In a recent post, I let slip a couple of
details that in hindsight could easily have betrayed the identity of a lady I
had mentioned but not named.
To my alarm, the lady in question wrote to the
Blogmaster worried that I might have exposed her to wrath and retribution from
the Shire. She explained that she had previously
suffered torments at the hands of CEO Hooper and other shire employees acting
under his direction.
Her ordeal had culminated in a court case
brought against her by the Shire. She
won her case, but the experience left her shaken and fearful of further
persecution.
In my post, I had not depicted her as doing or
saying anything to which any reasonable person could object. Even so, she was afraid she might have upset
Commissioner Best or CEO Simpson, inciting those gentlemen to take a cruel
revenge.
Was she over-reacting? Well, yes, but only up to a point.
I emailed the lady to reassure her that James
Best and Graeme Simpson are emphatically not cut from the same cloth as Ray
Hooper. However much we might disagree
with or annoy them, they are not going to deploy shire muscle to threaten us
into submission and otherwise make our lives hell.
It turned out that what had revived her
anxieties were my reports of Shire Ranger Gowerd’s visits to the home of Simon
and Heather Saint to take photos of their street windows.
I ‘m sure she wasn’t the only York resident who
on reading those reports experienced a tremor of dismay, a dark presentiment
that the curse of the House of Hooper was about to be laid on us again.
It seems that even though nearly a year has
elapsed since the shire’s nemesis fled from office, his shadow still hovers
over York. His reputation continues to frighten
residents, especially the old, frail and vulnerable who were targeted in the
past.
I have no idea who was the vindictive nincompoop
who ordered Mr Gowerd to visit the Saint’s residence not once but three times to take photos of the same
material plastered in the same order in the same windows. No, that’s not true. I do have some idea, but I’m not entirely sure,
so I’m not saying.
What I will say is that we all know the
sorcerer had his apprentices. He taught them, it seems, to believe that the task
of the Shire administration is to rule councillors and community with an iron
hand, and to cower the ‘naysayers’ and ‘troublemakers’—that is, everyone who
had the brass neck to ask embarrassing questions at council meetings—into impotent
submission.
If our shire is to pull itself out of its
present state of decay and despondency, we will need to change the inherited culture
of the shire administration and shift the balance of power from administration to
council. We must remind the people who
work for us that they are employed and paid to do the bidding of democratically
elected councillors, who in turn are answerable to us, the people who elect
them.
This means we will have to elect a strong,
intelligent and courageous Council willing to exercise its power and authority
independently and fearlessly within the confines of the law.
Can we do it?
Yes, we can—but we should start planning for it now.
The vast majority of the Soy staff in my experience are nice people. There are three vindictive ninconpoops who remain though Tabbycat, Medusa and Tyschoo. Once they're gone and/or once we get a Ceo with some balls these three witches cannot wrap around their little finger, then the reign of terror is really over. Problem is Best and Simpson refuse to believe this culture exists and think we are all in fantasy land.
ReplyDeleteA strong new council is definitely needed but council is limited in its powers to interfere with administration. Matthew tried and is to be commended for doing so, but look how that turned out. These women refused to give him information he needed to run an effective council and they got away with it. Why? Because as James Best says the CEO is their boss and if he's not strong when they stamp their feet or put on the crocodile tears he caves in.
You have to give it to them though three CEO's have been duped and now a Commissioner. They should be in Hollywood.
James this lady you refer to and others like her need to be encouraged to speak out and come out of the shadows. Otherwise I fear the powers that be just assume there are a small handful of "passionate extremists" and everyone else is just ticketyboo. A combination of apathy and fear is what got us here and it has to stop. Now is the time to be brave. Best is here to change the world but the way he got here has been highlighted and shows its still just dirty political gaming that bought him to us.
Therefore nothing has changed and we must fight hard to get things right before Matthew and others are back in power. Otherwise Matthew will be starting even further behind the eight ball then he did last time and he's only human.
Yes the three witches and - alas poor bloggers......I can ENVISION it well !
DeleteThrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,—
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Veritas remind me never to get on your bad side lol.
DeleteIt's really quite disturbing that anyone should have to live in fear of retribution in what's supposed to be a civilized society, more so in a small country town like York.
