.jpg)
…and the
councillor who feared it
In recent days, I’ve begun to receive from DLGC documents relevant to my FOI application. I’ll have a lot more to say on the subject at a later date and in another forum (the sister blog) but for the present I’d like to share with you a passage from a briefing note for the Minister included in the batch that arrived in the post today. It is dated 22 December 2014 and was prepared by that inscrutable peregrinating oracle, Mr David Morris (see copy document below).
Departmental goblins have redacted most of the
passage, whiting out a name and associated pronouns. The first sentence is the
only one not redacted. I have inserted clarifying material in square brackets
and italics to render the passage easier to follow than it might otherwise be.
Here it is:
It is
noted that remaining councillors of the Shire unanimously voted for the
adoption of the response [i.e. to the
Minister’s Show Cause Notice] at the Special Council Meeting on 11 December
2014. One of those Councillors, [Name Deleted] has provided what [he] describes as a minority report. In this report, [Name Deleted] advises that while [he] voted for the response, [he]
did not and does not agree with it. [Name Deleted]
further states that he did so [i.e. voted
for the response] due to ‘the significant public presence’ and [his] view that they [i.e. members of the public] were ‘in no
mood to hear any opposition stance to the stance that President Reid had taken’.
Here we have a councillor seemingly so
terrified of being torn to pieces by the howling, bloodthirsty mob of
passionate extremists assembled in the Town Hall on that day that he was unable
to vote in accordance with the dictates of his conscience. Tragic, eh?
As it happens, I was at that meeting. I remember being part of an orderly,
good-humoured crowd of people who (with a couple of intellectually and morally
underprivileged exceptions) had come together to give support to President
Reid. I saw nothing even faintly
resembling a raging mob ready to string up anyone refusing to toe the party
line.
The most sinister-looking individual present,
in my opinion, was a tall man in a suit with a clipboard under his arm skulking
near one of the exits. He was pointed
out to me as Mr David Morris from DLGC.
On the whole, I wouldn’t say he seemed to be of a violent disposition,
but every man has his breaking point, I suppose.
Who, I wonder, was the lily-livered dill who
wrote the so-called ‘minority report’? Fellow
citizens, did we really elect this fragile nonentity to represent us on our
shire council? In heaven’s name, what
were we thinking?
Or perhaps Councillor Name Deleted is not the
councillor I have in mind but a rather more substantial and robust personage
not in the least frightened of mob violence but itching to continue white-anting
our popular Shire President Matthew Reid as we know he had been doing all along.
What really annoys me is that, unless I’m
gravely mistaken, Mr Morris was present at that meeting and well able to judge
the peaceful mood of the crowd. Yet he
included in his briefing note Councillor Name Deleted’s deceitful, ridiculous
and cowardly statement, presumably to reinforce his recommendation to the
Minister that the Council should be suspended.
Mr Morris, you’re a very naughty boy. Sorry, no koala stamp for you.
THE MISSING BIT click to enlarge
 |
| Pat the rat talking tactics with Gail Maziuk & David Morris after Show Cause meeting |
I fear we are going to be further upset once more of David Morris' notes are revealed. The whole thing was contrived from the beginning so nothing in the FOI will be surprising I'm sure. What would surprise me is if you get everything James. The shredder would have most definitely been working overtime.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see just how balanced Mr Morris' s report is. On this brief example it appears to be heavily biased towards the minority view, ignoring the majority. But why should we expect any balance from Morris if the DLGC has already been dealing with Best.
ReplyDeleteThe Minister and DLGC will be well aware their role is fast unravelling.
Are Morris' s handwritten notes at that meeting included in the FOI info? The benefit of the FOI will be as much what is missing as what they provide.
Thank you for this. We appreciate it.
D Morris's notes: Yes, but I've been denied access to them. As soon as the internal review is completed, I'll be putting a case to the FOI Commissioner.
DeleteA long haul, I fear...
Smart monies on Pat Hooper !
