BEST BULLSHITTER IN TOWN
PUTTING HIS "BEST" FOOT FORWARD.
In February’s edition of The York and Districts Community Matters York’s Commissioner, James Best, is quoted as saying “It would be fantastic (for York) to become a town like Hahndorf in Adelaide” being an example of a tourist town York could emulate.
Unfortunately Hahndorf is not in Adelaide, nor is it part of Adelaide.
A month ago, January 5, 2015, I wrote to the Hon Kim Hames, Minister for Tourism, CC’d to the
Hon Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia regarding the tourism industry in York.
The following is part of this letter.
“I am hoping that, now, you and your department show due respect to the overall importance
of historic inland towns, in particular York, as a tourism asset and assist it financially, and otherwise,
to re-establish itself as an Events Tourism market leader.
This is not a selfish request. It is supported by substantive evidence of the financial significance of similar historic towns in other Australian States in their local, national and international tourism markets.
One example is, Hahndorf, in the Adelaide Hills. Established in 1839 by German Lutheran immigrants it has used its ethnic background and its close proximity to Adelaide to develop itself as an integral part of South Australia’s tourism landscape.
Another is Dalesford in Victoria, established in 1852. Like York and Hahndorf it is located close to a capital city, is close to international and domestic airports, celebrates its Swiss-Italian heritage and has the historical bona fides of being established in excess of 160 years ago.
The Dalesford Local Government Area claims to have 1 million tourists per annum, in excess of 40,000 overnight accommodation bookings, with tourism providing $129 million in gross revenue to the region each financial year.
Like Hahndorf and Dalesford, York has all the ingredients, including an Anglo-Saxon, Northern England, farming heritage it can be proud of, which allowed it to be the first ‘food bowl’ assisting in preventing both starvation and the abandonment of the Swan River Colony.
The fact that York, Western Australia’s first inland rural community, is promoted by Tourism Western Australia as part of “Experience Perth’ appears illogical in practice and can probably only be explained by a Public Service style, economic rationalism in theory.
Experience Perth appears to be partially designed to encourage tourists to enjoy a “Day-tripper” experience to destinations within a 150 kilometer radius of the Perth CBD, ensuring maximum tourist occupancy rate for hotel accommodation providers in the Perth Metropolitan Area.
To the best of my knowledge, Hahndorf is not part of any so-called Adelaide experience- or Dalesford part of a Melbourne one. They are promoted as what they are, not just part of an experience. This is logical- and it is a financial success.
Another intrinsic problem is that some WA Local Government Councils, which are supposed to have significant positive input into the provision of local tourism information and assist in tourism development in their own Local Government Area, have no tourism promotion and marketing expertise what-so-ever.
The resurrection of York as a tourist icon and ‘Gateway to the Heartlands’ could be initially cosmetic in nature to provide a fresh ambiance to the historic York Town site, and be relatively inexpensive.
(Here it should be noted that the Shire of York could have withheld funding in excess of $500,000 from tourism related promotion since the theft from, and financial collapse of, the York Tourist Bureau Inc. in 2009-10.)
I am quite sure that the Shire of York President, Matthew Reid, his council and local tourism business operators would be more than happy to meet with you to discuss a joint Government, Tourism Western Australia and local council project to beautify, rebrand and rebirth, York, as a major WA tourist attraction.
Of course it may just be a coincidence that Mr. Best came up with the town of HAHNDORF
as his prime example. Then again maybe Minister Hames and Premier Barnett feel that Mr.
Best needs all the help he can get.
David Taylor
YORK ratepayer
It would appear that Mr Best is establishing a pseudo council made up of 'important' people, no prizes for guessing who's going to sit in the 'Best' seat at the table? Can any bloggophiles provide names of the "community leaders" and club/association "elected presidents and chairs", referred to in the article? This will enable the 'ordinary' people to lobby their respective Presidents and Chairs.
ReplyDeleteHenry Underhill was a man who felt he had been called upon to rule, and he was not put off by the fact that no one else seemed to have noticed.
