioners Office dated
13 March in response to his letter of 26 February 2014. Part of the lengthy response
includes the following:
For your
information the credit card records for the Office of the Information
Commissioner are published on our website in the miscellaneous section under
purchasing and as such are available for inspection.
You are of the view
that the applicant is "vexatious". Section 67 of the FOI Act allows
the Commissioner to decide not to deal with a complaint if it is frivolous,
vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. It is a matter for the
Commissioner to make such a decision with respect to a complaint. The decision relates to a complaint before the
Commissioner and not the applicant.
However, as I have
said, while the Commissioner can refuse to deal with a complaint on the basis
that it is frivolous or vexatious, Agencies cannot refuse to deal with
applications on either of those grounds.
17
March 2014 The following is an excerpt from Minutes of the Shire meeting in March
2014 - Go into the Shire records and have a full read of the agenda item presented.
MINUTES
– ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 17 MARCH 2014
Item 9.2.6 Corporate Credit Cards
Reporting Office: CEO Ray Hooper
Officers Comment:
Unfortunately
past malicious and
vindictive use of credit card transaction information has resulted in minimal
statutory reporting occurring in financial management reports which can
be easily rectified however this will not prevent further personal attacks
using the information published.
*20
March 2014 Jennifer Matthews, Director General DLGC, responded to CEO Ray Hooper.
**Ms Matthews letter to
the CEO re-iterates that Legislation in WA does not permit a local government
(or any public authority) to 'declare' a person vexatious, or as a vexatious
complainant.
Any decision by a Council or any other public
authority to restrict a person's avenue for complaint should be taken only as a
measure of last resort and should not be relied on as a means of avoiding
scrutiny. (copy of the Ombudsman's Guidelines attached to the letter)
* It should be noted that a copy of this letter of 20 March 2014
was not directed to or received by Councillors at the time. Although received
by the CEO 20-22 March 2014, the letter was not registered or forwarded
on. The document was not registered into
the record keeping system until the evening of 14 April 2014 by the
Deputy CEO. (this was coincidentally the day of the Shire Council meeting to
commission Mr Fitz Gerald).
**Mr Hooper should have been fully aware of this fact. On an occasion 13
November 2012, (during a meeting with Mr David Morris and Ms Jenni Law from the
DLGC), CEO Mr Hooper together with Cr
Boyle and Cr Scott were advised that they could not 'declare' a person
vexatious, or as a vexatious complainant
Indeed, McLeod's
Barristers & Solicitor's provided legal advice to the Shire of York
relating to a 'vexatious ratepayer; (ironically also the FOI applicant) on 7
September 2012 - at a cost to the ratepayers of
$1992.10. (as documented and referenced - Shire of York financials
October 2012 EFT 10023 Inv 69654, copy McLeod's tax Invoice No. 69655, Shire
Purchase Order 19327, email confirmation records from McLeod's and a
surreptitious (ratepayer's) recording). Eventually this fact was confirmed in
writing in 2014 once Mr Hooper had left the building. (refer to Shire of York
Minutes 19 May 2014 - Public Question Time)
By now there had been a trail of email
correspondence between the FOI applicant and the FOI Officer (Mrs Maziuk).
1
April 2014 The FOI applicant wrote to Mrs Maziuk questioning the excessive charges
and that it was inappropriate to charge for something that she had stated was
available ordinarily.
2
April 2014 A terse response was
received offering 'viewing access ' to the statements at the Shire office. The
FOI applicant acknowledged the offer but stated a preference to continue with
the original request to release copies of the documents under the process of FOI.
2
April 2014 Mr Ray Hooper (CEO) wrote an offensive and defamatory letter to the FOI
applicant.
(a copy of which was
provided to All Councillors, Tyhscha, Gordon, Jacky, Graham and Gail - aka DCEO,
Manager of Health and Building, Manager of Planning Services, Works Manager
& FOI Officer).
4
April 2014 The FOI applicant made a formal complaint reference the letter of 2
April 2014 from the CEO, Ray Hooper.
5
April 2014 Shire President Matthew Reid wrote a letter of concern to three
Councillors regarding the letter from the CEO dated 2 April 2014
6
April 2014 Shire President Matthew Reid responded to an email from the FOI
applicant stressing that he had not received a copy of the letter from Mr
Hooper prior to it being sent, nor did he endorse the content.
11
April 2014 Shire President Matthew
Reid received advise from Ms Jenni Law of DLGC to appoint an independent person
to investigate the complaint (4 April 2014 from the FOI applicant) This could
be achieved as a late report to the Council Meeting of 14 April 2014. An agenda
item would need to be created with a Council resolution to appoint a person and
identify a funding source.