ReplyDeleteI sent emails to Crs. Smythe, Wallace and Hooper asking: Would you please advise if you lodged a Minority Report with the DLG following the SOY Special Council meeting on the 11th December, relating to the Show Cause Notice.
DeleteTo date I have received two responses.
1. From: Denese Smythe
Date: 13 March 2015 9:16:27 PM AWST
Dear Roma,
No I did not provide a minority report with the DLG at any time.
Kind regards
Denese
2.From: David Wallace
Date: 13 March 2015 3:08:18 PM AWS
Hi Roma
No I didn’t lodge a Minority Report with the DLG.
Kind regards
David
At the time of posting this comment, I had not received a reply from Cr. Hooper.
He may be away, or his Computer may be down. As soon as I receive his reply I will let you know.
Cr. Hooper could consider posting his response directly on the Blog.
Yep, I agree with Anonymous 19:1 I would put $100 to one on it.
ReplyDeletePat could never come to terms with Matthew being so popular within the community.
What a bloody coward and back stabber for any councillor to put in a minority report. Still trying to keep in Ray Hoopers good books ay?
No. He just didn't have the courage to "be himself". When he has a gavel or is the chair or president of a group he has all the courage in the world, and the booming voice to go with it. But not when he is in the clear minority, and not "the head". If this is how he is, he should definitely keep to what he has been said to put out since, and not stand for council again. In fact, one might surmise that there is a possibility that July to October is too long for us to expect him to show the necessary integrity.
DeleteOh dear oh dear.
ReplyDeleteWho was it who pissed in Pat Hooper's pocket big time at the Show Cause meeting..?
Asked for a round of applause because he 'hung in there'...?
It's too bad some people have to act like they are perfect and live the illusion they have created for themselves!
I remember the lady standing tall, I think she expected a standing ovation for PH - it was embarrassing. At least he has one friend!
DeleteMy impression at the time was that Matthew felt sorry for Cr Hooper who was obviously uncomfortable at the way things were turning out. And as he pointed out, it was only because Cr Hooper had decided not to resign that the Council had any chance of survival.
DeleteThat's why Matthew called upon us to give Cr Hooper 'the clap he so richly deserved' (apologies to Sir Les Patterson, erstwhile cultural attache to the Court of St James).
I thought Matthew's was a kind and generous gesture. Everybody clapped like mad. And all the time, the beneficiary of our collective goodwill was doubtless mentally cobbling together his treacherous minority report...
Should be easy to ID the offender, ask all the suspended councillors if they were the author. If that does not flush him/her out, ask for a statutory declaration and see if perjury is palatable.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious point is that it was NOT in the public interest and used to suspend a democratically elected council ....most likely with DLG input. A set up job.
This is why Best is too scared to answer questions about his attendance at the December meetings and his appointment as Commissioner. He is part of the problem not the solution.
Who ever it was, they sabotaged our democratically elected Council and let down 90% of the voters.
DeleteHang your head in shame you arse hole!
and should be bloody ashamed of them self.
The briefing note designed to suspend the council makes reference to the Shire's call for an inquiry.
ReplyDeleteIt then goes on to say that the course of action undertaken to date has been to seek to rectify current concerns and deficiencies. It is NOT intended to revisit historical issues!!!!
Well there you are. Simple as that, the great whitewash, ignore the years of previous complaints where the DLG, for whatever reason, failed to act on serious complaints and allegations - but then hey presto --- we will not deal with this current mob.
That is their Achilles heal, the selective nature of the DLG "action". Ignore the murder and chase the parking offence. Omission or commission, just as bent.
Why ignore the past? Why target the current Council? This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
This first instalment of FOI information is putting nails in their coffin.
Finally, you can bet your bottom dollar that the trolls at the DLGC is now glued to this blog as they worry about reputations being trashed.
If the DLG think they can get away with a White Wash.
DeleteLets give them a Blog Bath and see how they like it.
Believe me, they ain't seen nothing yet.
DeleteConflict of interest or not?