ReplyDeleteI know a lady who fell victim to the tyrannical behavior of the late CEO's protégé Mrs ....... It was an awful time, which took its toll both mentally and physically.
Inside the shire office there is abundant protection against bullying, if anyone falls victims they have work place protection, members of the public don't, probably because the policy makers never thought for one minute the public would ever be victim, why should they?
Some shire staff give the impression that butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, a flick of an eyelash, a strategically shed tear ( crocodile tears) all recognised manipulation techniques. Mr Keeble fell victim to this when he developed, what can only be described as a father daughter relationship with certain staff.
Other techniques include lying by omission, this is a classic technique for one other particular staff member, half a story.......only!
Be grateful that the contract for one senior staff member expires early next year.
"Tabby cat, tabby cat tell us of Keeble?"
DeleteHe was weak and pathetic, my God he was feeble.
"Tabby cat, tabby cat what did you then?"
I fluttered my lashes, it works with old men.
PMSL. H
DeleteI suggest anyone making an appointment to meet with the CEO, stipulates they do not want the DCEO to be present - otherwise she will turn up to put her twopence worth in. Makes you wonder who is running the show.
ReplyDeleteHow do I know - it happened to me!
Yes, most Shire staff are nice people, like John Gowerd. I should have made that clear.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is always going to be recalcitrant staff in positions of power. However, having examined relevant legislation, I am not convinced that those individuals are as powerful as everyone seems to think. That is a matter I mean to return to a couple of weeks down the track, after I have taken expert advice.
Lately there’s been talk in the media about corruption in local government. People usually assume that corruption means stealing municipal funds, fiddling expenses and so forth, but as I’ve written before there is also corruption via illicit exercise of power: cronyism is corruption of that kind, and it is rife in local government at every level, especially, I suspect, in the upper reaches.
Don’t believe me? Ask the panjandrums in the DLGC if Mr Best’s appointment as commissioner was advertised or put out to tender and what were the criteria governing his appointment. (You may find that they regard the asking of such questions as the moral equivalent of farting in church.)
Ask them how and why Mr Simpson got to be our Acting CEO. Ask Mr Best if the recent appointment (if it has been finalised) of Mr D Carbone to undertake investigations into Shire finances was advertised or put out to tender, and if so, why he got the job instead of other candidates perhaps better qualified in the field of forensic audit.
In saying this, I don’t intend to cast aspersions on the character and abilities of those gentlemen: my concern is with observance of process. Ignoring proper process is the root of corruption at every level. Add greedy or stupid councillors, manipulative and vindictive staff, a foolish, feeble and ineffectual minister and a complicit or laissez-faire department and you have a real witch’s brew: eye of newt indeed.
Cronyism, real or perceived, creates problems for everyone, including its beneficiaries. Whatever the truth (and I wish for his sake and ours he would tell us), people in York do not believe Mr Best’s appointment came about via advertising or competitive tender. For that reason, many of them question his legitimacy as commissioner. By contrast, our deposed Shire President was elected fair and square. Vale democracy in WA.
For those who believe we should 'get over' the reign of terror and 'let York move forward', the following may make interesting reading.
ReplyDeleteThen, sit back and be thankful you were not on the target list!
For a long time I believed, because Ray Hooper had gone, things would be different and I was coping really well, that is until the following occurred.
Prior to the last Rates being issued, a form was sent by the SOY for Pensioners to re-apply for concessions on their Rates. I duly completed the form and lodged it at the front counter. Fortunately I kept a copy.
When my Rates notice came, I had been charged the full amount - no concession.
I phoned Cr. Smythe who arranged an urgent meeting with Mr. Keeble to have the matter sorted. Cr. Smythe picked me up and attended the meeting with me.
It took 24 hours, but eventually a new Rates notice was issued with the concession. When I collected the newly printed Rates Notice from the front counter, the Staff member responsible for both entering the Concession Applications and producing the new Rates Notice told me she was so sorry this had happened, then added "I was so very concerned when I realised your form had not arrived ' then explained 'I finally located your form - it was amongst the 'new applicant's' forms.
I was dumbfounded! IF those two comments had not been voiced by the Staff member, the Shire of York could have got away with stating 'it was a simple clerical error'.