11
April 2014 CEO Ray Hooper wrote a Memorandum
to the Shire President Matthew Reid. The content was again derogatory towards
the FOI applicant.
14
April 2014 At a Shire Council Meeting it was
decided that, as a result of the complaint dated 4 April 2014, Fitz Gerald Strategies would be
commissioned to investigate.
14
April 2014 Following the Shire Council meeting, at 5.30pm, the documents requested
under Freedom of Information in the application dated 28 February 2014 (being the
request for copies of the CEO's Corporate Credit Card statements from
2007-2014) were hand delivered to the FOI applicant.
14
April 2014 A letter from Jennifer Matthews, Director General DLGC to
the Shire of York CEO Ray Hooper dated 20 March 2014, was formally registered by
the DCEO Mrs Tyhscha Cochrane, as correspondence received (refer back to
details of the letter *20 March 2014)
15
April 2014 CEO Ray Hooper tendered his resignation blaming everyone but himself as the
reason.
April
- July 2014 Mr Fitzgerald
carried out his investigation and prepared a report for presentation. independent research into the (mis)use of the
Corporate Credit Card commenced and was completed by October 2014 with a report
presented.
It is evidenced that ex
CEO Mr Ray Hooper made every attempt possible to prevent the release of his
credit card statements and subsequent findings, what does that tell you?
And the rest is probably history.............
N.B. This is not a 'hearsay' report - All information
contained in this timeline is factual and supported by documentation
As a footnote:
Referring back to the 17 March 2014 Agenda item
9.2.6 (a very defensive and reactive composition put up by the CEO himself ) reference
the Officers Comment, it would be interesting to have asked and received
answers to these questions:
1. Is it not the case (as identified in past
Minutes) the
'minimal statutory reporting occurring in financial management reports' actually
commenced in November 2008 and was not as a result of any past malicious and vindictive use
of credit card transaction information?
2. How and when did the alleged malicious and vindictive use of Credit Card
information get used if no-one had seen
the transaction information due to 'minimal statutory reporting'?
Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the letter dated 29 January 2009 are a contradiction, the letter itself contradicts the Officers Comment from CEO Ray Hooper in the Agenda item 9.2.6 of 17 April 2014.
__________________________________
Reference
original post above-
The relationship between the (FOI) request and the suppressed
'Fitz Gerald Report'
17 March 2014 Agenda
item 9.2.6 CEO Ray Hooper wrote in
Officers Comment:
Unfortunately past malicious and vindictive use of credit
card transaction information has resulted in minimal statutory reporting
occurring in financial management reports.
Refer
back to:
24
November 2008 a letter was sent to Minister
Castrilli from concerned ratepayers questioning
financial reporting and accountability in the Shire of York.
5 February 2009 A response was received dated 29
January 2009 from Quentin Harrington, Director Governance and Statutory
Support, DLGRD, on behalf of Minister John Castrilli, MLA
This is the content of that letter:
Thank you for your correspondence of 24
November 2008 to Hon John Castrilli MLA, Minister for Local Government,
regarding your concerns about missing financial documentation from the Shire of
York's Council meeting Minutes. The Minister has asked that I reply directly to
you on his behalf and I apologise for the delay n my response, however, it was
necessary for the Department to make enquiries with the Shire.
The Shire has advised the Department that
the unconfirmed Minutes had been left on the Shire's website and the confirmed
Minutes had not been uploaded. The Department has confirmed that the Shire has
now placed the confirmed Minutes on the Shire's website and it has implemented
a process improvement to ensure the unconfirmed Minutes are replaced with the
confirmed Minutes, which reflects the information that was presented to
Council.
'The Shire acknowledges that, on some
occasions, the information was unintentionally missing from the agenda,
however, Councillors did not request
copies of the statements either prior to or at the Council Meeting. As such, the statements were not included
in the Minutes as they did not form part of the record of the meeting'.
Whilst there is no requirement under the
Local Government Act 1995 or the Local Government (Financial Management)
Regulations 1996 for copies of bank statements to be included with the monthly
financial reports, the Department has
been advised that it has been the practice of the Shire to provide copies of
the credit card statements as supplementary information to Councillors. The
Shire sought advice from the Department and now intends to cease the practice
of including copies of credit card statements in the attachment to the
financial report, Instead it will now provide a summary of purchases made
on credit cards.
In addition, the Department has scheduled a
visit to the Shire to assess a range of compliance and other governance issues.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the
Minister's attention.
Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the letter dated 29 January 2009 are a contradiction, the letter itself contradicts the Officers Comment from CEO Ray Hooper in the Agenda item 9.2.6 of 17 April 2014.