ReplyDeleteTo protect the person's identity (that's the way the Department like it), it is only APPROPRIATE that from now on Mr **** ***** will be referred to as Bad Folly. More importantly, if at any stage Mr **** ***** is inadvertently referred to as a wanker, he'll be none the wiser, clever hey?
Bad Folly was heavily involved in the notorious, fabricated Show Cause Notice fiasco.
Bad Folly was the decision maker for Professor Plum's (again, a pseudonym to protect Mr Plumridge's identity) Freedom of Information request.... oops!
Bad Folly is/was good buddies with Hat Pooper (I don't need to explain this time), for many years they sat together on the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission.
On many notable occasions Bad and Hat have enjoyed each other's company (metaphorically speaking).
What is a conflict of interest anyway?
A conflict of interest may occur if an interest or activity influences the ability of a person to exercise objectivity and/or impairs their ability to perform a task, it can also create an appearance or perception of impropriety, which can undermine the integrity and the function to be exercised, in this case Freedom of Information. The conflict can be split into three distinct categories, they are; actual, potential and perceived. Any one of these has the potential to compromise the decision makers ability to be impartial, all three has the potential to be catastrophic.
Here's what the people who know say:
1. The assessment of the conflicting interests must be made by every person affected by the conflict.
2. The perception of a conflict of interest can be made by another member and should be raised by the holder of the perception.
3. Self management of a conflict is not adequate.
4. The threshold for the disclosure of a conflict of interest is low.
5. The test is an objective one, related to whether a fair minded lay observer might reasonably believe that the person’s interest might result in a conflict with the proper performance of their duties.
Bad's bad, he should let someone truly impartial deal with it, such as the Tea-Lady or the Cleaner.
Very good, very clever. Bad Folly set himself up as the pinnacle of probity if my memory serves me correctly. Now, how can he balance his association with Hooper the Hun, his role with the trumped up Show Cause Notice, and then the FOI? But the rules of decency, common sense, duty or probity just do not apply to them, they enforce their warped rules on us. But this is being viewed widely around the State. Oh dear, exposed for what they are.
DeleteAnd Mr **** ****** is beside himself with fury. The spotlight is burning bright.
They must all use copious quantities of personal body deodorant to disguise the smell of the sewer they operate in.
Rest assured, I will tackle the conflict of interest issue in my next letter to the DLGC. Mr Jolly was heavily implicated in setting up the so-called probity audit. I have written of him in terms less flattering than I imagine he would be used to. He should have disqualified himself from deciding on my application. He had no business coming within a thousand miles of it.
DeleteYour correct Anonymous 01:07, Professor Plum (BHOF)(LAOJ) covered it when he published his 'Probity Blues' article. If you care to revisit the article it was published on 15 January.
ReplyDeleteHow paradoxical is it that to Bad Folly, probity means "being morally and ethically above reproach, having integrity"? OMG WTF PMSL WAFM IFH8TABX
So a traitor, a quisling, a snake in the grass, a backstabber in the council.
ReplyDeleteIf i have this right, an elected member has voted in favour of the Shires response to the Show Cause notice in front of the public, but then submitted a separate contrary report to the department of blunders. That would have to be the most cowardly, dingo act imaginable. As a result the council is suspended.
What is even more ugly is that it seems that the probity king himself, and the other bunglers not only accepted this dingo act but welcomed it, took it on board and used it for their own sick end. That is how low this scum have sunk. This Morris character must have known this dingo voted with the other councillors, but then accepts the other version and has no qualms over the integrity of that act. It is likely that the blunder mob were actively involved in this act of betrayal.
there is no natural justice when the integrity of the process is so fatally flawed.
Now, will the guilty party out him/herself. Pity the stocks are out of use.
The minister needs to worried, very worried with all this. He is responsible.
After the amalgamations fiasco, Minister Simpson's goose must be well and truly cooked. It says a great deal about the woeful dearth of talent in the Barnett government nowadays that Simpson is holding on to his job.
DeleteThis means the Councillor actually lied when he voted. That has to be a breach of the Code of Conduct surely.
