HOT OFF THE PRESS..............
Document 1 - Dated 16 February 2009 Resolution of Council
to renew the CEO Ray
Hooper's Contract for four years to 9 August 2013
Document 2 - Dated 19
August 2008 Letter from Ray Hooper to
Shire President Pat
Hooper accepting the renewal of his contract to 9 August 2013
Probity...you decide?
I'm finding all this hard to believe.
ReplyDeleteRay Hooper's contract extension was a 'done deal' five months before the Council decided to extend his contract....how's that work then?
Did Councillor Walters know it was a 'done deal' in August the previous year...I doubt it!
The public certainly had no idea......?
I wonder what the Department would make of this one.. Brad...?
It was published for all to see at the time. Unfortunately as Jane Ferro mentioned previously the community had only a short time to act which was no accident. However this agenda item was not covered up it was seen by the "troublemakers" just not by those who didn't check what was only the council agendas. If you want to know what is on a council agenda any month just go to the Shire's website and/or be asked to be placed on their mail list. Next meeting is Wednesday 25th Feb which is tomorrow at 5pm. It is at the basketball stadium, tell your friends and ask questions!
ReplyDeleteBill, I think you are confused with the dates as the renewal of contract to which you refer (and where Jane spoke up) occurred in 2013. It doesn't alter the unscrupulous process though as I remember when Hooper's contract was renewed in February 2009, he never even left the room when they told everyone how great he was (from a pre-prepared dialogue). Considering that Ray Hooper declared a financial interest at the time, why didn't he leave the room and why didn't a breach of some sort get recorded or reported by the then Council?
ReplyDeleteI was at that meeting. When the Agenda item came up, Ray Hooper stood up and advised the shire president Pat Hooper there was no lawful requirement for him (RH) to leave the room UNLESS the majority of councillors required him to leave.
DeleteRH remained in the room for the vote!
Intimidation or plain stupid councillors? readers can decide.
I was also at that meeting and can confirm that is what happened and am willing to stand up in a court of law and testify.
DeleteJust an observation...... relating to this post and the previous post (CEO Appraisal 2008).
ReplyDeleteThe Yellow Memorandum was written and displayed on 12 August 2008.
Ray Hooper's contract was renewed 7 days later on 19 August 2008.
Is there a connection? It stinks of deal or disaster....
1) DEAL - Was it Ray Hooper's decision to compile the yellow memo or was he instructed to compile the memo in exchange for contract renewal?
2) DISTASTER - Did Ray realise that he had made a faux pas in writing the yellow memo leaving him liable to action (possibly dismissal) hence contract renewed and extended to protect his own interests and secure a very good pay out in the event of dismissal?
In either situation - did the Councillors of the day know?
Worse still, did the Shire President have a part to play in it?
More disturbingly and regardless of my observations, Pat Hooper as Shire President, obviously did nothing about the defamatory memo other than the action of condoning it by offering renewal of Ray Hooper's contract.
Veritas - re yellow memorandum.
DeleteYes I believe the renewal of the contract was to protect Ray Hooper following the yellow memo, it was also a public declaration of approval by Pat Hooper as Shire President that Ray Hoopers attacks on various ratepayers were acceptable.
I have no doubt all the male councillors were heavily involved in the Yellow memo. It was how they did things, hatching insidious plans huddled together behind closed doors.
Councillors condoned the actions of the CEO by their inactions and lack of apology, therefore they are culpable.
culpable |ˈkəlpəbəl|deserving blame: sometimes you're just as culpable when you watch something as when you actually participate.
As I understand it, Councillors never apologised but 2 of the 3 people named in the yellow memorandum received a written (insincere) apology from Hooper, albeit not voluntarily. I can guess the one who never got an apology!
DeleteIsn't that just cosy. Without reading through the Show Cause Notice again, I recall that one of the reasons for suspending Council in January was over the employment of a CEO, in this case CEO Keeble, in April 2014. I think the Department alleged that the process may have been a smidgen corrupt.
ReplyDeleteThis is paradoxical considering Pat Hooper and others appear to have renewed CEO Hooper's contract, in secret, five months before the public knew about it. It wouldn't have mattered a damn what the strength of public objection was at the time, which may explain why it was done in secret.
