.jpg)
Incorporating Negativity Times and The Line-in-the-Sand Review
The Case of the Falsified Minutes: A Mysterious Tale from the Shire of York
In a
minute there is time
For
decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse…
T.S.
Eliot: The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
Prologue
Minutes are meant to be a true and accurate
record of what took place in a meeting. Their purpose is to present an honest
account of what was reported to and discussed at the meeting, and what decisions
were made.
Minutes of shire meetings are public documents
compiled by a public officer. This gives
them a special status at law and imposes special responsibilities on the people
who have a hand in producing them.
The story that follows is about falsifying a
public document, namely the minutes of an Ordinary Meeting of the York Shire
Council. If carried out ‘corruptly’ – that
is, to gain a benefit for someone, or to cause someone a detriment – falsifying
Shire minutes could in theory land the perpetrator or perpetrators in prison
for seven years.
For this case, you, readers, are the jury. It’s
for you to decide whether or not the falsification was carried out corruptly,
and with corrupt intent.
Chapter
1: Goodness gracious, the man’s vexatious
Our story begins in 2008, when a York ratepayer
who doesn’t want to be named—let’s call him ‘Mr. Templar’—aroused the wrath of Shire
of York CEO Ray Hooper by asking questions during Public Question Time about
how the Shire was spending ratepayers’ money.
At first Mr. Templar’s questions were directed
at spending on the CEO’s corporate credit card; later, he broadened their scope
to include other concerns, notably the cost of building and running the York
Recreation Centre.
The answers he wanted were not state
secrets. They were about the expenditure
of public money. They should have been freely
available to anyone who asked for them.
That was not the view of CEO Hooper, or of the
Council he ruled over. For years, under
the successive presidencies of Councillors Hooper and Boyle, Council resisted
Mr. Templar’s questioning, reducing him to the expensive and time-consuming
necessity of pursuing his enquiries by way of Freedom of Information (FOI) applications.
In so doing, CEO Hooper and his minions on
Council managed to create the impression that the Shire had something to hide. So Mr. Templar ratcheted up his efforts to get
at the truth.
Mr. Templar’s FOI applications caused the Shire
administration a lot of work. Most of that
work could easily have been avoided just by giving him the information he
wanted when he asked for it. CEO Hooper
was never going to do that. Instead, he
and the Council threw dust in the public’s eyes by blaming Mr. Templar for the cost
of work that their own intransigence was making necessary.
Eventually somebody came up with the bright idea
of having Mr. Templar declared a ‘vexatious ratepayer.’ Why should Ray and his acolytes* be forced to put up with
somebody asking questions they didn’t like and would rather not have to answer?
* Acolyte: a word incorrectly employed by former CEO
Hooper as a term of opprobrium. From Gk. akolouthos,
‘follower.’
Chapter
2: Send in the clowns
On 4 September 2012 CEO Hooper telephoned the
Shire’s solicitors, McLeods, and spoke to their special counsel, Elisabeth
Stevenson.
On the morning of Friday 7 September 2012, he
filled out and signed purchase order number 19327 for legal advice on two topics: ‘FOI processes’ and ‘vexatious people,’ with
$1000 allocated to each. Then,
accompanied by Shire President Tony Boyle, Deputy President Roy Scott, and
Deputy CEO Tyhscha Cochrane, he visited Ms Stevenson at her Claremont office.
As councillors, Mr. Boyle and Mr. Scott had no
business accompanying CEO Hooper and DCEO Cochrane on that excursion. It’s an iron rule of local government that
councillors concern themselves with governance and administrators with
administration. The matters for
discussion were supposedly administrative in nature.
By their presence at the meeting, Crs Boyle and
Scott were involving themselves in administrative issues. The correct course
would have been for the CEO to get advice from Ms Stevenson (perhaps with DCEO
Cochrane taking notes) and to convey that advice to Council.
Crs Boyle and Scott should have known this. But they had their own private reason for going
on pilgrimage to Claremont with the CEO and his deputy.
One of the topics raised at the meeting was a
fire-and-brimstone verse from the Book of Revelation that Mr. Templar had
emailed to CEO Hooper to pass on to Crs Boyle and Scott. We know Mr. Templar’s
message was discussed at the meeting because of what Cr Scott told Sgt Gubanyi
of the York Police in an email dated 13 September 2012, and because Ms
Stevenson referred to it in an email sent on the same day as the meeting to CEO
Hooper and DCEO Cochrane.
It seems the verse had an effect on both
councillors that would have pleased its divinely inspired author. It seems to have shaken them up so badly, they
felt they had to obtain legal advice at ratepayers’ expense as to what could be
done to stop Mr. Templar persecuting them with terrifying verses from the
Bible. (No, he isn’t a Jehovah’s
Witness.)
