…the idiot’s guide to York today
(Short-listed for the Premier’s Bovine
Excrement Award, Autumn 2015)
If
we see things his way, he’ll be right behind us
Here’s an extract from the minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 March 2015. The question came from Jane Ferro. Presumably, the answer—though couched in the third person—flowed from the fecund* mind of Commissioner Best.
‘Question 7:
Why do you speak about those of us who
contribute to the shire of york blog as idiots who don’t tell the truth and
post bullshit?
Response:
The Commissioner stated he has been
taken out of context. He said the blog was puerile and pathetic, if you want to
contribute on the blog it needs to be positive not negative. People in Perth do
read the blog and it comes up top of the list in Google. Business people and
tourism operators that have spoken to the Commissioner have stated the
negativity needs to stop as it is having a detrimental impact on York. The
Commissioner is meeting with residents mentioned in the Fitz Gerald report on a
one to one basis. If the blog was in a productive and future focussed vein for
York the Commissioner would be right behind it.’
Well, Commissioner, forgive me, but I
won’t let you get away unscathed with a response like that.
1.
‘Taken out of context.’
What context? I think
Commissioner Best is being disingenuous, which as I’m sure he knows is a polite
way of saying telling porkies.
Notice how he sidesteps the
question. Is he trying to tell us that
he didn’t use the words ‘bullshit’ and ‘idiots’? He may not know this, but apparently he is
quite literally on record as having used them exactly as indicated in Jane’s
question.
2.
‘Puerile and pathetic.’ That’s not how most readers see the
blog. Surely the Commissioner must know
that the blog has a strong following in York—a lot stronger than his, judging
from attendances at his so-called ‘visioning’ events. It is, as the Women’s Weekly used to say, very widely read.
That’s because it provides a platform
for ideas and opinions different from, more sensible and less tedious than the
Commissioner’s. It’s also an enjoyable and
entertaining read that doesn’t try to baffle folk with needless jargon. It appeals to people not only in York and
Perth but also throughout WA, across Australia and even overseas. It’s not my blog—I only write for it—but I’m
proud to be a part of it and grateful to the person who set it up, as all York
residents should be.
Commissioner Best should be grateful to
the blog. It’s making him famous. If he doesn’t show a bit more respect, I
shall stop writing about him. Then he’ll
be sorry.
3.
‘Positive not negative.’ Agreed, but it’s the Commissioner’s ideas that
are negative and ours that are positive.
His are negative in that he seeks to deny, or at any rate brush aside or
conceal, the truth about what has been happening in York over the past several
years and the damage done as a result to individuals, the community and even
local infrastructure. That is what his
puppet masters in Perth have told him to do.
Our views are positive in that we give
priority to healing the past and reforming the present, instead of allowing
ourselves to be led up the garden path towards an airy future ‘envisioned’ by
Commissioner Best and his handful of sycophantic acolytes, as good old Ray
might have called them.
Anyway, what gives Commissioner Best the
right to prescribe what should or shouldn’t be on the blog or what frame of
mind we should be in when we write for it?
Who does he think he is, Kim Jong-Un?
4.
‘Negativity
needs to stop.’ Absolutely. The Commissioner’s negative attitude to
anything that doesn’t fit in with his own humourless perspective on the world
really must stop. It’s sending us all to
sleep.
I’m surprised that ‘business people and
tourism operators’ have (allegedly) told the Commissioner that the blog’s
‘negativity’ is keeping punters away from York. I wonder who those entrepreneurs are. Obviously
they don’t have much grasp of tourist psychology.
Think about it for a moment. All over
the world, people pay good money to experience the grim, the grisly and the grotesque.
We should be cashing in on the disasters of the Hooper-Boyle-Hooper ascendancy,
not pretending they didn’t happen. If London’s
Whitechapel can celebrate the exploits of Jack the Ripper, why can’t we run
tours of the Wreck Centre, shops standing empty and defunct places of
refreshment? Come on, tourism operators,
backsides into gear, you could be packing them in!
5.
‘Productive and future focussed vein.’