ReplyDeleteHow many other times did the same Councillor lie during Council meetings over the years?
Which one of the Councillors is a JP?
Under Freedom of information laws contained in the act 1992 section 32,33,34 state the information that can not be supplied the missing statement does not fall into this category and therefore should have been included in the FOI document.
ReplyDeleteLily-livered might in fact be an understatement. Sometimes one's conscience may not be acted upon, and then it may eat one from inside. He may yet suffer the natural consequences, let alone the bile heaped upon him as a result of this revelation. Don't imagine he'll be feeling very loved and admired once he realises this is out. Might even be ashamed to raise his head!
ReplyDeleteReference the photograph;
ReplyDeleteI don't feel particularly comfortable about David Morris from the Department, Gail Maziuk Shire administration and Pat Hooper knowing more about what going on than the ratepayers.
Why has Maziuk got Morris's ear? She has a knack of being involved with everything that's detrimental to York.
Bad Folly guilty on all counts:
ReplyDeleteThe enhancement of professional reputation, where a conflict was alleged between the public duties of an officer and their desire to enhance their professional reputation or to avoid their professionalism being questioned by an aggrieved party. It is argued that such a desire may lead a person to judge a matter unfairly and in a manner that is adverse to the interests of a private party.
The pursuit of organisational interest at the community’s expense Conflicts of interest can arise when a public officer favours the protection of the reputation of the public body, or of the government itself, over the fair treatment of a member of the public. For example, an officer may not acknowledge and remedy maladministration if such an admission or action has the potential to affect the reputation of the public sector entity.
Public officials should not act in a way that is (or reasonably appears to be) partial to the interests of their department or agency, at the expense of the legitimate rights and interests of private citizens. The public interest should be clearly seen to include the rights of private citizens to fair, objective and impartial treatment, and open and transparent processes.
OK you are driving down from Mount Brown (a steep gradient) and your brakes fail. You come to a fork in the road (bifurcation to you). On the left is a snake/pussycat/weasel (del as app), on the right is a Morris Man. NOW...... which way do you turn?
ReplyDeleteRIGHT
- business before pleasure!
Caution, it would be very slippery, and the stench could linger
DeleteI don't agree with whoever referred to Brad Jolly as Bad Folly, I think its poor form, have you considered using his initials BJ?
ReplyDeleteOn seconds thought leave it as Bad Folly!
This post and this blog is now really getting some traction with the revelations coming to light. The saying that a picture is worth a thousand words is proved by that damning photo.
ReplyDeleteThe rogue councillor must be identified and soon. The rogue is seeking anonymity by hiding behind the other councillors, an even more cowardly act than the betrayal of the council and residents of the Shire. It is obvious that the dingo does not have the courage of his/her convictions.
But we now know just how bent this process was, with the full knowledge and involvement of the DLG. The dingo openly voted at the council meeting, where councillors are properly representing their electors, but then makes a secret counter submission. That is treachery of the highest order ...but the greater problem is that the DLG were involved, and have used this to justify the suspension.
But the DLG must know that this involved the councillor breaching his/her fiduciary duty to the Shire. It is also most likely to a breach of the rules of conduct regulations in contributing to the administration of the Shire - a councillor has no executive power to make such a submission. There are most likely to be multiple breaches of the Shires Code of Conduct - but all carried out with the knowledge and blessing of the DLG.
The Show Cause Notice process has been exposed, there is much more to come I am sure. There is every sign of conflict of interests, but most certainly perceived conflicts of interests, which are contrary to all codes of conduct.
This goes to the heart of government. The role of the functionaries such as Best, Morris, Law, Folly and crew is at one level, but they operate under Matthews, she is the Director General and responsible for these public servants. She is responsible for their conduct, breaches of legislation and proper process but she has remained hidden. She will not escape. Likewise, Minister Simpson is now on the slippery slope to oblivion, he is the responsible minister.