However, the issue as discussed boiled down to
this: did Mr. Templar’s apocalyptic message constitute a ‘record’ as defined by
the State Records Act 2000? In other
words, had it been sent to them in their capacity as councillors, in which
event they had to declare it to the Shire?
In her email, Ms Stevenson uses the example of ‘a quotation from
scripture’ to illustrate her considered opinion that they might, or might not,
be obliged to declare it.
On the ‘vexatious person’ question, the
gravamen of Ms Stevenson’s advice would probably have been that there is
nothing in the law to prevent people from asking questions, however annoying,
and no way of declaring questioners ‘vexatious.’ She would have given similar
advice regarding ‘FOI processes.’
Ms Stevenson’s advice cost the ratepayers of
York $1353 inclusive of GST. To that, we
can add the cost of travel and meals for four people. The advice might have been cheaper if
obtained via a telephone conference call, but that would have deprived our four
wild-goose-chasers of a nice day out and the opportunity to splurge on lunches
using the CEO’s corporate credit card.
Chapter
3: What the Invoice Said
The Shire received McLeods’ invoice for those services
on 9 October 2012. The invoice is
numbered 69654. It relates McLeods’ case
number, 32449, both to the Shire’s purchase order 19327 and to the words
‘vexatious ratepayer.’ It does not
mention ‘FOI processes,’ but as we shall see they were discussed.
As well as a charge of $92.20 inclusive of GST
for Mr. Hooper’s initial phone call, and the $1353 for advice given during the
meeting, the invoice includes a charge of $541.20 inclusive of GST for ‘Reviewing
development approval compliance report’ on 8 September 2012. This ‘review’ referred to one of Mr.
Templar’s business ventures.
Observe how CEO Hooper’s phrase ‘vexatious
people’ has narrowed down to a single ‘vexatious ratepayer.’ Money appears to have been spent and working
time lost in a vain quest for some legal way to stop a lone ratepayer from
persisting in asking embarrassing questions about Shire spending.
McLeods’ invoice 69654 is listed on the
schedule of ‘municipal electronic payments’ for October 2012 that was submitted
for approval to the ordinary meeting of Council held on 19 November 2012. It appears there under the description
‘LEGAL INSTRUCTION – VEXATIOUS RATEPAYER’ and was minuted accordingly.
Chapter
4: Falsification, that’s the name of the game
At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 17 September
2012, Shire President Tony Boyle
barred Mr Templar from asking questions in Public Question Time on the spurious
and irrelevant grounds that his FOI applications were placing too great a
strain on Shire resources. He barred Mrs Templar, too, in her case without
giving a reason.
I think we can safely
assume that this action did not reflect Ms Stevenson’s legal advice. More likely it was Councillor Boyle skipping off
on a grandiose frolic of his own, with CEO Hooper pulling the strings.
On 29 November 2012, Mr Templar applied to the
Shire under FOI legislation for documents relating to McLeods’ invoice 69654
(see Chapter 5).
Then a strange thing happened. At its ordinary meeting on 17 December 2012,
Council falsified the minutes of the November meeting. This cannot have been an accident. It must have been a deliberate act, carried
out presumably on the recommendation of CEO Hooper.
Under item 7, ‘Confirmation of minutes of
previous meeting’, the December minutes read as follows:
‘Corrections – under payments
there is an amount of $1992.10 for vexatious
ratepayer. Incorrect terminology
used – should have read – rateability of
Balladong Estate and processes for FOI.’ (Emphasis added.)
There follows resolution 011212, moved by Cr Pat
Hooper and seconded by Cr Mark Duperouzel:
‘That the minutes of the
Ordinary Council Meeting held on November 19, 2012 be confirmed as a correct
record of proceedings subject to the
correct terminology being used for the designated payment voucher.’ (Emphasis
added.)
Invoice 69654 makes no mention of the rateability
of Balladong Estate.
So why were the minutes changed? Was it done to disguise the fact that a
fairly large sum of money had been spent in a vain attempt to find a legal
mechanism for having a ratepayer declared ‘vexatious,’ and to evade questions
about that expenditure from Mr. Templar and his friends?
Or was there a more sinister motive?
Chapter
5: Why Falsify the Minutes?
In cases like this, the question of motive is
usually vexed. Who, after all, can
penetrate the obscure workings of the municipal mind as exemplified in CEO
Hooper and Cr Tony Boyle?
But here are some clues.
On 25 September 2012, the Templars submitted to
the DLGC a complaint about Shire President Boyle’s conduct at the Ordinary
Council Meeting on 17 September.
On 15 October 2012, Council voted to engage
McLeods to act for the Shire in planning compliance prosecutions. At that time, the Shire was contemplating
such a prosecution against Mr. Templar.