Pat Hooper is corrupt, no wonder he wants it all hushed up!
Peter, you have just proved the people of York are a lot smarter than those in the DLG.
DeleteCome on Cr.Pat Hooper, time you explained to York people why you renewed the CEO's contract when you knew the people of York wanted him gone.
DeleteWhat the act says about nepotism.
ReplyDeleteLOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 - SECT 5.40
5.40 . Principles affecting employment by local governments
The following principles apply to a local government in respect of its employees —
(a) employees are to be selected and promoted in accordance with the principles of merit and equity; and
(b) no power with regard to matters affecting employees is to be exercised on the basis of nepotism or patronage; and
(c) employees are to be treated fairly and consistently; and
(d) there is to be no unlawful discrimination against employees or persons seeking employment by a local government on a ground referred to in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 or on any other ground; and
(e) employees are to be provided with safe and healthy working conditions in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 ; and
(f) such other principles, not inconsistent with this Division, as may be prescribed.
Would nepotism explain why the Shire would employ a person(s) with a criminal record?
DeleteWhat crimes did that individual commit? Were any of them crimes of violence? Has the employee in question done time for them? Is there a requirement that employees should have police clearance? Is the employee in question related to someone on shire staff, or friendly with such a person (if the latter, we are talking about cronyism, not nepotism)? When appointed, did the employee fulfil all the criteria for employment in his position? If anyone has knowledge of cronyism or nepotism in the appointment of Shire employees, I suggest raising the matter in confidence with Commissioner Best, giving him as much detail as you can, and ask him to investigate. Cronyism and nepotism are types of corruption, and anyone proved to have been involved in them should be sacked.
DeleteIn answer to your questions:
DeleteSerious, yes, yes, yes, yes, no.
In reality, if one speaks out in York then one becomes a target.
Que sera sera
The blog gives you the opportunity to speak out anonymously. You don't need to make yourself a target.
DeleteYou can speak out without naming names, though it would be important to specify the office or offices held by the person or persons who you believe acted corruptly by appointing the employee in question.
Is this a case of somebody being 'let go' in order to make space for the corrupt appointment? Were there other applicants for the position? Was the position advertised?
Please don't be afraid to report what you know - just don't give any details that could identify you.
I used to work in the works department of a council which shall remain nameless other than it is in Western Australia. We had a youth training scheme whereby local youngsters were taken on and trained in all aspects of works including, road maintenance, footpaths, parks/reserves, street trees road verge maintenance etc.
DeleteA recent study has shown that there is no shortage of young people wanting to work in local government. In-house training is the best way to solve the issue of recruitment and retention in the sector. It provides a valuable way for young people to enter the workplace and train in a variety of occupations. Interestingly, the study also highlighted that once a young person has been in trained in the local government sector, on average they will remain on the workforce for fifteen years.
I remember one occasion, when the powers that be, made the fundamental mistake of allowing cronyism to influence a decision regarding the hiring and firing of staff. A local lad and young member of staff who had recently finished his training, who had a clean driving licence and who had a long promising future working in the works department was 'let go'.
He was 'let go' to make way for someone who happened to be an acquaintance of a senior administration staff member. Somewhat unremarkable, until it was discovered that the 'someone' had recently been released from prison after serving 18 months of a 3 year sentence. The offenses included; threatening to kill, assault, assault preventing arrest, obstructing police, drug and driving offences.
At the time, members of the workforce thought it odd that someone with no skills and who had been disqualified from driving had been employed, especially when a current clean driving licence was a prerequisite for employment.
Sometime later the 'someone' was involved in separate incidents relating to workplace bullying, the 'someone' received a warning and a was temporarily suspended from work.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the same 'someone' was involved in harassing members of the public. The victim reported the matter to head office but head office refused to act, in all probability because of the relationship that existed between the 'someone' and the senior staff member involved in arranging their employment.
Cronyism is alive and well in Local Government.
Anonymous at 16:55, I don't think I'd have to travel a million miles from home to visit the location of your story about the ex-convict who got a job in the works depot with the help of a senior member of the admin staff.