Proper
authorisation for the incurring of Liabilities and making payments
The Shire through Delegation DE1 has set the
procedures for the authorisation of purchase orders and the making of payments,
the reporting of such payments and Electronic Funds Transfer payments.
Regulation 11 & 12 of the Local Government
(Financial Management) Regulations 1996 are observed. However, the
delegation does not include the use of the Corporate Credit Card by the Chief
Executive Officer or the Deputy Chief Executive Officer.
Oh my goodness me - now the truth is beginning to bubble to the surface - about time too.
ReplyDeleteThank you to the person for revealing this time line.
(1) On the 14th April 2014 Miss Law (the DLG guru that knows everything) advised the York Shire President to appoint an independent person to investigate the complaint.
(2) Shire President follows Mrs. Laws advice and York Councillors voted unanimously to appoint Fitz Gerald as the independent investigator.
(3) 3 panic stricken York councillors (Boyle, Duper and Hooper) found their misdeeds listed in the very report THEY commissioned, so they secretly vote to hide the report.
At the time they expected their Senior Advisor (the ex Kalgoorlie Grader operator) Ray Hooper to stand in front of them and defend their decision. Not so, Ray packed his bags and skipped town and left them holding the can.
The question is: Was Matthew Reid set up by the "DLG Guru"?
CONGRATULATIONS and thank you to the resident who pursued the credit card information and provided this time line of events for all to read.
ReplyDeleteClearly Ray Hooper was shit scared you would find things on his Credit card statements that he did not want anyone to see. His actions were that of a very desperate and frightened man.
Now the time line has been aired - any chance we can start seeing some of those Credit Card Statements on the blog?
You forgot the attempts made prior to that for several years by several ratepayers and the small bit of information we had to go on to report it along with other things to the CCC.
ReplyDeleteNobody forgot anything, Just read the title of the article, this is about a recent link to the Fitz Gerald report not about your claim to fame!
DeleteThe Truth is Out There I see in another post there is a letter to Minister Simpson that mentions that credit card info was requested in 2008 with proof of the letters sent if we want to see them. This is getting good now, Can you give us your timeline, obviously you have copies of everything if you took it all to the CCC and can you tell us about the report to the CCC and what happened?
DeleteSeems to me that the "vexatiousness" was on the other foot, or other feet.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct Anti Vexi. Don't we see in others the things we dislike about ourselves? I think Ray did.
DeleteRay Hooper failed several times to have Simon Saint declared vexatious. Ray simply would not accept it was not legal. Is that not the actions of a desperate man? Ray knew Simon was getting close to (or had) evidence of corruption and Ray pulled out all stops to crucify the Saints - including misleading Councillors, Staff and the people of York.
The attacks on Simon Saint were relentless and the Councillors did nothing to stop it. Letters/emails show Boyle and Hooper joined in on the attacks! Anyone who questioned what was happening became a target.
This whole SOY/DLG saga of lies, deceit and cover ups is an absolute disgrace. Sooner or later all those involved will have to face what they did to various people in York and in particular the Saints.
In the mean time guilt, fear and perhaps even a little shame (only in some) will be eating away at the perpetrators and those who could have, and should have acted to stop it.
So did the credit card records reveal any illegal, unlawful purchases?
ReplyDeleteWe can't be sure, because information has been systematically withheld from all of us, not just Simon Saint.
DeleteLet's suppose for a moment that CEO Hooper used his credit card as it was meant to be used, in other word, he did nothing wrong.
In that case, why was he so reluctant to have the records of his credit card usage hidden from the public gaze? I put myself in Mr Hooper's shoes. I imagine that malicious, vexatious ratepayers are hurling accusations of credit card chicanery at me. What would I do? Indeed, what would any reasonable person do in such circumstances?
My first step would be to insist that all records of my corporate credit card usage be placed in the public domain. My second would be to justify, sensibly and politely, every purchase to which my critics drew attention as evidence of my alleged dishonesty. My third would be to ensure that, no matter what the provocation, I would maintain a dignified and pleasant demeanour towards my critics, as befits one who serves the public at any level of government and administration. Above all, I would want to confound my critics by clearing my name.
That, I believe, would be a rational response. Alas, Mr Hooper's response was very different indeed, as the above timeline reveals. It immediately gave rise to the suspicion that he has something to hide. By withholding information and insulting his persecutors, he gave a very good simulation of a man who has left his integrity out of the fridge in very hot weather.