DeletePeter Carey, 'Illywhacker'
At the age of four with paper hats and wooden swords we're all generals. Only some of us never grow out of it.
Peter Ustinov, 'Romanoff and Juliet'
And when we think we lead, we are most led.
George Gordon, Lord Byron, 'The Two Foscari'
As your leader, I go the way Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker. Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich (1936)
Mr Best, I cannot believe you! Under Matthew Reid we were thinking about our future. Matthew created community consultation groups and everyone was given the opportunity to partake. Where is my opportunity to partake in one of your contrived little groups? It seems you are creating the advisory groups you want to hear from, no doubt because you can baffle them with your bullshit and they will ask no questions, and the rest of York get no say. How arrogant and manipulative of you.
ReplyDeletePlease stop saying you have not tried to shut down the blog. You told way too many people first hand that is your intention. To state in this newspaper article that it is untrue is a bare faced lie. What you are trying to do is divide this community into those which blog and those which think you actually encourage freedom of speech. That makes you no better than the previous regime. Your despicable.
With regard to your statement about the Fitzgerald report-do you think we're bloody stupid? Again you have told first hand way too many people you have no intention of investigating the Fitzgerald report so why pretend otherwise in the newspaper.
Mr Best, quoting that you wish to meet with 'Leaders' of the 'major organisations' is somewhat reckless. Your use of the word 'Leaders' gives credibility to the self proclaimed important person status. Major Organisations - on what basis have you formed the opinion which of the local groups are in this category? Major signifies something much grander than the average tea and cake club, drop in centre or community assistance group so what sets them apart from all other groups?
ReplyDeleteMr Best, I think you will find that most community groups within York already find it hard enough to get members let alone committee members so please tell me where this influx of people for the Community Advisory Groups is coming from? Surely with all the Visioning Forums anticipated, we will need to form another group or committee to organise all the events! Maybe the existing 'Leaders' of the Major Groups will multi skill, infiltrate every group and head them up to eventually make them one Significant Major Organisational Group (SMOG).
You say, all people want to see is a vibrant and active place - well good luck with that, it was doing very nicely thank you until the past Council let personalities get in the way and behaved disgracefully, restricting every avenue of encouragement for growth and new business in York. I don't think 5 months of your time or any committee structure is going to sort that one out!
The CEO, Graeme Simpson and you are offering to meet with anyone with any concerns for them to 'come and chat to us and see what can be done in the spirit of good will and good faith'. You are keen to meet with the community 'leaders' yet you then say everyone with a concern should contact you! That is very good of you to wait for the damaged people to contact you - good will and good faith is something you offer up when selling a business and most of the time - not worth the paper it's written on. A most insincere gesture indicating that basically you don’t give a care about the minions but you have to be 'seen' to give a shit!
Incidentally, when I read that you followed the development principles of EPA, for one brief moment I thought you might be referring to protection of our environment -silly me!
Nice bitch slap David.
ReplyDeleteSorry James (P.) I previously stated (An Olive Branch) I would try and be a little more understanding of the unfortunate situation Mr. Best is in.
ReplyDeleteI DID TRY. After reading the latest edition of the YDCM paper, the Olive Branch withered over night.
Where the hell do people like James Best learn their skills for kicking people while they are down? Mr. Best is making a habit of insulting people, any chance his teacher was Ray Hooper?
Why is Mr. Best seeking 'important' people from groups and organisations when THE PEOPLE of York already made THEIR choice - overwhelmingly. The people Mr. Best is choosing never bothered to put their hands up at the last election so why should they decide OUR future.
Mr. Best be up front and honest, provide us with a list of those 'important' people and the name of the person(s) who wrote the list.
Mr. Best also says Mr. Reid and the elected councillors did an excellent job, so why were they suspended? It all adds up to a Government cover up by the DLG.
For Mr. Best to state we MAY have been mistreated in the past is so patronising. Get your facts straight - we WERE mistreated. Go put your feet up on the polished desk, grab a coffee and read the Fitz Gerald Report, including the evidential documents provided!