Instead, I wonder
1. IF the Staff member was genuinely concerned, why didn't she phone me?
2. IF my form was located amongst the new applicants, WHY WASN"T it processed with them?
Those previously targeted will come to the same conclusion I did.
When I saw the Ranger was taking photos of the Saint's private windows I went into melt down.
I too have some idea who was responsible for ordering my Concession Application form 'to be misplaced'.
Ray Hooper was not the only Staff member spewing out evil from that building.
It seems that your problem was resolved by the counter staff who you say were "so very concerned" at the time.
DeleteCan I ask how you were previously targeted to put this in to some context?
Here's a brief STOP PRESS: I've heard on the grapevine that Ray Hooper is suing or has threatened to sue the Shire of York for wrongful or unfair dismissal.
ReplyDeleteApparently that's the explanation for the Ranger being sent to take photos of the Saints' windows.
Doesn't make a lot of sense: if Mr Hooper's lawyers are collecting evidence to use against the Shire, they should be doing it at his expense, not ours. And nothing in the Saints' windows is evidence that can be used against the Shire. And why take the same photos of the same material in the same windows three times?
Still, in the looking-glass world that is York today anything is possible. If the rumour is true, Commissioner Best, would you please make a public announcement. It's becoming increasingly unfashionable to say this, but since we citizens of York (and our insurers) will have to meet the cost of any legal action, we have a right to know what is going on.
Meanwhile, does anyone have any useful information on the topic to feed to this blog, a publication that, according to one prominent local businesswoman who has befriended Mr Best, 'isn't helping'. 'Isn't helping' who or what, I wonder? Pray tell, madam, the blog could do with some opposing points of view.
Former CEO Ray Hooper, does he have any legitimate contractual rights?
DeleteThere is likely to be a reasonable excuse, sorry explanation why no signed contracts exist and why there was a variation to the Local Government Act Section 5.39.
What should be of more interest and concern is the rumour that Mr Ray Hooper is taking legal action against the Shire of York.......this rumour could be quashed in an instant by inviting Council to make a public announcement or even use the blog as a platform to comment.
We now know that Ray Hooper had his contract 'extended' on two occasions (not 'renewed') which would indicate that terms and conditions of the original contract would still apply.
From Ray Hooper's original Contract of Employment 2004 - 2009
3.4 Employee's Duty of Fidelity
The Employee undertakes to be a capable and loyal employee, acting at all times in the best interests of the Shire, and to ensure that the Employee's actions do not bring the Shire into disrepute or cause damage.
8.4 Termination by the Council: Summarily without notice if:
(a) the Employee commits and wilful or grave misconduct or wilful neglect in the discharge of the Employees responsibilities or obligations under the contract;
(c) the Employee wilfully disobeys any reasonable and lawful order or direction by the President on behalf of the Council;
(d) the Employee commits a serious breach of any of the provisions or terms of this contract;
SIMPLE - Ray Hooper breached his contract - THE END
He is not worthy of a payout
Let's all keep an eye on the Legal Expenditure in the financials !
Sadly, Hesitant Hare, these matters tend to be settled out of court by the insurer's lawyers. They call it 'making a commercial decision'. What that means is that the plaintiff (in the industrial jurisdiction, 'the complainant') gets an agreed payout on the basis that he withdraws his application for redress. This can happen even when it's pretty obvious that the complainant's case is without merit. The reason is that court proceedings are time-consuming and very expensive, so it's cheaper to cut a deal.
DeleteI know this from personal experience as former chairman of a community legal centre. We had to sack an employee (a lawyer, in fact) who turned out to be preternaturally lazy and incompetent and only turned up for work on rare occasions. Our insurer's lawyers insisted on settling out of court for the reasons indicated above. Not only did that grotesque individual get a large sum of money from our insurers, she also insisted that I agree in writing not to tell anyone, e.g. a prospective employer, what a disaster she had been. Of course, I refused.
In a previous life, I spent several years working for my wife as her practice manager and senior paralegal. I remember a client coming into the office and saying to me, 'All I want is justice'. 'What', I said, 'you dare to use that word in a lawyer's office?'