We should not presume that Mr Hooper has done anything criminal or even merely wrong. He is entitled, as we all are, to the presumption of innocence. It's quite possible that an apparent obsession with administrative secrecy is the only thing that has brought about his downfall (a great movie, by the way). I hope Mr Hooper quells any further upsurge of indignation and sets about reassuring the public that he is as honest and upright as we have a right to expect with any shire CEO. Probity rules, OK?
To James Plumridge17 January 2015 at 20:41: love your combination of rational analysis combined with piquant humour.
Deletere the question from Anonymous 17th Jan 15:21 whether there were any illegal or unlawful purchases on the Credit card - only an independent inquiry will determine the answers to that question and that my friend is what Ray Hooper is frightened of (I suspect a couple of Councillors as well)
DeleteYou would think all the listings for drive thru bottle departments North and South of the River, numerous trips to Bunnings Malaga on weekends, lunch and dinner in Freo both Sat. & Sun and of course the 'extra days' either side of the LG conference etc. etc. were all above board and legitimate then no one has any thing to hide do they?
York Ratepayers paid for the Credit Card expenditure so they deserve to see the records. If they have questions about some of the items, they deserve to see the dockets and have an explanation from the person who signed the docket.
If there was nothing illegal or unlawful, show the statements and the dockets to those footing the bill.
Would be interesting to do a spread sheet of the credit card dockets for each year during Ray Hoopers time with headings so we can see exactly where rate payers money went. We are entitled to see this.
DeleteI am sure Ray Hooper would be anxious to clear any doubts in the matter, considering he claimed to practice open and accountable governance.
Record Keeper - with a pen name like that, I am surprised you haven't already done a spreadsheet yourself, are you offering to do one for us?
DeleteYes, we are entitled to see the information but from a Council perspective, It will only be seen if it is prepared and paid for by a ratepayer.
If you are interested (and it has been mentioned several times on the blog now) have you been in to the Shire office to have a look at the files for public viewing of this information?
Otherwise, in each of the monthly minutes of the Shire Council Meetings,(in the financials bit) there is a Summary of card spending, You could create a spreadsheet from that information. Keep us posted.
Good answer, talks the talk but does not walk the walk!
DeleteIn a Nutshell, I am struggling to keep up with the information on this blog, could you explain the second paragraph of your comment above please.
DeleteAnonymous at 22.07, are you also Record Keeper?
DeleteCouncil did not and will not voluntarily provide us with all that information (in a spreadsheet or any format) Why would they? It would be down to the ratepayers to research or obtain the records for themselves (as suggested) and then produce a spreadsheet at their own cost.
Assuming there is documentation to support the chronology of events listed above, it seems tangible that the content of CEO Hooper's credit card statements contain information damaging to him, the Shire of York (Council) and more importantly Minister Simpson and the Department.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the Department of local Government was alerted to the potential for corruption sometime in 2008 but chose to ignore warnings. Worse still, they allowed CEO Hooper to hugely limit the publication of his credit card statements. Why would the Department do this? After all, part of its own mission statement is to promote transparency, or similar fallacious statements.
That's the first mistake Jennifer Mathews, Director General, made, believing CEO Hooper. With hindsight, I'm sure she would have done things differently and directed CEO Hooper to make doubly sure the monthly financials are transparent.
The second mistake, was to allow CEO Hooper to get away with it for six years. Now it's all blown up and she's found herself in the firing line. So what were Jennifer Mathews options? Either fully investigate or suppress, sadly she chose the latter , had she have chosen to investigate, she would have been implicated due to her inaction from 2008.
The extraordinary lengths CEO Hooper went to attempting to have certain people declared vexatious is mind-boggling , coupled with dubious financial activities, surely the alarm bells should have rung in some government department somewhere.?
CEO Hooper spent municipal funds with McLeods solicitors, visited and wrote to the Department on numerous occasion and wrote to the information Commissioner to silence certain ratepayers, and that's supposed to be normal behaviour from a senior public sector worker WITH NOTHING TO HIDE....????
Anonymous 17th Jan. 15:36
DeleteAppears those involved do have an awful lot to hide.
This whole York/DLG saga is extremely damaging to the image of the State Government, and in particular the DLG. I am more than surprised Colin Barnett has not realised this and acted before now. Perhaps he thought the Show Cause Notice would solve it - wrong!
That Show Cause Notice was a typical Public Servant quick fix. The problem was not Matthew Reid, the problems go back 8- 10 years in York are still waiting to be resolved!
Sense of entitlement from York's gentry.
DeleteIt's 2015. The days of 'York's gentry' are over. The gentry sold off their farms close to town for housing developments and now they are whinging because 'outsiders' have come in to live here and bought with them fresh ideas.
DeleteTime the gentry got over it and accepted York has grown up.