Mr. Best also says he would like to see the personal attacks on the blog stop - why? For 10 years residents put up with personal attacks being metered out by Councillors and Ray Hooper. We wanted them to stop, we asked the DLP and two Local Government Ministers to help and they ignored us.
The one thing I do agree with that Mr. Best said: It would be fantastic to become a town like Hahndorf in (South Australia) - not Adelaide.
Hahndorf does not have a landfill rubbish tip and York does not want one either.
Here is your chance to secure that future for us Mr. Best. STOP THE PROPOSED RUBBISH TIP.
Well done David. Mr. Best may not be comfortable talking for a while. Choking on the word Hahndorf I think?
ReplyDeleteIt gets really exhausting putting your hand up to volunteer to be in visionary groups only to have a new person come in every 6 months and re create the wheel. Don't hold your breath Mr Best for the skilled people to come forward yet again.
ReplyDeleteIt's not negatively that is the problem, we've had to rise above the negatively for years, otherwise nothing would have ever progressed in York. You have the same old underlying problem though, the staff! Gail, Tyscha and Tabitha will sabotage any project if you engage with folks they have a grudge against.
Best advice I can give you is not to believe word they tell you and perhaps then the people you need to deliver your vision will stick their hands up again. Maybe.
The second peice of advice I would give you is to stop blowing smoke up your own ass. Your accomplishments over an hour long meeting is not what people want to hear.
So Mr Best is telling people he wants to start his own blog. Are you a complete moron or what? We want answers not more of your rhetoric!
ReplyDeleteBill, I for one would be very happy if Mr Best were to start his own blog. Our blogmaster has assured me (without revealing his identity, I should add) that Mr Best has the run of this blog to respond to anything he reads here. Presumably, on his own blog Mr Best would enable comments and engage in lively debate with his readers - even those of us who don't qualify as important people a.k.a. 'persons of consequence' in our town.
DeleteMr. Best surely does not believe residents of York will place comments on HIS new Blog site? If he does, he must think we are stupid.
DeleteWe have an excellent Blog site, with a proven security record and it is working very well thank you.
You can bet if residents start blogging on his new site, Mr. Best will be ordered to engage (at our expense) some expensive tracking process (legal of course) to identify the bloggers and the legal battles will start all over again.
We have had years of experience dealing with very sneaky people at the Shire, so will give his site a miss.
Anyway, the offer has been made to him to use this site, so why re-invent the wheel? Unless of course there is an ulterior motive.
Great to see Kommissionar Best acknowledge that this blog is getting attention all around Australia. Simmo, Matthews and Co plus the past Shire gang must be stoked with all the free media they are getting and this can only encourage us to keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteWhat is clear is that they just do not get it, or do not want to get it.
There has been a long history of wrongs to the York community by its own local government, and this has been amplified by the abject failure of the other responsible government agencies such as the Ministers and the DLG to do anything to fix the problems.
But then they have the arrogant disdain of proper process, duty, fairness, probity and sheer right, to arbitrarily suspend a democratically elected government on trumped up vague charges that cannot even be supported by the Minister himself. It then becomes a sick farce that that council was starting to turn the ship around and their actions have sunk any chance of that long overdue improvement.
Then the final slap in the face is to send in Mr Best who obviously has no idea whatsoever of what the actual problem and its extent is. Mr Best has some very slight chance of recovering some credibility and achievement if he very quickly gets a grip on the actual problem and makes a bold decision to do what is right - that is to fully support the York community to right the wrongs of the past, and that includes joining this blog. The alternative is that he is writing himself into the inglorious pages of the York history.
I for one will not hold my breath.
Finally, if correct that the Acting CEO has had his contract extended, when, where and how did that occur as I have seen no sign of any council meeting or decision.
I think the Commissioner has the legal right to extend the A/CEO's contract, as he is the Council at present.
DeleteI am beginning to think Mr. Best assumes we are devoid of intelligence and feelings here in York?
ReplyDeleteMr. Best claims the Fitz Gerald report did not follow the full requirements of the LG Act or due process and it had flawed natural justice process.