DeleteI agree with your comments on the subject of recruitment. What we need to do in York is clear the decks and appoint trainable young people with qualifications and integrity. Until we do that, we'll never climb out of the mire.
The subject of nepotism and cronyism has cropped up on the blog many times before and it seems to have been prevalent in the Shire of York. Here's another one, what about Pat Flynn, (formerly of the York Race Club pre storm and now back in the thick of it at the Race Club). He was suddenly found employment as the Bar Manager at the Wreck Centre - why, how and when - I didn't see that job advertised......any explanation on that one former Cr Tony Boyle (and Deputy Chairman of The York Race Club at the time) ?
ReplyDeleteCorruption has three main components that are controllable and one that is not. The three controllable ones are opportunity, incentive, and risk, all three existed at the Shire of York and probably still do. The uncontrollable one is personal honesty, which of course encompass morals and integrity, personal qualities which mean a great deal to some. Not because they possess any of them, or that they believe in them, no, some take great pleasure in accusing innocent members of the community of NOT possessing them.
ReplyDeleteAs members of the community, it is our responsibility to ensure Elected Members and Shire employees operate honestly. It may be true that the corrupt individual is a bad apple or a total arshole or in our case both but we can only know that after it is too late and he or she has committed a corrupt act and has been found out. A far more intelligent approach would be to control those aspects we are able to control, rather than to leave it to a ad-hoc ham-fisted non-extant in-house policing policy, if such policies exist at all!
Corruption is most likely to occur where incentive outweighs the risk, and where the opportunity exists, for example, retrospectively approving credit card expenditure without the Councillors (guardians of our interests) viewing a true statement of that expenditure. A program of prevention, detection, and control should begin with those aspects of local government where the incentives are large, as is/was the case with the Shire of York. Thankfully some measures have been put in place to minimise this risk by limiting the opportunities for a corporate psychopath to take the piss, literally!
More often than not, corruption results from poor organisational management, in our case lazy Councillors and incompetent senior staff. Employees test the water to see what they can get away with, maybe a couple of drinks at the local pub one lunchtime to fully funded holidays, travel, trips, accommodation, meals, reading material etc etc. If nothing bad happens as a result of one or a thousand acts of corruption, like getting caught, it is likely to appear to the perp that nobody gives a shit, or worse, they (Council) tacitly condone the actions.
Public scrutiny is no guarantee that Elected Members or Shire employees will not abuse their positions or violate the public trust. By giving a corporate psychopath protection from public scrutiny by concealing corporate credit card statements from the public, maximised the opportunity for corruption. We can thank the then Shire President and his band of merry men for where we are today, up to our necks in shite, credit where credits due though, the Department has made a huge contribution by doing f**k all!
Corruption is like a turd, it gets bigger if it's not nipped off, if it too big, it's hard to get rid of. If the management (in our case the Commissioner) does not show any interest in the warning signs that informed citizens or articulate social media is sending, he is as bad as the perp. However, the reverse is true if corruption or wrongdoing is exposed to the light, and it becomes apparent that the management is serious and does give a shit about exposing it and about having things done properly, then maybe his life might become a whole lot easier, even enjoyable.
'Corruption is like a turd...' A perfect simile, poetry in motion.
ReplyDeleteIs the turd the possible new community memorial to showcase for posterity the past local government failures. Plenty of worthwhile names to be included. Obviously the DLG and its staff would be given due recognition. This turd should be designed by the community and enable it to be a public icon, perhaps even a tourist attraction.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 23:57, my previous comment must have seemed flippant. I can't resist making a joke, even a bad one!
ReplyDeleteI should have added that I agree with your analysis of the corruption problem in York. We know there is one, which isn't taken seriously by the perpetrators who are used to 'getting away with it' and may not even believe that what they've done is wrong. The problem seems to be that nobody is interested in doing something about it. We need a new council that will put a stop to every aspect of corruption in the shire.
James B has introduced tighter controls on credit card expenditure. That's a great start. I congratulate him for it. But I believe there's more to be done, especially with regard to employment as other contributors have pointed out.