He doesn’t get it, does he? Mix
me a metaphor, Commissioner Best, and stop telling me what to do. As the poet says: ‘Time present and time
past/Are both perhaps present in time future/And time future contained in time
past.’ (T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton. There’s
nothing like a bracing dose of poetical metaphysics to keep the mind in
trim.)
You can’t separate the present or
future from the past, like the white of an egg from the yolk. The past conditions the present: the present
conditions the future. Things might be different in a parallel universe, Commissioner
Best, but that’s how they work in this one.
*
Fecund: prolific, fertile, productive
(just so there’s no misunderstanding)
And
now, for someone completely different (well, maybe, I’m not quite sure yet…)
Somebody reminded me yesterday that I
took a swing at Paul Brown MLC not long ago (figuratively speaking of
course—he’s bigger and younger than me).
Several people independently had told me he had said that if the blog
wasn’t closed down, Minister Simpson would extend the Council’s period of
suspension for a further six months or longer, or even give it the sack. I
interpreted this to mean that Mr Brown (and the minister) wanted the blog
closed down.
It seems I was wrong about Mr Brown, so
I apologise. (I don’t know about the
minister, but I hereby give him the benefit of the doubt.) In an email to a friend of mine, Mr Brown has
made it clear that he is, after all, a friend of freedom of expression. In his own words: ‘Any dismissal of the
Councillors by the Minister will not be because of anything said on the blog,
and people do have a fundamental right to those forums to express concerns’.
That’s not to say he agrees with much
if anything that’s published on the blog. I’m sure he disagrees with most if
not all of it. That’s his prerogative. For all I know he may have been listening to
the wrong people, those who like himself occupy positions of influence and power. They’re not the ones that got hurt.
One thing Mr Brown dislikes about the
blog is that some contributors use it anonymously to vilify members of Shire
staff.
On that, he and I are at one. Fellow bloggers, it’s better not to vilify people,
but if you’re going to do that, have the courage to say who you are. I’ve written about this before. Remember, we are the good guys. Good guys aren’t trolls. Strangely, anonymity can turn anyone into a
troll; if you choose to blog anonymously, it’s best to keep a tight rein on
your emotions so they don’t override decency and common sense in what you
write.
All the same, I hope Mr Brown shares my
view that criticism as such isn’t vilification. Neither is telling the truth. We bloggers know
that certain members of staff conspired with a couple of councillors, the DLGC
and at least one disgruntled ex-CEO to have the Council—in reality, Matthew
Reid—suspended.
Our job as bloggers is to drag such
things into the light. We will continue
to do that, even though we know that saying anything critical of the staff upsets
Commissioner Best, who appears to have fallen ineluctably under their spell.
‘Let Truth and Falsehood grapple: who
ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?’ John Milton, Areopagitica
Had to chuckle at your "All over the world, people pay good money to experience the grim, the grisly and the grotesque" and the imaginative 'envisioning' (I know you don't like the word, nor do I, but it 'fits') you have applied to our current situation, James P. Trust you to think of that!
ReplyDeleteWell, at least you are accepting anonymity as an option — albeit under conditions of civility, decency and common sense. Truth, yes, and justice; but not nastiness.
Yes, of course I accept anonymity as an option. I know how people who disagreed in the past with CEO Hooper and his mates stood a fair chance of ongoing persecution. This problem is dealt with at length in the Fitz Gerald Report. Since that report became (in part) public, I have reviewed a good deal of correspondence and other documentation from the Shire to various people. Sometimes I couldn't believe that Shire staff as well as councillors could have got away with such bullying behaviour.