And we have seen so much evidence that some (not all, hopefully) who see themselves as 'York royalty or 'York Gentry' behave in not the slightest way genteel-ly. The most genteel keep their counsel, don't yell at people, don't intimidate, do use people's proper names when addressing them (particularly in formal situations, which includes council meetings), treat everyone with respect, etc..... The ones we have in mind do not behave this way.
DeleteThe role of the DLG and Matthews is central to all of this. Previous posts have outlined the "strong" monitoring actions to be taken but which did not happen, despite that being its statutory role. Fail.
ReplyDeleteThen we see the timeline that ignores all the past issues and focusses on the current president we can see just how desperate they were becoming to bury the past.
Then we come to the show cause notice and the items such as the signatures on the purchase orders and the tape recording. The evidence that the "investigators" got them wrong seems to be overwhelming.
Which then flows on to the question just how could they get their "evidence" so wrong. That leads to two basic conclusions - either incompetence or deliberate. Either has serious consequences for Matthews and Simpson.
We then come to the Shires response and its evidence refuting most or all of the show cause notice, and the significant fact that Simpson ignored all of that. Starting to look a bit bleak for Simpson now.
The fight for the truth may have just started, and it may be a long (er) fight, but the scalps at the end will be worth it.
Please keep up the publication of the information held so we can see how the previous councillors, CEO and the government got away for so long.
My apologies to VERITAS, I have plagiarised part of your previous post to give some background.
ReplyDeleteExtract copy only (full original post is in Blog archive 2015 an older post where Cr Boyle is wearing a Clown Suit)
So....It's not about the money, money, money! Without prejudice.
At the Special Electors Meeting in December 2014, the Shire President informed the public that three files containing factual information and documents were being submitted to the Minister as part of the rebuttal to the Show Cause Notice and copies would also be available for public viewing at the Shire office. Go and have a look, there are many interesting and surprising documents contained within. It will make you understand why we are where we are today and why it all stinks of a cover up!
Plenty of documents record 'alleged' excessive costs for unapproved or unwarranted expenditure to include some of the following:
It is 'alleged' that CEO Ray Hooper made claims for goods and services to which he was not entitled. That excessive claims were made for Conference expenses 'outside of confirmed conference dates'. CEO Ray Hooper and his wife certainly appear to have enjoyed our hospitality to the tune of thousands of dollars!
There are many examples provided over a period of years which also show (and again, it is 'alleged'), that Cr Boyle was rather frivolous with the contents of the mini bar on his exit from one hotel, walking away with alcohol and snacks brimming from his pockets (and probably emitting a knowing guffaw at the thought of it being ratepayers footing the bill). The final bill also included full payment for entertaining Mrs Boyle! It could be the case that Cr Boyle made re-imbursement for his wife's costs and all goods and services not relating to 'Council Business'.??? Is there a policy???
Then there is Local Government Week: open for attendance by all elected members and held in Perth over 3 days. This is an annual event, an acceptable and expected event for Councillors to attend. Registration costs of $6873.00 aside, allowing for a couple of nights accommodation and meals it would be accepted that reasonable costs would work out at approximately $850 on a per room basis (with or without partners in attendance). In August 2013, five council representatives attended so it could be calculated that these costs would be approximately $4250.00.
However for York Council, it cost the ratepayers $7267.00 for the Rydges Hotel and other hospitality in Perth. Of those attending, Councillor's Duperouzel. Smythe and Scott clocked up a paltry $861.50, $825.00 and $1000.00 respectively. Then we have Shire President Boyle with a mere $1,744.50 (including the mini bar) and CEO Ray Hooper with a stupendous $2,763.00. How? Probably because a majority of the additional cost related to supplementary overnight hotel and hospitality costs - poor things, it must have been so draining and such a long drive that CEO Hooper and Cr Boyle felt the need to stay at the Hotel the night before and the night after with sustenance, and all at our expense!
VERITAS
I can't understand why the shire should have had to meet the cost of entertaining Mrs Boyle. Couldn't Tony entertain her from his own resources?
DeleteI too find it difficult to understand James, because most normal honest Men would never allow 'their beloved' to become a free loader at the expense of ratepayers.
DeleteSir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon), must have written the following on behalf of the Department:
ReplyDelete"The Shire has advised the Department that the unconfirmed Minutes had been left on the Shire's website and the confirmed Minutes had not been uploaded. The Department has confirmed that the Shire has now placed the confirmed Minutes on the Shire's website and it has implemented a process improvement to ensure the unconfirmed Minutes are replaced with the confirmed Minutes, which reflects the information that was presented to Council".