On 29 October 2012, Mrs Templar complained to
the DLGC that Crs Boyle and Scott had improperly attended a meeting with the
Shire’s lawyers on 7 September 2012 and used that as an opportunity to obtain
legal advice at ratepayers’ expense relating to a so-called ‘vexatious
ratepayer,’ namely Mr. Templar.
On 18 February 2013, Mr. Brad Jolly, a
panjandrum of the DLGC who is no stranger to the pages of this blog, responded
to Mrs Templar’s complaint about Crs Boyle and Scott. He wrote:
‘The Department’s enquiries
with the Shire and the elected members the subject of the complaint revealed
that McLeods have not acted for either Cr Scott or Cr Boyle for any matter that
was submitted to the Local Government Standards Panel either presently or in
the past 12 months.’
Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, you would think it odd, would you not, if when investigating an alleged
crime the police gathered evidence only from the alleged criminals.
Mr. Jolly was at worst lying
through his teeth or at best ignorantly mistaken. He may not have understood the meaning of the
word ‘act’ as it applies to legal practitioners. Ms Stevenson advised Crs Boyle
and Scott as well as CEO Hooper and his
deputy about a communication from Mr. Templar (and indirectly from the
Almighty) and its status under the State Records Act. That is to say, she acted for them by giving
them legal advice. The fact that they
didn’t have to pay for that advice was irrelevant. York ratepayers paid for it for them.
If Crs Boyle and Scott had
not attended the meeting in Ms Stevenson’s office, and had relied on CEO Hooper
to relay her advice to them, as they
should have done, there would have been no problem and the Council would
have had no need to resort to falsifying the minutes.
As some lawyers have
discovered to their cost, if they give legal advice to anybody, even casually
in a drunken state at a party, they may be said to have ‘acted’ for that
person. This means among other things that they can’t accept instructions from
another party in a dispute involving the person they advised.
Mr. Jolly may have been under
the misapprehension that ‘act’ means ‘represent in court.’ It doesn’t, and he should have known better,
but he’s only a minor character in this story so I’m inclined to give him,
somewhat grudgingly, the benefit of the doubt.
Chapter
6: Tyhscha Has a Memory Lapse
On Tuesday 8 January 2013, DCEO Thyscha
Cochrane emailed Elisabeth Stevenson regarding McLeods’ invoice 69654. She says
she is writing ‘Further to enquiries made by a York ratepayer regarding
vexatious ratepayer.’
Ms Cochrane wants to win Ms Stevenson’s support for the correction. She asks her to confirm that invoice 69654 was really about Balladong Farm and not about ‘vexatious ratepayers.’ She asserts that ‘from memory vexatious ratepayers was probably only a few minutes of discussion and the rest was Balladong Rating and FOI.’
Ms Stevenson responded by email on the same
day. She must have wondered why Ms
Cochrane was relying on her memory instead of reading her own notes of the
meeting, and why she hadn’t checked the relevant purchase order and invoice. As we’ve seen, neither of those documents
mentions Balladong Estate.
In her response, Ms Stevenson says that the
meeting ‘dealt with questions that arose within the context of dealing with a
person considered to be vexatious’ but her advice had covered ‘generally
applicable processes not the person per se.’
She points out that the purchase order relates to legal advice on ‘FOI
processes’ and ‘vexatious people.’
Ms Stevenson lists topics she gave advice on
during the meeting: FOI processes, the State Records Act [i.e. the Boyle-Scott
conundrum], Public Question Time and development approval compliance. She says that ‘some of the meeting was about
Balladong,’ but that ‘the predominant part was about FOI procedures and related
matters…’ She states categorically that she didn’t ‘record any notes about the
charitable exemption claim’ and ‘did not charge any of the time at the meeting
to the charitable exemption file (Balladong Estate).’
For anyone familiar with the ways of the legal
profession, that last remark proves conclusively that the amount of time spent discussing
Balladong would have been negligible, hardly more than a mention.
So much, then, for Ms Cochrane’s email to Ms
Stevenson. Ms Cochrane did her best, but
it’s hard to change the recollection of a person who keeps comprehensive notes and
pays scrupulous attention to the truth.
According to witnesses, Tyhscha Cochrane, Shire
Deputy CEO, disciple and protégée of CEO Hooper, wept bitter tears when her
boss resigned because she was afraid she might lose her job as a consequence of
his departure.
Chapter
7: Fudging the issue
You might think that following Ms Stevenson’s
email the Shire would immediately have set about ‘correcting the correction.’ Think
again.
The Templars were still barred from asking
questions, but a friend stepped into the breach. During Public Question Time on 18 February
2013, she asked: ‘Can Council explain
why it is trying to cover up legal costs in relation to a vexatious
ratepayer?’
The Shire’s response: ‘Council is not trying to
cover up any matter and it has simply ensured that the Minutes correctly record
the processes.’
That was a deliberate lie.