ReplyDeleteWhen people complained to the DLGC, they usually got an anodyne response. Once or twice, the Department intervened, but to nothing like the same degree as with the present Council. Why was that? In my view, it was because councillors accepted whatever Ray told them as gospel and his actions against residents as always fully justified. (You should see some of the fawning emails - e.g. 'We're a cohesive team behind you Ray' from Cr Boyle, responding to an occasion when Ray was clearly in the wrong). And the representations that Cr Boyle as Shire Council president made to the Department to have dissident ratepayers declared 'vexatious' because they persisted in asking questions about Shire expenditure! The insults heaped on ratepayers by Cr Boyle, including exclusion from Public Question Time! Eventually the LG Standards Panel publicly censured Cr Boyle, but still no move to suspend Council when frankly it ought to have been suspended. Then along comes the reforming Matthew Reid, backed by a huge majority of ratepayers. He upsets the staff by insisting on asking for information that the LGA says he is entitled to see, and bang! the DLGC sends in its stormtroopers, issues a spurious and very poorly drafted show cause notice (what are they paying those guys?), pays no attention to the Council's response, suspends Council, refuses to explain why, and puts in an expensive commissioner who turns out to be a consultant hired to keep dissent at bay lest the DLGC'c incompetence is exposed and its officers become a laughing stock throughout the state.
As to the staff, Ray knew how to keep them on side, for example by promoting them to well-paid positions that ought to have been advertised. Sadly, the culture he created seems to be as strong as ever, and their loyalty to the Grand Panjandrum in exile doesn't seem to have waned.
So a good many people, rightly or wrongly, feel offended when people like Mr Brown and me, and especially Commissioner Best who has done nothing to change the culture, lecture them about how they should write on the blog. As it happens, I'm an old softie - I believe in using humour and ridicule but never vituperative abuse. But I can't bring myself to condemn outright folk who let off steam in that way after years of Shire harassment and oppression, even when they choose to do so anonymously. I don't like it, I wish they wouldn't do it, but it's no bloody wonder that they do.
And where were our local politicians when the really bad stuff was going on? Come to that, where are they now? Wagging their fingers and hinting to my friends that I'm not a proper person to be 'a community leader'. I don't regard myself as a leader of anything, but if by 'community leader' they mean someone like their old friends Pat Hooper and Tony Boyle, that's not an epithet I would ever seek to have applied to me.
Mr Brown and James Plumridge dislike some contributors use of 'anonymous' to vilify members of Shire staff. I agree in part as I also see other reasons for discontinuance of constant use of anonymous (by who knows how many people at any one time) as it halts the flow of the blog.
DeleteWe nearly always associate politics with ridicule by looking in the newspapers at what the top pollies have to endure and cartoons they are expected to tolerate as path of the course. Needless to say our own York Council, DLGC and various Ministers cannot and should not feel they are too precious or beyond reproach.
I for one delight at the content of the main posts on the blog; the information, the satire and the good humour but of late, there have been many very good posts whereby the quality and content becomes detracted by random posts of a childish or spiteful nature with some totally irrelevant to the topic. It would be a tragedy if people who bother to write a decent comment stopped making the effort as a result of others who fail to consider their comments before posting.
Furthermore, having to refer to a comment from 'anonymous, posted at a certain time' is absolutely ridiculous. I appreciate it is somewhat hypocritical of me to complain as I use a pen name (for my own reasons) but, at least I can be responded to by that name. Perhaps the use of anonymous followed by a number or preceded by a name, would at least give some identity.
I am a firm believer in the right to speak but if the basic purpose of the blog is to keep the townsfolk and the powers that be informed and alert then (as someone else has previously mentioned) vilification might just denigrate its purpose, which is such a shame.
Oscar Wilde, spent a lifetime mocking pious people and urging them to be less righteous, he once quipped that “a man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies”. Wilde declared that he chose friends with good looks and acquaintances with character but that intelligence was what he most valued in an enemy. Like many of his witticisms, the remark contains an important kernel of truth, one that goes to the heart of any response to the comments and opinions shared on this blog. Opposition matters, especially when they force us to define ourselves, and to determine what we really value in a free society.