Mr. Best, we here in York have been experiencing flawed natural justice for 10 years, so I think you will find majority of residents will be more than happy to see the Fitz Gerald Report out in the open and dealt with, using the same flawed natural justice we were forced to accept from Ray Hooper.
It seems to me there are two sets of laws. One for the L. G, and that protects those who work within it, including Councillors. That Law allows those within to rip lives apart, tell blatant lies, spread false rumours and write vile cruel letters full of venom to people. That Law also permits Crs. to email each other calling residents names and denigrating deceased residents by blatantly lying about an incident they (the Cr) was not even a witness to. All of that is OK, because these Crs. and employees come under the DLG/EPP - that is the DLG Employee Protection Program.
Then we have the other Law for the Ratepayers. This is where the employees under the DLGEPP can spend their employers money engaging top Legal representation to take their employers (residents) to court if they attempt to demand accountability, fairness and honesty from the employees.
The world has gone mad
York, the past and current shire employees and councilors may well have the so called DLG/EPP but you have the PID.
DeleteThat is, the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 2003.
Sure, you have never been aware of it via the York website but don't let that stop you from using it in relation to not only that which the Fitz Gerald report revealed but also what Simpson and Co then did re: the highly questionable and suspect "show cause" process.
If all those public servants (including Mr Best) have or are failing in their duty to serve the public interest and instead have or are serving their own interests (or worse) and demonstratibly so, then you have recourse under the PID Act.
Then there is the CCC, though I would not blame anyone for not trusting that mob considering what was in the news about them recently.
So, in this world gone mad, at least make sure Mr Best is continually made aware of his obligations under the various Acts.
Do it nicely and York might even get the democracy it voted for back sooner than six months. ;-) :-)
Kommissioner Best is still bound by the local government act including making decisions at council meetings with public question time and public minutes.
ReplyDeleteSo where is the decision mr best, or are you above the law as well? What other devisions have been made behind closed doors. Geezus, there will be another show cause notice ......if only.
Mr best ..... over to you.
Mr Best, I think you should understand that The Blog has a wider audience even than Australia. It has a most interested following in the UK. We hold Australia in high regard and so we have been shocked and saddened that such an admirable country has set aside democracy and imposed such an oppressive regime in York.
DeleteYou quote Yeats - you should never quote a poet whose name you cannot spell - the particular poem you selected - well, did you know Yeats had a penchant for hallucinogenic substances - and was supposed to have been well away with the fairies when he wrote this particular poem. Not the best image to invoke.
I would ask you to show more respect for The Blog and for what it stands. The World Wide Web was GIVEN for world wide communication and the sharing of freedom of speech. It is disingenuous of you to suppose that you can berate and insult the ratepayers of York and then threaten to silence any dissenting voice.
In selecting specific groups and spokespersons with whom to cultivate your forward plans for the betterment of York you would seem to be employing the old colonial adage of divide and rule, whereby, if you cause dissension amongst the populace, set one against the other, then they are so busy fighting each other they don't notice you are doing exactly what you want done.
Furthermore, it is best to speak English, not politspeak (more commonly referred to as gobbledygook), it never makes any sense and is so yesterday.
Mr Best, as the Commissioner, is still bound by the Local Government Act and is not a law onto himself.
ReplyDeleteInteresting reading is this act of Parliament, not recommended bedside reading but when facing the adversity created by the dark side and now represented by Commissioner Best, it becomes essential reading to see what our rights are, and what his duty and powers are.
For example:
This Act is intended to result in —
(a) better decision-making by local governments; WHICH DECISIONS AND WHERE ARE THEY?
(b) greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments; THAT MEANS ALL THE COMMUNITY MR BEST NOT JUST YOUR SELECT FEW
and
(c) greater accountability of local governments to their communities; DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS MR BEST?
and
(d) more efficient and effective local government. HA HA HA EVEN PARLIAMENT HAS A SENSE OF HUMOUR
(3) In carrying out its functions a local government is to use its best endeavours to meet the needs of current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity. WELL MR BEST- WE ARE THE CURRENT GENERATION.
YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR DESPITE WHATEVER BRIEFINGS YOU MAY HAVE HAD FROM THE MINISTER AND HIS GANG. YOU ARE OUR COUNCIL. YOU WORK FOR US. WE ARE PAYING YOU. READ THE LEGISLATION. FINALLY, YOU ARE WRITING YOURSELF INTO THE DIM DARK HISTORY OF YORK AND WILL BE JUDGED HARSHLY FOR ANY FAILURE.
Finally, I apologise for shouting but I just hope that you get the message that the community has been treated like sewerage for many years now and has had enough. You accepted the position. We will not stand by and watch you further trash this community. We are in control and York will be here long after you have gone but your legacy will be a large part of its history. You are accountable and we are doing the probity audit and time line, and more importantly - we are doing the record.
Simmo prodded a sleeping giant just once to much and will pay a heavy price.
Yes, Mr Best is bound by the Act, but his powers as defined in section 2.38 of the Act are those of the shire president and the council as a whole. They include providing 'leadership and guidance to the community in the district', in normal circumstances the duty of the shire president (section 2.8). As you say, Mr Best is, in effect, the council (or as Louis XIV might have said, 'L'etat, c'est lui').
DeleteI suppose what counts as 'leadership and guidance' is a matter for debate. People go on about 'leadership' as though it's the glue that holds society together, instead of humane feeling based on mutual respect. The word 'leadership' always makes me feel uneasy. So often 'leaders' turn out to be self-important individuals with a talent for self promotion and an eye for the main chance.
Tell me this James;
DeleteIs Mr Best answerable to us, the ratepayers, or to Minister Simpson?
I would guess neither.
Mr Best has his hands tied and is answerable to the wicked witch of the West, Jennifer Mathews
(Gail,- only temporarily borrowing your title).
He is answerable to the Minister, who is answerable to Colin Barnett, who is answerable only to God until the next state election, when he will be answerable to the people and may well be returned to office.
DeleteAnd what's the betting we in York will be voting again for Mia Davies, who is so 'passionate' about the Wheatbelt that she simply ignores York's cries for help?
Re RSUK's comment "In selecting specific groups and spokespersons with whom to cultivate your forward plans for the betterment of York you would seem to be employing the old colonial adage of divide and rule": whether that is the intent or not, I believe we ALL should know what training and information and advice and indoctrination is given to the set-aside councillors, and they should be in on what is told to the rest of us, and they should be able to hear what we the people they are there to serve have to say and to contribute.
ReplyDeleteThey should be free to attend, at least as observers, whatever the rest of us are invited to, and the rest of us should have the chance to sit in on their training, or get the same. The latter could be particularly important for those who will stand for Council in the October elections. If they do not get the training they will be 'behind the eight ball', and could be endless squabbles between the trained and the untrained, or the trained could end up dominating the untrained.
What is most likely to divide us and set one over another is, as ever, the danger of what you don't know that 'people in-the-know' do!!
I agree with For Equal Opportunity & Open Knowledge-sharing.
DeleteLet those residents who want to sit in on the training do so. We might want to stand for Council at the next election and it would be smart to have us all on the same bus - that way it may avoid further Show Cause Notices being issued.
The whole training issue was just something that someone in the DLG dreamt up as a means to justify a decision to reinstate the existing suspended councillors. It is obvious that the Minister was going to suspend the Council and the whole probity audit, time line, show cause and response rejection was the objective. But once having suspended the council they needed something to justify un-suspending - so someone dreamt up a training requirement.
ReplyDeleteObviously no one actually thought beyond that (that is expecting too much from Matthews and co), and why you would train the few knowing full well that new councillors will be in place in October. So the DLG has dug another hole for itself and will have to come up with a solution to save the Minister's butt - again.
But it is all grist for the mill - and just adds to the overall picture of just how dysfunctional the DLG is. And to add to this blog.
Makes you wonder what training our Mr Best has - so far it seems like it was from the Mr Bean School of Municipal Muddling.
This blog is circulating far and wide, friends up north have been ringing to ask what is going on and it seems the DLG is not universally respected to put it mildly.
Friends and relatives far and wide are following the Blog on a daily basis. One friend thought it was worth considering for a TV series.