Nothing was done to correct the ‘corrected’ minutes
of 19 November 2012 until the Ordinary Council Meeting of 19 May 2014, a month
after CEO Hooper had resigned. Action
was only taken then because Mr. Templar had complained about the ‘corrected’ minute
to the new Shire President, Cr Matthew Reid.
Resolution 190514, moved by Cr Smythe and
seconded by Cr Wallace, states:
‘That the minutes of the
Ordinary Council Meeting held on November 19, 2012 be confirmed as a correct
record of proceedings acknowledging that various matters were discussed with
McLeods including questions that arose within the context of dealing with a
person considered to be vexatious.’
This resolution—probably crafted by Acting CEO Michael
Keeble—followed a discussion of Ms Stevenson’s response to DCEO Cochrane’s
email of 8 January 2013.
The resolution is a feeble and faintly
dishonest attempt to set matters straight.
It doesn’t explain why the change was necessary. Instead, it fudges the issue, smothering it
with opaque and viscous prose. That’s modern
corporate governance for you.
Chapter
8: Oh no, not probity blues again…
The DLGC’s so-called ‘probity audit’ of the
Shire started at the beginning of 2014. So Departmental officials were almost
certainly present at the Council meeting of 19 May 2014. In that case, they
would have heard about the sequence of events leading to the unanimous passing
of resolution 190514.
However, the deliberate falsification of
minutes that occurred in December 2012—a possibly criminal act—seems to have
passed them by.
Perhaps they lacked interest in the matter because
responsibility for it couldn’t be traced to their intended victim Shire
President Matthew Reid. Reid was their target;
Boyle was their ally and a friend of the powerful, including Premier Barnett
who was recently photographed at the Boyle property in York; Scott was off the
scene. As we’ve come to expect with
DLGC, the real villains got off scot-free.
Epilogue
 |
| Shire of York purchase order 19327 |
 |
| McLeods invoice page 1 |
 |
| McLeods invoice page 2 |
 |
| Confirmation that meeting on 7 September 2012 was NOT to discuss charitable exemption |
 |
| Email from DCEO Cochrane in an attempt to remind/coerce McLeods for reason of meeting |
 |
| Confirmation that meeting on 7 September 2012 was NOT about or invoiced as charitable exemption |
 |
So what can be done about this in your opinion James? The proof is all there so on this occasion so those responsible can be held accountable right? Those who are still there that is, like Tyscha.
ReplyDeleteI take great personal offence at being lied to by public officials in a public forum.
Dunno, Tanya. Wish I did. I don't think we can rely on 'Four-Grand-A-Week Graeme,' as he's affectionately known among York ratepayers, to investigate the matter for the CCC notwithstanding that I've done his work for him. The CCC probably wouldn't want to follow up if he did.
DeleteDo you think what I reported is evidence of corruption? It's a funny thing about people in 'western' countries, we point the finger at places like India, Indonesia, China, Brazil and so forth, but we never seem to see what's going on around us at home. Admittedly, those countries do corruption with much more panache and on a far grander scale!
Yes I think it's corruption! They were asked a question which gave them the heads up they had been caught out seeking inappropriate legal advice so they changed the minutes to cover their buts. This is highly improper by itself but then Tyscha has tried to get their solicitors to support their cover up. JB there's your proof. She has got to go.
DeleteBanning Mr and Mrs Templar from asking questions in the first place was unlawful but the DLG did not act at the time. James please send your documents to the DLG and ask them to ask the DCEO and Cr Hooper, the two remaining culprits to explain their actions. I will be sure to ask Boyle when I next see him.
If not evidence of corruption I don't know what is. Councillors have no business involving themselves in administrative matters for this very reason. Any CEO worth his salt would have known that and not put a Councillor in that position in the first place. But then the CEO lied to a member of the public at PQT when confronted with the truth.
DeletePS I love the picture, I had to look twice and thought he looked familiar.
Anonymous 12th April. - Ray Hooper Knew exactly what he was doing when he took Boyle and Scott with him to see the Shire's Lawyers.
DeleteThey were both too stupid to realise he was setting them up for a potential breach of the LG Act - interfering with Administration. A perfect Ace card to have up his sleeve should either of them challenge him on something in the future.
Have you documents to support this?
ReplyDeleteWas the Departments probity inquiry concerned with Council or the Shire President?
Yes, of course I have documents to support what I have written in the above article. Photocopies of every document referred to in the article are either in my possession or easily available to me. Most were acquired by a friend through FOI. There is no doubt they are genuine.
DeleteAs to your second question: the probity inquiry was ostensibly concerned with Council. However, if you read the 'show cause' notice you will see that the real target was Shire President Matthew Reid. No doubt Cr Reid made mistakes, as we all do, but compared with his predecessors he 'shone like a good deed in a naughty world.'