DeletePart 1: I am one who dares to speak up publicly in groups (even those initiated by Mr.B) about how bad I see the current York situation to be. I am not being badly treated for my frankness. But I am also one who tells it as it was and how I came to York because of how pretty it was when I first saw it years ago, what an almost 'fairy tale' scene it is when one comes over the hill down into the valley with church spire, green field, bold rocky hill the other side, river between, and neat, cozy size; how pretty it is from e.g. Mount Brown or driving through when the surrounds are a mix of purple, green and yellow; how friendly the shopkeepers, post office officials etc... were when we came as complete strangers; how colourful and fun it was when we used to have a classical musical festival biennually and a jazz festival with a combination of free street jazz plus paid indoor events to meet the capacity of all; how friendly and helpful the tourist bureau was when volunteers were valued and before they were 'made redundant' and when it was so much more something 'owned by the people' in many ways rather than simply by bureaucracy. (In saying this I am not criticising the nice little lady who currently is carrying out that role; I have observed her being very enthusiastic and helpful over weekends to visitors, and their being happy with it.)
ReplyDeleteI am one who has ambitions for York to become as good as it used to be (and if it turns out even better than before, I shall be very happy).
At the same time, I am one who deplores the last 10-12 years of rorts committed on the poeple, the false rumours perpetrated for the purpose of wrecking the reputation of people who could and did contribute to York's culture and then flourishing businesses, the damage done to people's welbeing through officials' failure to deal fairly and rationally over planning matters or rates debts in some cases. I am one who deplores the conditions that have led to the closure of some hotels and other businesses, sometimes due to failure in support by officials, sometimes due to high rentals charged by some owners of some of the buildings, sometimes as a result of bad management by the businesses concerned or their unrealistic hopes. I am one who, while welcoming the efforts of some in the health field, deplores the aftereffects of the young doctors' refusal to service the emergency facility at the local hospital. I miss the fact that we used to be able to eat at Bugattis of an evening and there were more other venues open than just the Castle and the Chinese. I deplore the fact that on an ordinary day by 4pm already when you drive down town the majority of it is closed and has no 'life' — it is 'dead', and it shouldn't be. If I heard right, even Mr B. has heard that people staying over are being told they need to go to Northam for an evening meal.
Part 2 to follow.
Part 2: I don't think there is a conflict between looking towards trying to bring life back into York and working to get justice for the past wrongs. They are two sides of the whole. Even the moon has a light side and a dark side to us; but it is a unit.
ReplyDeleteWe did not like it when a past CEO and a past Shire President branded us friends of a man they despised (unjustifiably) as his 'acolytes'; I do not wish to be branded an acolyte of Mr. B because I attend groups he either is continuing (there are 3 of them) or has created (there are 3 of them). I am happy to say what I don't like, and happy to say what I used to like, and happy to say what I would like. I do not think that the sun shines our of Mr. B., and I objected in a public meeting to the deed planned by the Minister and the Department and their local acolytes to suspend the Council and [attempt to] damage the reputation of Matthew Reid. I also wrote letters to the Minister and the Shadow Minister about it.
As far back as 30 years ago, I hear, there were similar groups to Mr.B's and similar things were discussed in them, and plans made and set aside. Then in 2005 the same thing happened again, and many of the resultant plans from the Reference Groups as they were called have sat on shelves and got lost. OK, so we are gamling on it that maybe this time a few more of the things people have been trying for over the years will actually get done. If not, then at least we will have tried.
So please, Mr. P., do not brand as 'acolytes of Mr. B' those of us who both use this blog and are gambling on a chance that this time round the groups (this time called, rather ambitiously and grandiosely, Advisory Groups) might lead to things that achieve some good things for York — even if MR. B has a hand in them for the time being. We, the people, will still be here after he is gone.
Anonymous Parts ! and 2: Sorry, I was trying to be funny, I didn't mean to give offence. The joke was in using the kind of language RH seems to have been fond of - I'd not long ago read one of his letters in which he referred to the supporters of a friend of mine as 'acolytes' - but I didn't write carefully enough. 'Bonus dormitat Homerus' is my feeble defence.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I do not consider the people who attend Mr Best's 'visioning' sessions to be his acolytes or sycophantic. I apologise most sincerely to anyone offended by my remarks. It's important that some of us should attend those sessions, if for no other purpose than that of 'speaking truth to power' and reporting back to us peasants shivering in the darkness outside. I won't attend, in part because I find Mr Best's attitude arrogant, conceited, self-important and condescending, and in part because I'm afraid I would argue with him every step of the way, to everyone's annoyance, not just his.