The truth will come out. Tooth by tooth. Long live the blog
The DLG are going to be damned by its own work. Well worth a read is the Standards Panel reports and the SAT Tribunal reports on breaches by councillors. One quote is "Section 3.1(1) of the LG Act refers to 'good government', not 'public interest', and certainly does not devolve to individual councillors the right to determine for themselves where the public interest lies. It is the Council, as a corporate body, that is to provide good government for the persons in the district."
ReplyDeleteNow, the secret submission was not authorised by the council. The councillor was acting alone(?) and caused a detriment to the Shire. But the DLG? Used it, and possibly colluded or conspired or contributed to it when it should have known it was illegal. The wicked webs they weave.
James, I suggest that you no longer deal with Jolly Folly or what ever alias he wishes to use to avoid his probity king tag. He has been exposed along with all his underlings.
ReplyDeleteThe problem needs to be escalated to Ms Matthews as Director General, she is responsible for the conduct and performance of the department, and needs to be denied the excuse of "I did not know". She knows alright but we need proof that she knows. She also needs to act by removing Folly and his underlings from any involvement with York including FOI, as well as disciplinary action. I know pigs don't fly but we need to give them the opportunity.
The department has been shown to be incompetent, but now it is being exposed as lacking integrity and not acting in the public interest. Matthews and Simpson are responsible for that.
This blog is being read all around the State, including many Shire employees.
Thanks, Anonymous. I have written to the department's new FOI coordinator, Kingsley Joy, requesting an internal review and pointing out that Brad Jolly has a conflict of interest and shouldn't be making decisions about my application.
DeleteIn all likelihood, DG Matthews will now be handed the poison chalice.
So the department now has a Mr Joy as well as a Mr Jolly. Cheerful place to work, I should imagine.
Great Roots Probity Audit on the rogue Councillors and the DLG
ReplyDeleteCongratulations and thanks to the Blog Master for giving residents the chance to seek and publish the truth.
Apparently the Western Australian IVF sperm bank is to be located at;
ReplyDeleteDepartment of Local Government and Communities
Gordon Stephenson House
140 William Street
PERTH WA 6000
Because that's where all the wankers are.
My take on the redaction which has been highlighted is it has been an attempt to hide the fact there was the other dissenting report. If so, that seems to be a serious improper act and contrary to FOI and the principles of open and accountable government.
ReplyDeleteThe redaction of the identity of the councillor itself was likely to be in order, but to attempt to hide the separate dissenting report smacks of desperation and probably illegal. Matthews has some serious problems to deal with.
Perhaps the Department's rationale was that leaving the paragraph un-redacted would expose Cr Hooper as author of the 'minority report' - who else could it have been? - as well as the existence of the report, of which I suspect the paragraph we've seen is merely a small fraction.
DeleteI'm reliably informed that Crs Smythe and Wallace have each stated in writing that they didn't write the report. I can't see Matthew writing it, so by a simple process of elimination we are left with an accusing finger pointing at Cr Hooper.
I wish Cr Hooper would tell us why he chose to betray his colleagues and the majority of his fellow citizens by writing the report. He is being roundly condemned, and in my opinion rightly so, though I confess to being uncomfortable about some of the terms in which that condemnation has been phrased. He should have the chance to defend himself, and I invite him to write an article for the blog explaining his decision and shedding some light on his dealings with Mr Morris, whose Machiavellian role in the suspension of our Council is yet to be fully revealed (but it will be). I'm fairly confident the Blogmaster will give space to his defence - and won't redact it.
Meanwhile, I ask my fellow bloggers to be a little less severe on Cr Hooper. I'm told he isn't well, and it is not in our interests to force him into resigning. We don't want to give Minister Simpson an excuse for extending the suspension, and Cr Hooper remains an impediment to any such plan. Calling him names like 'prick' and 'dingo' doesn't get us very far (though I must say I like dingos, and I don't think we should attack people for being handy with a needle).
Save your bile for the Minister and his advisers, especially Mr Morris, who seems in his briefing note to have gone out of his way to do us harm.