From the moment of his election, the Shire administration and Crs Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel had him in their sights. He stood for everything they detested, as encapsulated ln the phrase 'open, honest and accountable local government.' They recruited their friends in state government and the DLGC to their cause. Their aim was to discredit Cr Reid in the hope that he would pull the pin on his endeavours and leave them to restore the bullying and less than transparent style we became accustomed to during the Hooper-Boyle-Hooper ascendancy.
Do I have documents to support what I have just said? Not all of it, no, not yet. Some of it is inferred from what people have told me and from my own observations. However, I know such documents exist: in an earlier article, I launched one (revealing the perfidy of Cr Hooper) into the public domain. I will make others public as they become available. It could take a while, but we'll get there, never fear.
Cr Reid's problem is that he was never part of the 'purple circle' of politicians, senior bureaucrats and other 'dignitaries' who have a stake in maintaining an increasingly grubby status quo. As every true conservative knows, the corporate style of governance has resulted in a steady deterioration of public and business sector standards of morality. There are more petty manipulators in the system nowadays than there are maggots in a dead donkey. Well, we can't turn back the cuckoo clock, but we can clean the springs.
In flagrante delicto, nice piece of investigative journalism Jim. I'm with Tanya, where to from here? Its alarming how often Tyhscha Cochrane's name crops up whenever something dodgy has gone on, Ray taught her well, however, Ray wasn't overly proficient in covering his tracks nor was his protégé.
ReplyDeleteAn expose such as this simply cannot be ignored, CEO Simpson has to act, he is under an obligation to do so, the CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2003 - SECT 28 makes that clear. Of course he won't, he will contact the Department and more than likely speak with Brad Jolly who will advise him to do nothing because he is up to his neck with cover-ups.
The only thing we can hope for now, is now that the CCC has a new Commissioner, and once he has cleared the rotten apples from his own basket, he will get on and clean up the inordinate amount of corruption within the Local Government sector.
James (P) if you have not already done so, is it possible for you to email the above information 'formally' to Commissioner Best with a cc to the CCC, requesting him in his role as York Commissioner to immediately request the CCC to investigate this.
ReplyDeleteThis is way too serious for the current CEO to handle and it is safe to conclude we can no longer trust the DCEO to investigate anything, given her involvement in this.
All those involved in this disgraceful abuse of trusted public 'service' positions should be investigated under the State Records Act for falsifying State Records - including Boyle, Scott, Duperouzel, Hooper, Cochrane and Ray Hooper.
I am not surprised to hear Tyhscha was in tears when Ray Hooper resigned, she must have been beside herself to see her gravy train derailed.
All the following Act's and still the establishment choose to do nothing?
ReplyDeleteCorruption and Crime Commission Act 2003
Under section 28 of this Act, public sector agencies are obligated to notify the Corruption and Crime Commission of suspected misconduct. In the context of the State Records Act 2000 this may constitute activity that contravenes the requirements of an organisation's Recordkeeping Plan, such as the destruction of records where not in accordance with an approved disposal authority.
Criminal Code Act 1913
Under the Criminal Code Act 1913 (Section 85) any public officer found guilty of falsifying records by making false entries, omitting to make an entry, damage, or destruction, can incur penalties, including imprisonment.
Evidence Act 1906
The Evidence Act includes requirements for records where they are produced as evidence, including implications for the destruction of records and the requirements for creating acceptable reproductions. In 2000 this Act was amended to expand upon the best evidence provisions to facilitate the admission of documentary evidence created using modern information technology.
Financial Management Act 2006
This Act includes requirements for the management of financial and accounting records, including specific requirements outlined in Treasurer's Instructions.
Local Government Act 1995
This Act stipulates that a Chief Executive Officer of a local government authority must ensure the proper keeping of records and documents reflecting the operations of the local government.
Public Sector Management Act 1994
The Public Sector Management Act outlines the functions of Chief Executive Officers of public sector agencies which include responsibility, subject to the State Records Act 2000, for ensuring that the organisation keeps proper records
Thanks A. Business for listing the Acts, now we can now see just how serious this whole criminal mess is.
ReplyDeleteSurely now this will set the alarm bells ringing in the corridors of Parliament!
James (P) I agree, the Commissioner Mr. Best needs to receive a formal request (from those with the evidence) to involve the CCC urgently. Mr. Best has a Duty of Care and the responsibility to hand the request directly to the CCC, not to the Minister and certainly not to the DLG.
At least the Blog is keeping us informed and exposing the truth, which is more than we can say for the elected members and Senior Administration Staff who have dragged York down into this cesspit. What a disgrace they are to our community.
Thank you to those involved in digging up the evidence and exposing the truth and thanks also to the Blog Master for publishing the information.
Is it corrupt? Can you not see just how great is the corruption? Have you lived with it so long that it has become the norm? Do you now accept it as just the way officialdom is? Has Australia gone so far off track that what has been and is still happening is not recognised as illegal and beyond the pale?