DeleteI must email them and ask if they meant a Comedy OR Criminal series.
I whole hardheartedly agree, Councillor Pat Hooper has stated he will not re-stand for Council, so why would you train a Councillor who will only have a maximum of three months to serve?
ReplyDeleteperhaps Mr Reid trains the other Councillors. He is 3/4 the way through his Bachelor in LG training. Which Btw is a testament to how committed he is. Didn't see Boyle doing a degree. Sorry Tony but learning how to devour the contents of a mini bar doesn't count.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be safe to say that Mr Reid has probably completed more training than most of the DLG employees have considering the advice they gave to Mr Reid leading up to the suspension.
The training is a farce. If the Minister was serious he would have booked them in swiftly. Instead they have heard nothing. You're FOS Simpson.
A good example of just what we are up against is the "probity" of the Premier, Minister Simpson and the Liberal Government. Before the election Barnett was still maintaining the line that there would be no forced mergers. Sorry what was that - no forced mergers!!!!
ReplyDelete"This is clear contradiction to his previous commitments and those by Tony Simpson the local member of Parliament for the Darling Range. Mr Simpson was forced to issue a press statement during the election campaign to clarify the Liberal Party's position in relation to this matter. ‘I recently made some remarks at a local forum that the Liberal Party supported forced amalgamations, I got it wrong, it was my mistake. I apologise for the confusion this has created.' - See more at: http://brokenpromises.org.au/promises/no-forced-local-government-amalgamations#sthash.2TZsZLQH.dpuf
What that actually means is that Simmo actually got it right and spoke the truth, and was then hauled before the Emperor who told him that he had it wrong, so Simmo being a good loyal politican and wanting to be Minister came out and said that he had been wrong - there was no forced mergers.
But in fact we all know that there are forced mergers taking place right now, so Simmo was right, but then said he was wrong, but he was right all along. And that is the standard of government we have.
In the American Indian culture that would probably be called "he speak with forked tongue".
This blog has included recent reference to the acting CEO contract being extended. I have checked the shire website and can find no reference to any official shire meeting. In fact the website seems to be dead. There is notice that the next ordinary meeting will be on 16 February 2015.
ReplyDeleteSo how and when did Best make a decision to extend the contract - that is a council decision and he is the council. I'm told that even though he is the commissioner and only councillor he is still required to hold proper meetings, and that includes public notice, public question time, agendas and minutes.
Please don't tell me that Mr Best is above the law and has made an executive decision behind closed doors without a proper meeting. Oh no, surely not, not the Commissioner breaking the law. What is the DLG going to do about that? Nothing of course.
He didn't break the law. He can't hold a meeting and debate the issue with himself. He is the Council. It is a quorum of 1.
DeleteBut there must still be formal meetings. A commissioner is not immune from the local government act. Do you want him to sit in the shithouse and make decisions on york?
DeleteTHE BAKER OF BYFORD
ReplyDeleteHis buns were big and soft and round
his bread crusts made a crunchy sound
His pies he cooked to true perfection
now was the time to seek election
Thirteen years in a baker’s shop
kneading dough until he dropped
He needed a job that’s nice and easy
he didn’t care if it was sleazy.
He wanted a job that required no thought
and a nice slush fund- could he be bought
A kick-ass job, he’d rave and rant
be a next-door-to-useless mendicant
Local Government was his choice
he’d ensure ratepayers had no voice
The rules for him need not apply
As Minister- no need to try.
Good governance went in the bin
democracy was -a mortal sin
Conflict of Interest was not a tort
you must have a system you could rort.
That idiot village he called York
would not walk-his-walk or talk-his-talk
Send in the tanks to quell unrest?
No, instead he’d send James Best.
In his mouth Best put both feet
his Australia Day address, a scurrilous treat
A clown, a fool, a sad reflection
on what we cop, each State Election.
Very good, very clever, very true. The blog powers on, the pen mightier than the sword.