Thank you for your opinion Mr Plumridge. Excuse me for my lack of sympathy and please be reminded - this man was responsible for making so many others unwell and took great pleasure in doing so! I don't believe that feigning illness (as so frequently he has done in the past) can negate the issue of his disgusting behaviour towards others and for that, he should be made accountable. I think you are surprisingly naive to think for an instant that Minister Simpson hasn't already made up his mind and using that reason for going soft on Pat Hooper just doesn't wash with me...sorry but that's just how it is!
DeleteI agree with Anonymous 73 - Pat Hooper showed no mercy or compassion when he participated in the bullying. He did not care one iota about destroying the health of innocent people in York.
DeleteAh, Anonymous 73, I see you are not a friend of irony!
DeleteI didn't suggest that people should stop taking issue with Cr Hooper; my point was and remains that calling him rude names could be counter-productive, and not only for the reason previously advanced (many older people turn off and stop reading). Why not describe some of his 'disgusting behaviour' in reasonable detail and take him to task directly for that?
We don't know what the Minister plans to do. All I know is that the current period of suspension is scheduled to end in July. If, at that time, we only have 3 councillors (Reid, Smythe, and Wallace) the Minister may have no choice but to extend the suspension. If Cr Hooper 'hangs in there', to use Cr Reid's phrase, we will at least stand a chance of getting the Council back; a slim chance, maybe, but that's better than none. So what's naive about that?
Please, call me James. 'Mr Plumridge' is my brother, who lives in England. I lay claim to a different mode of address, but 'James' will do nicely.
The photo of the three is a classic. There is a transaction taking place ....now what could that have been.
ReplyDeleteBut it demonstrates just how impartial our intrepid sleuth the Morris dancer is. He had a duty to not only be impartial but not to give any perception of being biased. Failed on that point and at the very least gives the perception of being an integral player in the minority report. Morris and the other DLG "investigators" have shown themselves as incompetent, not even getting the purchase order signature right, but also biased.
Their position in the DLG is untenable. Matthews is responsible for Folly and his followers. She must act.
I wonder if the release of the original edited document was not an accident, could there possibly be someone in the DLGC with a conscience, someone who thought it in the public interest that a maverick Shire of York Councillor needed to be exposed.
ReplyDeleteI very much doubt this is the case though, the most likely explanation is that someone messed up big time, Ashley Parker for instance, hence the reason we now have a different officer dealing with the FOI.
The document was obviously edited in line with the acceptance of Mr Plumridge for the Department to delete personal information. The document has then gone through a secondry process of scrutiny, this would have been Mr Jolly, he obviously realised that the inclusion of the passage referring to the "minority report" and "one of those Councillors" would expose Pat Hooper as the treacherous prick that he is, so deleted he the whole paragraph.
This only goes to prove, categorically, that the Department of Local Government is corrupt and that some of its senior officers are liars and worse still that its Director General is dishonest. If you analyse how the Department has handled the matter, all the deceit, secrecy and Mickey Mouse charges, you don't have to be an Einstien to realise that Jennifer Mathew is desperately trying to serve her own arse.
I hope you mean 'save', not 'serve' - unless you have in mind an unusually bizarre adaptation of My Kitchen Rules.
DeleteIf that's what appeals to your palate, I think you may need to tenderise it first, might be a little tough.
DeleteAgreed, and while Matthews is trying to cover up her failure to properly manage the department, and even worse exposing her minister to ridicule, her staff led by Mr Probity Folly have left a trail of destruction and deceit that is being unravelled at an increasing pace. But we have time on our side, they have done most of the damage possible but the history is there to be uncovered. Destroying public records is a criminal matter. These people are becoming increasingly desperate and will pull every trick in the book to avoid exposure. The lack of integrity and sewer reputation of the DLG is being exposed. This blog is now a must read during the day to see the next revelation.
ReplyDeleteJames.....You have to be joking, Pat Hooper deserves nothing less than bucket loads of public condemnation. He's a mole, a snake, a shallow little pathetic man who doesn't possess the strength of character to be sincere with the electors, some of whom voted for him.