Hesitant hare has made a very clear case as to what Ray Hooper's contract required of him and his failure to meet the requirements. His Duty of Fidelity includes the element requiring him not to "bring the Shire into disrepute or cause damage". This sheds new light on why he accused others of "bringing the Shire into disrepute". In doing so, he was distracting us from noticing any possible breaches of this Fidelity requirement on his own own part. It never occurred to me before.
DeleteRay Hooper (12 August 2008, if I read a copy correctly) put out a document on yellow paper, which he had posted on public notice boards such as outside the Post Office and on the window of the Library for all to see. In that paper he branded three (3) keen York citizens in the following terms: "denigrating and ridiculing the town". These citizens were, in fact, people who contributed a lot to the town and would throw their full energy and talents into doing so. The one problem was that they disagreed with Ray and his nose was 'put out of joint'.
A Shire CEO should never publicly "name" citizens and put up posters about them — posters reminiscent of the days of 'The Wild West' and our early history when criminals such as outlaws were sought with "WANTED ....." posters. As soon as I saw this Yellow Paper downtown that is exactly what I thought of.
No wonder these three people felt threatened. When public notices such as these go up round a town (we are nearer to a Village in population size by European standards) the people named are branded and that is exactly what happened. It led many people to see at least two of the people in a different light than they might have otherwise. (I heard that the third person later became a 'friend' of Ray Hooper — or, as I heard it "made peace with him".).
These people had their reputations damaged by Ray Hooper for a long time. Hopefully the tide is turning.
Ray Hooper posted posters up in public which were damning other people. Can he justify surprise when one person (so all can see what harassment is occurring and has occurred and can see evidence of Misconduct by formerly trusted Shire persons) posts documentation inside his own window?
Ray Hooper's posters brought the Shire into disrepute ("airing dirty linen" is one term for it) when he could have tried proper dialogue. He was a Public Officer. He should have acted within proper bounds of propriety and within the bounds of the ethos of his contract in relation to the people he was here to serve — all of us, whether he agreed with us or not.
No. The damage has not been undone. Effects of persecution by Ray Hooper and at least one Councillor of the recent past, as well as the anger another was prone to, have 'been a lesson' to others who have lived in York through this period (or at least to those who have taken the trouble to engage in the Democratic Process) — unfortunately, a lesson to "beware what you could be exposed to if you speak up with opinions contrary to those of the People in Power".
The Reign of Terror we are aware of may have ended; but that does not mean that the fear effects have ended — and people who have seen others bullied also hesitate to become victims.
It will be interesting if he does sue, and what for..?
DeleteAt the ordinary Council meeting 14 April 2014, Council voted on a Confidential matter regarding CEO Hooper and alleged breaches of the Shire of York Code of Conduct. Council voted to engage the services of Mr Michael FitzGerald to investigate the alleged breaches.
On Tuesday morning 15 April, Mr FitzGerald arrived in York to commence his investigation. At approximately 10am CEO Hooper resigned, maybe a coincidence but doubtful.
This was not the action of a man with a clear conscience. On the contrary! Councillor Boyle kindly confirmed that, "Ray Hooper had nowhere to go after the letter", during one of his breakfast meetings in Avon Terrace.
Interestingly, Ray Hooper resigned from his previous position as CEO Shire of Chittering under similar circumstances after Shire President Jan Stagbauer discovered he had been operating with complete disregarded to the Shires Code of Conduct.
Perhaps, Council should have convened a special Council meeting at the time to discuss Hooper's resignation, hypothetically, if it had called a meeting, then it would have been a sure bet that Councillors Duperouzel, Boyle and Hooper would have voted not to accept Hooper's resignation and that Councillors Reid, Wallace and Smythe would have voted to accept his resignation. Councillor Reid, as Shire President would have then used his casting vote to accept Hooper's resignation, all hypothetical of course!
The allegations about Ray Hooper's conduct contained in the FitzGerald Report were not known to anyone until 25 July 2014. on the 25 July 2014, Councillor Duperouzel called a special Council meeting , the only Councillors in attendance were Duperouzel, Boyle and Hooper, the meeting was held in the administration office and members of the public were denied access (excluded) .