DeleteWell, Anonymous3 February 2015 at 17:27, you say "Mr Best, I cannot believe you! Under Matthew Reid we were thinking about our future. Matthew created community consultation groups and everyone was given the opportunity to partake. Where is my opportunity to partake in one of your contrived little groups?" Well, you could e-mail him at <commissioner@york.wa.gov.au" and offer your services and why you would be good in a particular group (i.e. would make a useful and sensible conntribution)..
ReplyDeleteYou went on: "It seems you are creating the advisory groups you want to hear from, no doubt because you can baffle them with your bullshit and they will ask no questions". Well, three of those groups are there already and more members may be added. I can assure you that I for one challenged Mr. Best strongly on a couple of points in one meeting, and wrote him a letter, and others challenged him at another meeting. Just because we are on committees or members of other town groups does NOT mean we will not challenge him!!!!!
That's good to know Challenger. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteSome folk might believe that suspending the Council without proper cause or explanation, and appointing a commissioner, although lawful was not morally legitimate.
ReplyDeleteIf so, taking part in the commissioner's 'advisory groups' would have the effect of conferring the appearance of legitimacy on the new situation - a bit like collaboration in occupied Europe during WW2, though of course much less malignant in its consequences.
What do my fellow ratepayers think? Would it be a betrayal of principle if people who oppose the new regime were to put their names forward as prospective participants in the commissioner's 'advisory groups'?
I wonder if Hanhdorf closes it's Visitor Information Centre on Monday & Tuesday like York does? Yes that's right, they announced on Friday that the York Information Service will be closed Mondays and Tuesdays. Good one Mr Best.
ReplyDeleteI guess the Visitor Centre has closed because we have NO visitors - that was Ray Hoopers long term plan and Mr. Best is ensuring the plan is implemented.
DeleteMr. Best - what ever happened to consultation with the Community.
I thought you were planning to move York forward - if this is how you think it is done, perhaps you should give York back to those that know what they are doing!
Is this all part of your plan - to completely stuff up the businesses in York?
James, you and I had a conversation about the Committees/Advisory Groups downtown today. I am already on one such group from before, and as I said above I challenged Mr Best in the meeting and wrote him a letter as well to inform him on some things he may not have been aware of ......, having been sent here but not necessarily having the full story. I was pretty thorough. I do not have to put my name forward; I am already there, and I have already challenged several assumptions. I am not giving any new legitimacy to any of what has been imposed from above.
ReplyDeleteThese groups are not all new. Three exist already, and were formed under Matthew's Presidentship. They will continue when Matthew is back in the President's seat, and they will then be subject to the ethos and outlooks that emanate from within York. The other three groups: well, who can say; but when Matthew is President again I presume the ethos and outlooks that emanate from York will be what hold sway.
I certainly don't intend to fail to speak up on anything I think is wrong.
As for other people who put their hand up for the new groups or to be additional members of the existing ones (albeit having different names to them), if they have consciences they will speak the truth where need be and challenge where need be.
I don't think Mr Best is under any illusion the we of York are suckers for believing everything we are told, and he has certainly read plenty on this blog that will have alerted him to that fact.
As to people joining the 'advisory groups' to serve as saboteurs of them (apparently the implication of your question "Would it be a betrayal of principle if people who oppose the new regime were to put their names forward as prospective participants in the commissioner's 'advisory groups'?" well some people believe the best position they can bring truth to bear and put pressure on is from 'inside', while others prefer to put pressure on from outside. I am not sure that either is more ethical than the other.
I would not want to see the members of the advisory groups maligned as having ulterior motives or made to feel that they are 'scum' for being on the groups. Time will tell how they behave. Let them act according to their consciences.
As for the group I am on, some of the work (a project for helping to bring more awareness of heritage places in York more into play than it is now and so renew an aspect of their historical influence for us) is continuing as it was planned before, free of any interference from Mr Best or anyone else. And remember: this régine only has less than 5 months to run!!!!!
Challenger, I wasn't accusing anybody of betraying their principles, and I can well imagine that you and others who have decided to take part in the groups while James Best is in charge will not be slow in 'speaking truth to power '.