Even Sir Humphrey in his most Machiavellian and obfuscatory moments would never have perpetrated a barbarism like 'process improvement'.
DeleteI'm sure someone has already commented on the fact that Jennifer Mathews, Director General Department of LG has a legal background. Taking this into account, you would have thought she would have had the professional savvy to test the facts in her report to the Minister before handing it to him...?
ReplyDeleteThen again, with her legal background, you would have thought she would have tested the facts in Matthew Reid's rebuttal.
Maybe that explains why she's not a practicing lawyer!
I think you are right Peter.
ReplyDeleteI believe all those involved thought their 'stick together' policy would go on for ever, what they failed to reckon on was social media and this blog site.
Ms. Mathews knew back when Tricia Walters was a York Councillor there were serious problems here and she chose to 'back the boys'. The boys as in the then 5 male Councillors (Boyle, Hooper, Lawrance, Randell and Scott) and their advisor Ray Hooper. They all made Tricia's life hell. They acted like a pack of dogs!
Tricia Walters deserves a medal for sticking out the four years.
Why is everybody so determined to sabotage my fervent desire to believe that former CEO Hooper has done nothing wrong?
ReplyDeleteSorry James this fervent desire of yours may be because you were never shafted by Ray Hooper.
DeleteExperience teaches that if you have a seemingly impossible problem, just cut it down to size! It would seem that your current problem in York can be neatly divided into past present and future.
ReplyDeleteThe present is taken care of by your commissioner, with whom, even though imposed onto a democracy from above, you can probably bump along together for six months, hopefully with good will on all sides.
The future will depend on the past. It is the past which shapes the future. History teaches us that the past MUST be settled to the satisfaction of all participants, or it will seethe and fester and never be let to rest. Witness the second world war, caused by the war exhausted unsustainable settlement imposed at the end of the first world war. In England now - the Hillsborough disaster - public disquiet and resentment with the original inquiry has caused a new inquiry 10 years on.
The current spate here of accusations, followed by prosecutions and imprisonment for abuse perpetrated 10, 20, 30, even 40 years ago (even Australia's very own Rolf Harris) the list goes on. Only justice, openly and transparently seen to be done will close off the past and allow a new beginning.
It follows, that every complaint from every York resident/ratepayer, has to be openly and fully investigated and settled to the complete satisfaction of the complainant. Only then can you move on to your future.
The best I could wish for York would be a team of English investigative newspaper journalists to ferret out the truth, followed by a High Court Judge to dispense justice.
Just a thought, perhaps the occasional gentle reminder to all those paid from the public purse, they are the public's' servants, not their masters.
What your saying RSUK makes perfect sense and if we weren't living with corruption at the highest level the above mentioned chain of events would and should occur.
ReplyDeleteRSUK - great to see someone on the other side of the World reading and contributing suggestions to our Blog. Bit like world wide brain storming!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, our previous Councillors here in York allowed the Shire CEO (their employee) to assume the role of a dictator - hence the problems.
English investigative journalists would be a welcome ally for those pushing for an inquiry. It is definitely worth a try.
Would very much appreciate some names, so we can send the link for the blog to them?
.
The CEO (Ray Hooper) did not allow Shire staff to speak directly with any Councillors regarding anything! Completely unbelievable...
ReplyDeleteMichael Keeble did the same AFTER he had secured a permanent contract.
DeleteWhile he was employed on a temporary basis, he was nice and pie to everyone. Mr. gentle, quiet obliging helpful CEO. As soon as he stitched up our Council with a permanent contract he turned feral! You only have to listen to the recording to realise what a nasty foul mouthed person he turned out to be. God help any other Shire her employs him.
To RSUK: thank you for your contribution, based, I venture, on plenty of experience. How often have some of us said among ourselves that the Shire is there to serve the people, not the other way around — and with respect and understanding. It would be lovely if that would (miraculously or through the pain of prosecutions) this would end up being the situation.
ReplyDeleteSome of us are being expected, in the near future, to enlighten the Commissioner on our vision for York's future. That would be one of the points. The wellbeing of the people in every respect should be the goal. Everything else should serve that.
I wonder whether our Commissioner has studied history and is in a position to enlighten the Shire Councillors and CEO who in the past repressed women who spoke up, insulted people by yelling or not using their proper names in meetings, or spread false rumours, or caused more than one person to fold up their business or lose their home, or who 'stole' from the citizens and tourists various heritage buildings & and property in order to line the Shire coffers for what they and their set of friends wanted to see happen, or who sold (to a crony and without a just valuation or a just tender process — the process was spuriously concluded) heritage property out from under the feet of an organisation which had at least 1 more year of contract to use it for the good of people's access to archived history of York and its families, or seriously diminished the 'amenity' of York by e.g. allowing important trees to be cut down including in favour of a development which never happened, neglected drains that have caused illness, and generally intimidated anyone who spoke up.