ReplyDeleteThe UK follows Australia, usually with affection, but this affection is fading - fast! Australia features in all forms of media here - our information comes not just from the Blog. It will be long years, if ever, that you are forgiven for the greyhound training using piglet and possum.
For goodness Oz ,WAKE UP, all of you, not just blogists and get it sorted.
Apathy, an Australian pandemic.
DeleteThose involved in the cover ups and corruption relied heavily on community apathy so they could manipulate the system and abuse the trust they were given.
DeleteOne way or another there will be an inquiry. The corruption will be unravelled and those responsible will be held accountable.
I can hear those involved laughing, saying it will never happen because they believe they are untouchable.
Alan Bond thought he was untouchable too.
There is no statute of limitation for corruption.
James (P) and Blog Master, there has to be something us residents can do to help you - this has to be dealt with urgently.
ReplyDeleteCopy and paste James's article and send it to the Department of Local Government and ask them to investigate the matter. When you eventually receive a response from the Department send it to the blog, it will be interesting to see what it has to say for itself.
DeleteAh, the merry-go-round; and its "back to you" from the CCC to the current person in the role of acting CEO!!!!! Round, and round, and round, and round ....... and round we go.....
ReplyDeleteThis is how we got to and keep getting to "the real villains got off scot-free" as punningly stated by our beloved leader james p.
And incidentally, an admirable piece of paralegal journalism, james without a capital "j". And there was one stage when I almost thought I was reading a children's story book. James, after York's ordeal is over, maybe you could indeed turn to writing children's fairy stories. I mean that with all respect. Even when writing about our 'not-so-mature' leaders and their more malicious 'fairy tales', you led us into the story with such a lightness of touch. Love your chapter titles.
But Peter, much as I agree with you on so much, I cannot see the CCC's next Commissioner being able to clear up anything much of the messes he/she will find. In all these Departments and Agencies we have been dealing with the webs are so tangled that they cannot be detangled and the new officials whoever they be will get so tangled up they won't be able to find the way out. Look what has happened in our own neat little town and the merry-go-round that is the Shire Officers and the tangles they have given up on even making an attempt to set right — they can now no longer see what is up and what is down, and it is all so tangled and lost that no-one coming in will be able to, either. For such reasons even our Beloved Commissioner who is The Council operates in the dark, or according to what information is given to him or whithheld from him.
GH: I suppose anything is worth trying, though, and your 'thinking outslde the box' suggestion about e-mailing Commissioner Best to try and get round the CEO and DCEO deadends is one possibility, even if a long shot.
A. Business: you could not have said it clearer.
Thanks for your kind remarks. I'm beginning to wonder if such talents as I possess might be better suited to horror stories than fairy stories, unless what you have in mind is the Brothers Grimm.
DeleteYes, James. The Brothers Grimm did flit through my mind.
DeleteWhat!!!!!!!!!!! DLG effectively investigating themselves, we need a investigator who is independent to come in close the doors and get to the bottom of the whole mess.
ReplyDeleteWhile Graeme Simpson and James Best are continually asking the same staff members what the answers are, they will only get the answers and bulldust we have had for 10 years.
what the hell do the CCC actually do look at some papers and tell the DLG there may be a problem, that's money for jam, get out and investigate demand paperwork, find out where that convent money and sale is recorded despite asking and asking, how long does it take to get some receipts together to show us how much the wreck centre cost, its just bulldust.
I cant believe the amount of paperwork people have sourced and still nothing??
Also send to the DG Matthews at the DLGC simply so that she cannot claim she does not know. She is responsible for the (words fail me) under her. It will be the sheer weight of evidence of failures to act, or not act that wil crucify them. For that matter send to Simpson as well. They hate being in a position of being unable to deny something.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the well researched expose. That is the strenght of this blog, puting this on the public record.
Eventually comparisons will be able to be made with other councils where the DLG has given contradicting information. For example, if a councilor voted one way in public and then did something contrary the Standards Panel would be all over them. But not for York due to the protection racket that exists.
Finally, the pure scale of the failure by the responsible people at the State level indicates a very high level of protection, even as high as the Premier level. That photo may be the smoking gun.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, the Standards Panel would not be "all over them". Brad Jolly is the presiding member, the Standards Panel is not independent, far from it in fact. The Standards Panel is another mechanism to thwart the truth coming out.
DeleteThe CCC is the best of a bad lot.
The photo was in a recent Farm Weekly. To be fair to poor old Colin, he was standing in a field with Jim Chown MLC and young Charlie Boyle, Tony's son. I can't remember the context of the photo; I saw it fleetingly at a friend's house. Some weeks ago the blog published a photo of Tony, Sally, Colin, Ray H. and Kate Watts cheek-by-jowl at a Liberal Party social event in York but that probably dated back to 2009. No smoking gun there, I'm afraid, but it does seem that Tony knows 'the right people.'