DeleteMy question was really about conferring legitimacy on the process; I'm sorry if I worded my comment in such a way as to suggest anything different.
There is an ethical question here, and I am genuinely interested in what other people think about it. I have a habit of listening to others, and taking on board what they tell me, to assist in my private deliberations as to what might be the right thing to do.
Like you, I would hate to see people being maligned for taking a different path from their fellow citizens.
And let me make this very plainr: I am strongly opposed to the idea of joining any group anywhere with the intention of sabotaging it. Believe me, I never meant anything of that kind, and to be honest, I can't see that anything I have said can be read as an endorsement of anything so despicable.
Thanks for your helpful and detailed response to my question.
And by the way, I am known to have resigned (despite the fact that I would have liked not to have felt obliged to leave something I was making a useful contribution to) from a particular committee in town specifically because they were talking of taking up a Shire offer which was unethical and land-grabbing. I was no doubt held in contempt by some of the committee, and when one member suggested my resignation was a matter of a "hissy fit" I wrote again to that committee making it quite clear (as I had in the original letter of resignation) what my reason was. I am no coward, and would not hesitate to speak up (and resign if necessary). (As it happens, the Shire offer was changed to something more legitimate later, but at the time I refer to it was as I said: unethical and land-grabbing.
DeleteChallenger with Principles, I can vouch for Jimmy P (street name), he's not accusing anyone of being an agent provocateur, nor is he one himself.
DeleteHistorically, there has always been a program of infiltration by a certain section of society and this will continue to be the case.
It's all about the numbers.
Anonymous7 February 2015 at 23:31: Not at all sure what you mean. When you say "Historically, there has always been a program of infiltration by a certain section of society and this will continue to be the case" are you referring to York in particular? Or simply making a generalisation?
DeleteSecondly, to what are you referring when you say "Its all about the numbers?" I have no idea why numbers is supposed to come into this discussion.
Thirdly: If you (and also Jimmy P) read accurately what I wrote at 7 February 2015 at 07:10, 3rd last paragraph, I did not say Jimmy P was suggesting anything in regard to saboteurs and sabotage. My words were "apparently the implication of your question" (note the word "question", not "the implication of your suggestion". If you read the actual words, you will not jump to wrong conclusions (viz: the idea that I was accusing him of being an agent provocateur, or of being a provocateur or saboteur — whichever you meant — himself) and neither should he, as the linguist he is jump to such a conclusion.
All he did in that regard was ask this question (question, note) : "Would it be a betrayal of principle if people who oppose the new regime were to put their names forward as prospective participants in the commissioner's 'advisory groups'?"
In James' second paragraph he asked the question whether (if it could be considered that "suspending the Council without proper cause or explanation, and appointing a commissioner, although lawful was not morally legitimate) "taking part in the commissioner's 'advisory groups' would have the effect of conferring the appearance of legitimacy on the new situation - a bit like collaboration in occupied Europe during WW2" (admittedly"much less malignant in its consequences"). Again, it was a philosophical question. He was not making a suggestion whether we should or should not join the 'advisory groups'.
However, the questions he asked has raised the issue of whether those who take part in the advisory groups are or could be, or could de facto if not by intent, serve as "collaborators" or possibly even "saboteurs". You certainly cannot get away from the fact that he raised these issues as moral (or immoral) possibilities.
Those of us who joined the three existing committees (now renamed 'advisory groups') while Matthew was President have certainly not done so as either "collaborators" or "saboteurs".
It remains to be seen what we will do while in the positions. Those of us who are honest will object if there is a need to, but not if there is nothing untoward going on. Some might not be so honest or clearheaded. We will have to see. Just don't judge us before any situation arises.
I await Matthew's and Council's return, and if work that serves the people of York has been done meanwhile it will stand, and if not then there will be change.
Less of the 'Jimmy P', please. It's too uncomfortably close to the cockney 'Jimmy Riddle'.
DeleteThanks for the clarification, Challenger with Principles. I only wanted to know what people thought about the issues I raised. There are good arguments on both sides of the question, and I would respect a decision to join a 'group' as much as a decision not to. As you say, my questions were philosophical.