ReplyDeleteHe was too afraid to vote the way he wanted to because of a room full of ratepayers who he thought, weren't in the right frame of mind to hear his point of view! Wow, and you want bloggers to show mercy.....???????? No bloggers, crucify the Judas.
Pat Hooper is a rude, despicable, obnoxious, bad-mannered, egotistical, arrogant, Dingo Prick.
We don't need him remaining in his position just to keep the numbers up, or in case Simpson decides to extend the suspension period. No, he should resign immediately.
If we have to put up with a commissioner until the election in October, so be it. By doing what he did, he has demonstrated he has no integrity or ethical standards, any decision the man makes from now on will be dubious and meaningless. His decision making will also depend on how many and who's in the room and what mood they might be in.
Wild Bill, you forgot to mention that PH likes to terrorise 'his inferiors' by yelling at them at meetings (I'm guessing just as he did to children as a deputy and a prinicipal) — particularly if they are women; at least once he did that to Cr. Walters mid-meeting in front of all the gallery present. It almost made us jump out of our seats, it was so forceful. I heard him do it to a number of women — and never to any men. He has a lot to learn if he is to hope to remain a councillor. However, as a man doth in the small things, so will he do in the large. He has shown himself untrustworthy even in the large. So what hope is there for him to reform at this stage? None, if former repeated behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour — which in the usual case it is.
DeleteGood heavens, Wild Bill, all these people who don't like Cr Hooper! I'm amazed.
ReplyDeleteNo, of course I'm not.
The argument that we should go easy on PH because he might resign and leave the way open to further suspension did not originate with me. It came at one remove from Paul Brown MLC, who made it to a friend of mine. Mr Brown also told my friend that he and Mia Davies are busily 'working behind the scenes' with the Minister to get a better deal for York. I get the impression that Mr Brown is worried about the blog, especially the anonymous contributors, but I don't see how and why the blog should influence the Minister's thinking one way or the other. I agree with Mr Brown that it might bear heavily on Cr Hooper's decision as to whether or not to resign and that this could give Tony S an excuse to kick us in the teeth again. On the other hand, as you suggest, Wild Bill, is Mr Brown in suggesting we lay off PH asking of us too great a sacrifice?
Somebody should tell Mr Brown and Ms Davies that many of us aren't too keen on the idea of them 'working behind the scenes'. We like politicians to work in the open, where we can keep an eye on them and hold them to account if they let us down. As for Minister Simpson: I'm still trying to make up my mind if he's a rogue or a fool or just putty in the hands of his arrogant, deceitful, hypocritical and self-serving departmental advisers. I'll let you know when I've worked it out.
James, far be it for me to question such an astute-rational-sagacious-erudite mind, but Pat Hooper has shown his true colours and admitted to the Department of Local Government that he votes according to the ambiance of the surroundings. Therefore, every decision he has ever made, especially those which have had a detrimental effect on members of the public, should be tested.
Delete"astute-rational-sagacious-erudite", very clever, someone is not as bright as they would have people believe?
DeleteWas he the originator or just the turkey that put his name to it? The DLG may have been behind it. How they can deal with that knowing of his vote in favour and his fiduciary duty to the Shire, and then his dingo act. His action was a breach of the rules of conduct, they are aware of that but suits their objective to use it. Makes me very suspicious they were behind it, or encouraged him and coached him. That photo tells it all.
ReplyDeleteSorry but I have to say it - the photograph provided above should be titled...."Cat among the Pigeon's". They are the rats of the sky, ready willing and able to drop their crap on anyone from a great height, as for Medusa - she would rip them apart and tear out their innards if it suited her!
ReplyDeleteThe little man overshadowed by David 'Sasquatch' Morris is Andrew Borrett, also from the DLGC.
Apparently, prior to the serving of the Show Cause Notice, there were many private meetings involving David Morris, Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle, Michael Keeble, Thyscha Cochrane and Gail Maziuk. Deny that one if you will..... and be doomed!