That is a short version of what has broken our trust. It will take a lot to get it back. We do thank those who so far have paid a big price to try and get justice.
On investigative journalists, we have had some good ones in Australia (including in Perth); but they would have to see this little town as worth it and understand how crucial is the need for healing.
In hope.......
Well put RSUK - all as a result of too few people and too few newspapers in WA, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeletePardon me if I have misunderstood this timeline,
On 11 April 2014 Shire President Matthew Reid received advise from Ms Jenni Law of DLGC to appoint an independent person to investigate 'THE complaint dated 4 April 2014'.
Can someone explain to me - Why did the Fitz Gerald Report include so many other issues that were actually nothing to do with THE complaint of 4 April??
Just asking? Read the start of the report again
DeleteIt is so frustrating responding to anonymous!
DeleteFor a start I am not that stupid, I am surprised you even bothered to comment, whoever you are. Of course I have read the start of the report as I have read the Show Cause Notice as I have read the timeline comments, have you?
If you had, you would read that the original instruction/Council resolution was to engage Fitz Gerald Strategies to investigate THE complaint , not NUMEROUS complaints and general concerns from virtually anyone who had a gripe. I just don't see how some of the areas and issues covered in the Fitz Gerald report are relevant to its purpose. I am not sure what was being achieved by including/reporting minor complaints that should have been left on the office desk. Personally I don't think they give the report much credibility. Why and on who's instructions did Mr F G expand the scope of the investigation? If he had stuck to the one issue it would not have cost the ratepayers so much. $20,000 for what? a suppressed report. Talking of that, we own the report, what the bloody hell is the Minister doing with it, here's your cue Mr Best, you are now the Council, get the report back and deal with it!
The report's credibility ultimately depends on the quality of the evidence that supports its allegations.
DeleteIf Mr Fitz Gerald exceeded his brief, I think it was because of the sheer pressure of community disquiet built up over many years and his wise and generous decision to let people have their say on a variety of matters that sorely needed public airing.
Honestly, why does it matter that he exceeded his brief? The report opened a window on what seems to be best described as systematic deception, fraud and corruption in York and the harassment and defamation of people who tried to draw attention to that noxious state of affairs.
It also, inadvertently, alerted us to the very real possibility that successive DLGC ministers and senior members of their department had known what was going on but had covered their eyes while 'crossing their fingers and hoping', to borrow an apposite phrase from their probity guru, Mr Brad Jolly.
The report's allegations are so serious that in any political system where probity, rather than just the appearance of probity, really mattered, the authorities would have fallen over themselves to set up an inquiry. Instead, up goes the cry 'Let bygones be bygones, let's bury the bloody thing', and out come the bureaucratic spades.
I suppose it's possible that every allegation in the Fitz Gerald Report is false, based on errors, lies and faked documents. In that case, former CEO Hooper, other members of council staff, and former shire presidents Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper have suffered a monstrous injustice. If so, we and they need a proper inquiry to set the record straight. If not, and the report is credible, even if only partly so, our need for an inquiry is no less pressing.
What seems evident so far is that Minister Tony Simpson and his army of pious jobsworths have no interest in authorising an inquiry or in responding in any way to the report other than to say nothing about it and bury it, as they hope, out of sight and mind. Now why would they want to do that?
Just Asking?
DeleteResearching the background of this dreadful mess for myself, I read the original Minutes of the Special Meeting (see extract below) . This may clarify things. It states 'other relevant matters'
MINUTES – ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 14 APRIL 2014 page 107
“That Council: RESOLVE to:
1. Endorse the Shire President‟s response to a letter of complaint dated 4th April, 2014
as confidentially circulated to members.
2. Appoint Fitz Gerald Strategies and if necessary Jackson Macdonald as consultants to provide Council with relevant professional advice by way of reporting to Council on its legal position and any responsibilities or obligations it may have in relation to the above-mentioned letter of complaint and other relevant matters.
3. Adopt the consultant‟s brief as confidentially circulated to members.
4. Expenditure for this matter to be allocated to Budgeted items Consultants, Governance.
5. Authorise the Shire President to liaise with the consultants and direct on this matter.
6. Council to seek guidance from LGIS.
RESOLUTION 190414
Moved: Cr Wallace
Seconded: Cr Smythe
CARRIED: 6/0
The amendment became the motion.