I haven't a clue who you are, but you are obviously on the side of the angels, and I'd hate to be bad friends with you because I didn't make it clear that I was joking at Ray's expense, not yours. Quotation marks might have helped. Again, my sincere apologies.
Miss Behaviour: Yes, I agree with you. I like people to criticise as much as they like, but not vituperatively.
To be honest, I think most comments posted on the blog recently, anonymously or otherwise, have been very good and balanced in content and tone. I'm very happy that people sometimes post to take me to task for things I've written. I make mistakes, like everyone else, and I try to learn from them when they're pointed out to me. I'm also very happy when people post nice comments about 'the main posts' - as you have, and I thank you for them!
No offence, James P. Glad you clarified. You are not bad friends with me, or vice versa. You triggered a response, but in doing so you gave me a chance to reconcile my different sides in a kind of coherent statement. It results from attempts I have made at the groups to clarify my perceptions and goals, as well as points you and others have made on this blog, and my feelings about the harm that has been done. So all up, thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhat a pity this artist-in-residence, so to speak, doesn't get paid for his/her work! I hope he or she gets a good chuckle out of it at least. I did and do.
ReplyDeleteHow interesting, upon reading the minutes from 23 March Council Meeting, that Mr Best changed his reply to me about what he said about us bloggers from "he was misquoted" to, now, "taken out of context". This certainly lets him off the hook, as those who didn't attend the meeting would have no way of knowing his actual reply to me. I say this because he deeply offended Tanya, whose words we have reason to believe are beyond reproach.
ReplyDeleteI said it before at a Council Meeting last year and I'll say it again: the minutes should be recorded by audio equipment so there is no doubt as to what has been said at any meeting, whether you attend (and question your own memory about what you recollect was said) or not. I can't justify giving those in authority the opportunity to change / leave out / add to the minutes as they deem appropriate for their own reasons, whatever those reasons might be.
I would suggest anyone who makes an appointment with someone in authority, particularly those in government, takes someone with you as witness to what has been said - ideally taking notes to maintain accuracy of what you're hearing. Alternatively, take a tape recorder with you and make it clear you are recording the conversation.
ReplyDeleteHaving a second person with you also allows the person speaking, who is focused on the dialogue, to have feedback from the listener on other aspects you are unable to take in /’ remember when you're on your own.
I agree Jane, it is time Shire Council Meetings were recorded. We have been requesting this for over 10 years now and there is no valid reason why it cannot be implemented.
ReplyDeleteI was sitting opposite Tanya at that Council meeting and saw the look of utter shock on her face when Mr. Best responded to Jane's question about the comments he made. Tanya was clearly offended and justifiably so, because Tanya does not lie.
Openly recording meetings has great merit.
Imagine what would have happened if Matthew Reid had not protected himself by recording the 'ambush meeting' by the three councillors in Mr. Keeble's office.
Actually I wasn't surprised at all. I have come to expect this from our Shire Presidents (MR is the exception). We all make comments we shouldn't in the heat of the moment. Those of us that take ownership of those comments learn and grow as human beings. Those that do not lose all respect.
DeleteThe recording of questions from the public following Shire meetings has been a bone of contention for a long time. On numerous occasions letters were written to the Department of Local Government concerning the process as well as the conduct of councillors during Public Question Time. The DLGC simply gave the Shire Council a smack on the wrist, set broad boundaries which condoned the behaviour and allowed free rein to summarise questions and responses to suit. On many occasions the original questions were altered to such an extent they had no context which served only to humiliate the writer.
ReplyDeleteCouncil ignored the guidelines and it eventually reached the stage where questions were contemptuously answered with 'Noted'. This option suited Council very well as it usually meant the question was too hard or they couldn't be answered without implicating themselves in some way.
It would be folly (pardon the pun) for Mr James Best to follow in the murky footsteps of former CEO Ray Hooper. Ray (and his relative Shire Presidents) seriously believed if they continued their ignorant course of action it would discourage questions but it had an adverse effect and thankfully, the defiant community attendees with relentless effort stood their ground.