DeleteJames (P) - You will find the Boyles 'think' they have friends in high places. Sad as it is, the so called 'friends in high places' are generally superficial and quite shallow because you either sell your integrity, grease palms or hand over a considerable donation to gain the privilege of 'being seen to be friends with the right people'.
DeleteQuote from: board of wisdom.com.
As you climb the ladder of success remember those you step on. For one day you will have to climb down that same ladder.
Well said FL. I'm a big believer in goes around comes around. Those who shake Tony's hand should count their fingers afterwards.
DeleteThe earlier photo may be back in 2009 but it had all or most of the main players. No doubt an innocent photo at that time but it does tell a story of the associations that existed.
ReplyDeleteIt is unbelievable that a government department would for years turn a blind eye at best to what was happening at York and then at the flick of a switch turn mongrel, probity audit, show cause notice and suspension. That is unbelievable but true.
There has to be a reason for the failure of the DLG to take action on all the historical problems. They cannot say they were not aware.
There also has to be a reason for the sudden change of heart and the sheer intensity of the punitive action taken on very flimsy and discredited grounds.
Who ever flicked that switch must be a powerful figure. There was nothing in it for the DLG not to have taken action while the Hooper's reigned, that is its role. The DLG must have been "directed" not to take action, and then "directed" to get in there and run amuck. That is a failure by the DLG and Matthews but indicates the power or leverage that must have been applied.
Castrilli was the responsible Minister for much of that time that no action was taken, but at best he was a weak and ineffective Minister.
There is much more to this saga to be exposed. The sheer volume of information being collated by this blog will eventually show beyond doubt the official failures.
That older photo records the personalities involved. A very high level conspiracy theory? I believe that the only explanation is very high level involvement. There must be a motive for what has happened, any other theories?
The scary thing is, they nearly got away with it. On how many occasions did they succeed in hiding corruption?
ReplyDeleteYes it is scary Peter but the good thing is we now know the names of some of the players in the corruption and the evidence is being posted on this Blog. Think how terrified those yet to be exposed must feel, not knowing when their name and grubby deed will be exposed for all to read.
ReplyDeleteIt is only a matter of time before the rest will be named and shamed. On second thoughts, maybe I am being optimistic assuming some of those named feel any shame. Perhaps they have been getting away with it for so long, it has become second nature and a way of life for them
As I go through the documents, I can see there's a great deal left to be revealed. I suspect it will be the truth about the Rec Centre that will have the most impact when it finally comes to light, but I don't expect that the Premier, the Minister, the DLGC, our local politicians, the ALP or the media will give a damn about any of it. I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, though it's unwise in my opinion to discount them altogether. Greed, ambition, stupidity, incompetence, desire for self-aggrandisement, covering up dishonesty and mistakes, keeping one's backside glued to the seat of a government car - those factors, combined with shallowness of intellect and lack of a moral compass, are sufficient to explain why nobody in positions of authority, power and influence seems concerned to challenge the existential threats facing York.
ReplyDeleteBut don't give up - who knows, perhaps our local pollies are taking their first tottering steps on the road to Damascus. Until we know that's what they're doing, I respectfully suggest that Paul Brown MLC keep his lectures on leadership to himself.
James (P) not sure how long it will be before we receive the documents on the Rec. Centre, my FOI application is now at the Internal Review Stage.
ReplyDeleteI recall Mr. Best telling us when he first arrived that FOI's were not necessary and we could have any documents we want, all we have to do is ask for them.
I suspect Mr. Best has now realised things are done very differently here in York.
Roma can I ask why you put in a separate FOI application for wreck centre documents when Trish Walters has already been given access - was your request for different information?
DeleteAlso, has Trish Walters received the copies of documents and information as identified to her in the FOI Commissioners decision?
I refer to my previous and another post about this.....
1) from 'Latest chapter in the Show Cause chronicle' (posted Friday, 27 March 2015)
Anonymous 33 1 April 2015 at 17:04 asked.......
Slightly off topic but still relating to FOI's;
Does anyone have an update from Ms Walters relating to the Commissioners decision regarding her FOI documents connected to the York Recreation & Convention Centre?
Has Ms Walters received the documents ordered to be given?
If so, has there been any information collated?
Just a though, David Taylor has posted on the same subject, the two posts could be connected and monitored together.
and
2) from 'REQUEST FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT ON THE YORK RECREATION & CONVENTION CENTRE’S FINANCIAL SITUATION' (posted Thursday, 26 March 2015)
Tanya 12 April 2015 at 17:13 commented......
I hear ex Cr. Trish Walters has an external review decision stating she can have all documents relating to the wreck centre. Finally we can learn the truth about what it's really cost us. Once we know that we can find a way forward in relation to the white elephant. I believe there are a lot of documents so perhaps we need a working party to go through them. Let us know if you need some help Trish. We're stuck with it so we have to find a viable way for it to work.