I would be happy to have Pat resign immediately. I would rather have a waste of space commissioner than ph any day. PH has proved he can't be trusted and has proved he made one poor decision after another and that he can't or won't read financial reports so he is useless. Why can't the Minister put three councillors back in July and have an extraordinary election for the rest.
ReplyDeleteI have zero sympathy for Hooper. The toll his antics have taken on my family has been horrific. I will not resort to calling him rude names because there are too many I can think of to describe him.
Now that's a really good idea. Can Tip Top do that?
DeleteSorry, Paul, I tried, but my 'Be Kind to Pat Campaign' has collapsed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. It's cost me a shed load of credibility and about a thousand votes if I decide to stand for Council. My personal safety may henceforward be at risk from passionate extremists. Ladies and gentlemen, I give in.
No James it will not cost you any votes and I think you are quite safe.
DeleteYou have displayed deep compassion for a sad and pitiful human being.
Unfortunately, I cannot feel any sympathy or compassion for Pat Hooper, like TOLDUSO he caused untold stress and grief in my family and I will never forget what he did.
He can rot in hell with Ray hooper for all I care.
Are you saying that the bald grey man in the blue slacks isn't Pat Hooper?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're right about the private meetings. The DLGC worthies convinced themselves that intervention was necessary to save the staff from Matthew's 'interference'. What I think MR was trying to do was put a stop to maladministration; I don't think he'd figured out that some of the goings-on may have amounted to corruption as well.
I have little doubt that the DLGC were fully aware of the follies and misdemeanours of some shire staff over the years and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. Then, when Matthew took over with his agenda for reform, the DLGC heavies realised that their own shortcomings relating to York and those of their cronies in the Shire might be held up to the light.
So they persuaded Tony 'Tip Top' Simpson to suspend the Council and put in a commissioner who knows nothing about York and has been instructed to divert our attention away from the sins of the past and their complicity in or responsibility for them.
Welcome to 21st century WA. But before you give way to despair, give a little whistle and remember that life is a lot worse under Islamic State.
James, that is Pat Hooper but if you look closer, there are four people in the photograph. To the left of David Morris you can just see he edge of a small man in dark pants and a white or grey shirt. That is Andrew Borrett.
DeleteThanks for telling me. I didn't realise he was a person from the DLGC. I thought he was the giant's lunch.
DeleteThis whole thing is getting worse by the minute.
ReplyDeleteWhy were Pat Hooper, Tony Boyle, Michael Keeble, Tyhscha Cochrane and Gail Maziuk holding private meetings with David Morris WITHOUT the rest of our Council? This means 966 York Ratepayers WERE NOT represented at these meetings. Bloody great! At least we now know the names of our enemies - you bunch of arse holes!
Why the hell was Gail Maziuk present at this meeting? This female? has been sticking her nose into everything since she was appointed by RH. Yes Miss Behaviour you are spot on, she would rip them apart and tear out their innards (and eat them) if she thought she could gain something. She is a nasty piece of work that one.
If you really want some answers to what goes on at the SOY, you need to contact ALL ex SOY staff. I am an ex SOY staff member and one thing that I will never forget is being chastised by Ray Hooper (and anonymously referred to in a staff meeting - that I was present at), for speaking with a Councillor that involved his portfolio about an idea that I had previously discussed with Ray Hooper but was told was not going to happen. The Councillor was informed by Ray Hooper that he shouldn't be having those type of conversations with me! The Councillor was so incensed by Rays pig hotheadedness that he told Ray he would pay the quoted $200 to cover the costs - (there was an actual budget for this type of expenditure). Cut a long story short, we got the $200 - although we spent less than the requested amount, the show went on, it was a success...and the said sports club was happy with the outcome.....It set a small precedent for other sports clubs, although they may never know the pain of getting them what we could...
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a good idea for former SoY staff to come out of hiding and tell us their stories, in confidence if they prefer.
DeleteSooner or later there will be a new Council with a different philosophy of local government than we've been used to in York. This will have implications for staff as well as the general public. The better informed the new Council is about past administrative practices, the better prepared it will be to bring about necessary change.