It suited the 'old guard' not to record Council meetings because they could be as rude as they liked to those in the Gallery and the CEO was free to use his creative writing skills with questions and answers.
ReplyDeleteMr. Best has the power to implement Recorded Council meetings without further delay.
Come on Mr. Best, this would be a big step forward and I am sure it would make Helen's job for the Minutes a lot easier.
Several people have said that the comments attributed to Commissioner Best in the minute quoted are not those he made at the meeting. He did not say his remarks had been 'taken out of context.' What he said was that he had been 'misquoted.'
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it's possible that he didn't use the words 'puerile and pathetic.' The jury's out on that one for now.
But here's a funny thing: on 2 April 2014, in a letter to my friend Simon Saint headed 'SMEAR & INNUENDO CAMPAIGN', then CEO Ray Hooper objected to 'current signage' in Simon's front window as - wait for it - 'pathetic and puerile'. Coincidence or what?
(My recollection is that the 'signage' complained of consisted of news reports and Shire documents obtained via FOI.)
Is it possible that Mr Hooper's epistolary masterpieces have acquired the status of holy writ in the Shire office, and are used by his devotees as a source of pithy phrases and penetrating thoughts along the lines, say, of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book during the Cultural Revolution in China?
Or is this a case of demonic possession as per the Exorcist or the Devils of Loudun?
It's always been my understanding that minutes are meant to be a true and accurate record of what actually took place. They are not supposed to provide an opportunity for the creative reconstruction of events or the substitution of what was said by what a participant wishes he had said or thinks he should have said.
I'm not alleging deliberate misrepresentation. I wasn't at that meeting. But if the minute in question doesn't reflect what the commissioner really said, somebody needs to undergo training in how to write truthful minutes.
I agree with the comments suggesting the need to audio record the questions and the answers, and to hold CEOs, Shire Presidents etc... to account on the matter. I myself have been 'bitten' by this situation both in the past and present — the latest being the Ordinary Council Meeting of 16th February. Mr. Best read my question re the Rec.Centre aircon, but in presenting the question he modified some of the parts. I spoke to him after, and he said "the Commissioner has the right to do so for the sake of 'efficiency'". Since, by contrast, the parts were printed in the Minutes using my original wording, anyone who bothers to read them can judge their 'efficiency'.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of his responses, Mr. B may have been misled by someone giving him information less than the actual truth about what exactly can and can't be done easily to quickly adjust the aircon temperatures. I later respectfully suggested that he, the Works Manager and the CEO go and try it for themselves. I had information from persons regularly in charge at the Rec. Centre who said that the aircon cannot be readily adjusted (at least that was the case up to and including 16th Feb 2015), and saying that sometimes they have to go 'upstairs' (ceiling? roof?) to change it.
In answer to part c. of my question, in the meeting Mr Best actually named me as having sat in the coolest area (19°C) on a particular prior occasion. It was true, but the implication was that that was my doing as if there was any other choice. The particular meeting had been held only in that section, as it happens, and the solution to the problem of lack of ready adjustability of the aircon had been to switch it off, and then on again when the storm outside made the humidity inside unbearable.
When it came to the printed Minutes, the questions were listed just as I had asked them. On the other hand, the answer to part c. was changed to "Unfortunately some people find themselves sitting in [the particular area]. For the purpose of the written record he must have thought better than to refer to me the way he had in his spoken answer.
Yes, audio record is what I say. It also means that Commissioner, President, whoever, is more likely to be careful what they say — hopefully, anyway.
I also agree with Jane's advice that anyone who has to make an appointment with someone in authority should take someone as a witness to what has been said, and as a person who may see a pitfall or think of other factors relevant to the matter in hand which should not be skipped over. Jane's other suggestions in this regard are worth considering too.
ReplyDeleteI personally have had occasion to make it a policy to have a witness present in matters of importance, whether medical or government-related. in fact, when recently a meeting with me was suggested by someone in power, I suggested that the meeting, if it occurred, be with me and someone else I named. I heard nothing more. It didn't matter; the subject was not of any great importance. No. One should not expose oneself to being the lone person in a situation where someone else has the power to misinterpret, mis-report etc... or in a situation with an inherent power differential between players. It is easy, also, as Jane suggests, to forget some critical point and think of it only too late — particularly if we are rushed or cut short, or anxious.