Residents need to ask Tony Boyle, Pat Hooper and Mark Duperouzel why they voted for the process and then blocked the report from being released. As I understand it, not one person interviewed was provided with a draft copy for proof reading, probably because at least two of the three councillors realised they were exposed in the report.
Just Asking?- I doubt the complainants in the report feel their complaints were minor complaints that should have been left on the office desk. I feel that is a little unsympathetic of you. I assume you have not experienced the type of intimidation accusers have. I was interviewed by Fitzgerald and I can assure you only about 1/10th of the complaints I lodged were heard.
DeleteI agree with James-what does it matter what the scope was originally? Aren't you more concerned about what accusations were made in the report and getting to the bottom of those?
Also, you mentioned $20,000 for a report that was suppressed. Don't forget who secretly suppressed it.
Lastly please try to keep your tone friendly. Anyone is entitled to remain anonymous and entitled to have an opinion or theory different to yours. Ultimately I think we all want the same thing.
Having ventured a toe into your politically muddied waters, I have to ask do you not have police, do you not have the crimes of theft, fraud, embezzlement, false accounting? We know you do, which could point the finger to messers(!) Hooper and Boyle receiving protection from on high (not heavenly high, only ministerially high). Could the duo have something on the minister? Are there more financial conundrums lurking? Colloquially known as 'back handers'. Could SITA be mentioned in the same breath?
ReplyDeleteIs your political power house unbalanced, does too much power and influence reside with 'the good old boys' - the land owners, the farmers et al? Sorry to refer back to the UK again, but we had our 'rotten boroughs', where land, wealth and privilege bought politics. It happens.
Or possibly your minister could have been struck by the mysterious Headless Chicken Syndrome. You know, chop off a chicken's head and it will still run up and down the road. No matter the amount of work which was put into the Show Just Cause it was always going to be shelved. Your minister had to buy time, some how, any old how, because he doesn't have the slightest idea what to do. Hence, the commissioner.
Back to SITA, I am no hydrologist, but given the proposed site for landfill, when the Perth wells run dry, where is Perths water going to come from? Is Perth going to be in the position of having poisoned its own water with its own detritus?
RSUK
RSUK keep contributing - I love it!
DeleteQuoting Mr. Plumridge: "If Mr Fitz Gerald exceeded his brief, I think it was because of the sheer pressure of community disquiet built up over many years and his wise and generous decision to let people have their say on a variety of matters that sorely needed public airing."
DeleteAdd to that the fact that, as Miss Tified pointed out, the inclusion of the words "and other relevant matters" did broaden the authorised (by Council on 14 April) scope of the investigation that resulted in The Fitz Gerald Report.
What those who were not targets of Ray Hooper, Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle and certain other odd Councillors over the last 10 years do not seem to appreciate is that people have been traumatised (some to a lesser extent and some to a greater extent) and that if this is not dealt with in an understanding and sympathetic and reparative way the trauma will not entirely go away. In fact, it will fester.
In fact, the very neglect (at the very least) or denial (at the most) of the need to deal with the truths exposed regarding victimisation and carelessness with citizens' feelings by not only some Councillors and CEO/s has has already, in some cases for years, been exacerbating the trauma to a number of people.
Not only that, but because we have been so badly let down repeatedly — by a variety of sets of Councillors and CEO RH as well as, eventually, CEO MK as well as by those ministers and LG officials in Perth and ultimately the Minister — our faith in 'the system', in the Department and in some of our existing representatives has been broken.
The issues raised in The Fitz Gerald [enquiry and] Report are still unresolved, and so is the damage to the reputation of York Shire and its Council, and so is the ongoing trauma which is exacerbated with every 'dead end' and 'brick wall' we come up against.
How can York recover without resolution of these matters? We could have a mass hysteria 'conversion' of the entire population of York to some sort of cult-like state of detachment from reality, do you think? Some blind kind of hero or guru worship, do you think? Historically and in people's lives those kinds of 'solutions' involving intellectual and emotional by-passing of reality have always led to more destruction and dystopia than existed before — and even the rebuilding of entire communities if not countries.
It simply is not possible for this town to heal if the facts and the hurts are ignored!!!!!!
RSUK question - 'Is Perth going to be in the position of having poisoned its own water with its own detritus?'
DeleteThe answer is probably yes, because the proposed landfill site is adjacent to a pristine Water Catchment area.
Those involved from SITA, together with those selling the York farm probably won't be alive by the time the poisons filter through to Perth's drinking water supply so it won't be their problem.
It is all down to $$$$ and a quick fix for the State Government. The rubbish will be over the escarpment and out of sight of those in the 'burbs.
Lets hope common sense prevails.
I recently read a Cree Indian Prophecy
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only them will you find that money cannot be eaten.