The outcome of this illicit meeting was that the FitzGerald Report was suppressed. At the time, both Councillors Boyle and Hooper were under the foolish belief they could vote impartially, even though their names were mentioned on numerous occasions in the Report.
So, Hooper's resignation could not have possibly had anything to do with the content of the FitzGerald Report. A shame because it would be interesting to have the allegation tested. The law of averages dictate that some of the allegation would have to be true.
The Department has recently conceded that two of its reasons contained in its Show Cause Notice for suspending Council were invalid, those were, that Councillor Reid distributed the FitzGerlad Report and that he signed purchase orders relating to payments to Mr FitzGerald. This means that the validity of the Departments Show Cause Notice has diminished by one third.
The Department of Local Government, in particular Mr David Morris has a very good idea who leaked the Report, he's been given plenty of clues...isn't that correct David? He also has purchase orders signed by CEO Keeble...isn't that also correct David?
Commissioner Best has less than four months of his six month appointment to go, which considering his one step forward two steps back approach to commissioning, leaves York well and truly up shit creek without a paddle.
Come July when James has done his Best, the Councillors will have either been fully trained and installed back into their rightful democratically elected positions, or, the demigods at the Department could get the whipping boy to sack the four remaining Councillors and install a caretaker Commissioner until the October elections.
Whichever scenario, Council has little or no chance of repairing the damage done to York by two CEO's, two Shire Presidents and by association the Department of Local Government, or moving forward, if it finds itself having to fend off court action potentially from two fronts.
James, I have to agree with you, I think it's a case of fait accompli, I guess we'll never know!
My sentiments, precisely. How can RH sue for wrongful or unfair dismissal when he resigned (jumped ship before he was told to walk the plank, from my perspective...). Could RH really twist the truth and get away in court / out-of-court with such a fallacy, Jim??? If yes, what an incredibly corrupt 'justice' system we have that would allow payout on that kind of spin!
DeleteIf Matthew didn't leak the Fitz Gerald report and sign the purchase orders, why was the council suspended?
DeleteAm I missing something?
Exactly,..................................we're all missing something, that's the whole point. The Minister and his Department acted on a report compiled by David Morris and Jenni Law, a report which was fundamentally flawed in that it was false and misleading.
DeleteNow we know that Pat Hooper authored a report known as the "Minority Report", it would be safe to assume the report is not flattering towards Matthew Reid.
Some of us do dare to ask questions still, but we are still subject to the answer being given (including in print) being based on misinformation fed to Commissioner and A/CEO by people who wish to cover things up for whatever reason. In questioning we risk being shamed and made to look foolish — in the short term at least, till evidence shows up perchance in the discoveries of others — even if not overtly persecuted. It is not always as simple as it seems, Mr. P., much as I agree with you on many other things.
ReplyDeleteHow can we ever get to the truth without asking questions?
DeleteIt's the people who knowingly hand out false information, and the jobsworths who let them get away with it, who in the end are shamed and look foolish. No honest questioner should feel like that. If you seek the truth, you will make mistakes and sometimes have to apologise. So what? What does it matter if others, less courageous and perhaps more venal, condemn you for it? Dare to be a Daniel, as the old hymn says.
Remember, one on the side of truth is a majority. And sometimes things really are as simple as they seem. 'If hopes are dupes, fears may be liars...'
I
Well, old man, I will tell you news of your quest, give me your blessing, truth will come
Deleteto light, corruption cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but at the length truth will out.
Merchant of Venice, Act II scene ii, Launcelot Gobbo to his dad: nicely reworked, Bardet, with quest in place of son and corruption in place of murder.
DeleteI sense you may be trying to tell me something I need to know...
Commissioner Best not answered the key questions yet it seems. Open and accountable does not apply to him.
ReplyDeleteAnd if he finds this blog unhelpful it shows how effective it is. Is the Minister going to punish the suspended councillors for the views of its residents!!!!! Kept in, extra homework, the cuts?
Best just does not like the truth.
Perhaps it's not that James Best just does not like the truth. Maybe he is in shock reading it for the first time on the Blog.
DeleteJames: loved the bit about daring (not) to use the word 'justice' in a lawyer's office!! Great chuckle.
ReplyDelete