Write to Mr Graeme Simpson and ask him for the copies of the documents relating to the quotes from Redfish Media to install an audio system (with facility to record meetings) in Council Chambers. If Mr Simpson is not prepared to give you a copy, which will probably be the case because he's a dull little man, then it may be worth considering lodging a Freedom of Information application.
DeleteAbsolutely, as you say James P, minutes are meant to be a true and accurate record of what actually took place; and if there are errors, it is supposed to be possible for errors to be acknowledged and a note made at the 'confirmation of minutes' stage of the next meeting, to record what the correct version was, is fact. But it hasn't been happening — or if so, then extremely rarely. Even pertinent questions at later meetings have not resulted in humble acknowledgements of errors.
ReplyDeleteSurely our leaders are, like the rest of us, capable of making mistakes. What do they think would happen if they acknowledged a mistake of their own or an error in transcription? Minute errors can't be due to hearing problems, because we're required to present our questions in written form. (Now there's a challenge. Perhaps they don't wish to embarrass their typists or blame their computer program? Surely this last could be considered a possibility? No, now I am getting cynical. Sorry.)
Write to Mr Graeme Simpson and ask him for the copies of the documents relating to the quotes from Redfish Media to install an audio system (with facility to record meetings) in Council Chambers. If Mr Simpson is not prepared to give you a copy, which will probably be the case because he's a dull little man, then it may be worth considering lodging a Freedom of Information application.
DeleteJames, I have documents which identify that the Shire of York, in particular one officer, knowingly falsified a public record. I need copies of a couple more documents, then I'll get them to you later today.
ReplyDeleteThanks, 666. I find it hard to believe that anyone in York would do such a thing, especially under the watchful eye of DLGC probity monitors, but I promise to study the documents with care and if they prove to show what you say they do - that is, to be, as your chosen moniker suggests, a revelation - I will offer them up to public scrutiny.
DeletePlease appreciate that I have to be very careful. I suspect that for the commissioner and his political confreres, even the truth - perhaps especially the truth - is 'negative' and 'must stop'.
Done, it was tough getting the last letter. You can see that the record has been falsified, the letter from you know who confirms it.
DeleteJust when you think you have heard it all, it gets even worse.
DeleteIf these documents are found to have been falsified, we can be forgiven for questioning just how many others are there?
It will also raise some interesting questions such as: Were documents used as evidence in the SOY Court cases against certain residents also falsified?
How many documents supplied under FOI have been falsified?
We seem to have gone backwards since the DLG took over our Council. IF we choose to attend Council Meetings, we are forced to sit in a Tavern with appalling acoustics and A/Cond. that doesn’t work properly. Now the rains have started, we risk slipping over trekking through mud to get inside!
ReplyDeleteMr. Best, you have seen for yourself those attending the Council meetings are a dignified group, there's been no punch ups and no arguments, surely by now the myth has been dispelled. It is time those attending were given back their dignity, please hold the meetings in the Council Chambers.
By the way, I really don’t think you need to be too worried about any resident Ghosts that may show up at meetings in the Council Chambers, they are more than likely harmless 'Historic Councillors' horrified by the deterioration of Councillors decorum during our ‘dark decade’!
On many occasions I heard our (ex) Shire Presidents refer to the ex CEO as ‘Our CEO’. This inferred he was the CEO of the York Council when, in fact, he was only the CEO of the Administration Staff.
ReplyDeleteThis subservient slip of the tongue comment by the Shire Presidents may have contributed to the CEO believing he was in complete control of everyone, including the Councillors.
There is an urgent need to have a clearly defined ‘proffessional line’ between Councillors and their ‘employee’ the CEO. This line has been blurred for too long.
Perhaps it is time for serious consideration to be given to reclassifying the position CEO - to Shire Clerk. The term CEO is an erroneous and dangerous term to bestow on an employee, unless of course you are the Board of Directors of Rio Tinto or BHP.