May they forgive me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that Messrs Best and Simpson have now aligned themselves firmly with recalcitrant members of the Shire administration. Yes, Mr Best did say some time ago that FOI applications shouldn't be necessary; now he tells people who complain about the cost that they should think themselves lucky they don't have to pay more!
DeleteA little bird told me that Mr Best is looking into the mystery surrounding sale of the old convent. I hope he's getting full cooperation from the administration regarding the production of documents; and if he is, that he will feel able to share with the rest of us the results of his research.
We have a right to information on every aspect of how our money is spent or where it's directed. Such information should be freely available to everyone. That's a principle CEO Hooper, his vassals Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper and his apprentices in the Shire administration seem to have found great difficulty in understanding. Please don't lose sight of it, Mr Best. Don't fall into the trap of defending the indefensible.
Anonymous 33 - Tricia Walters advised me last week she has still not been provided with any documents relating to her FOI for the Rec. Centre.
DeleteTricia worked with me to formulate my FOI application - it is a very much expanded version of what Tricia lodged.
My Internal Review application is because the estimated cost to me for the documents is $1087.00. This figure will be reduced to $815.25 when I show my Age Pension card, The SOY has requested a deposit of $205.00.
To answer Anonymous 14th April 22:19 - yes you are quite correct, Mr. Best could release all the documents to both Tricia and myself. Seems he is choosing not to.
Perhaps it is time members of the Community ask him why he is not handing them over.
When questioned on the cost at the last Council meeting, Mr. Best told me I was fortunate it was not a lot more. For a second or two I wondered whether he was still representing the people of York or if he had transferred over to the Administration Staff.
To Anonymous 33, 14 April 2015 at 22:32: There is a problem about offering ex. Councillor Tricia Walters help on this blog: she can't read it because she isn't on the Net. You would need to contact her direct, or someone who would relay an offer. However, yes. It is curious why two people or more would be seeking FOIs on the same matter when they and others wanting the same information could work together. Or maybe James P is also working on this?
DeleteHello Roma (and Tricia),
DeleteI was told that the Shire offered Tricia Walters access to all documents (as instructed by the FOI Commissioner) over a period of several months but that she has done nothing about it. I also heard that she did not have to pay anything for the documents.
I don't understand why Tricia has not taken advantage of the FREE offer or why you put in a separate application requiring you pay for documents which would be basically the same (with additions you mention) as those Tricia Walters has already been offered.
Sorry if I am missing something, but the duplication seems like such a waste of everyone's time, effort and resources to me.
Mr Best is the Commissioner. He could choose to release the documents required in the interests of open and accountable government and direct the CEO to do so.
ReplyDeleteOf course he could decide not to that, which speaks volumes about his commitment to open and accountable government, but also reinforces that they have much to hide.
So what is so bad and rotten that the residents of the Shire should not know?
Here's a useful rule of thumb: if a public institution of any stripe is unwilling or refuses to disclose information, that's because it has some wrongdoing to hide. The more stubborn the concealment, the more serious the wrongdoing.
DeleteOn a lighter note, today marks 1 year that we saw Ray Hooper Gone, good riddance. Just a pity the shire is still in cover up stuff the ratepayers mode.
ReplyDeleteO happy day! Thanks for the reminder, Darlene. Tonight I'll crack open a credit card in his honour.
DeleteJames, I have an interesting confidential document from CEO Ray Hooper to senior staff dated 21 June 2010. The document emphasises that it is 'imperative' that a clear and accountable process regarding the obtaining of legal advice is followed.
ReplyDeleteThe document also contains a veiled threat, or in some cases depending on the subject, not so veiled, it states: "Obtaining formal Council approval to proceed through the meeting process gives the message to the community that action will be taken for any breach of the laws applicable to the Shire of York.
This sums up Hooper's demented litigious mentality.
Enjoy
I also posted the following comment in an earlier post.
DeleteInside10 April 2015 at 22:44
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.
Maybe someone would like to walk the walk instead of talk the talk?
Mr Simpson is so phenomenally busy that he took 5 weeks to answer a simple enquiry from a friend of mine; and when he did get round to answering, he avoided the issue almost entirely, presumably because he had not had the time to read properly my friend's letter!
DeleteIt might be quicker to start with an FOI application, since it's fairly certain that Mr Simpson will refuse and delay sending his refusal.
I'll have something to say about Supersimp on the blog very shortly.
Thanks very much, Inside. Judging from the falsified minutes fiasco, it appears that RH didn't always take his own advice.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy reading the memo and will have something to say about it shortly.
as a newcomer i am confused. Reid supposedly got suspended for acting unilaterally. what did he actually do?. what is the actual evidence. opinions do not count or do they? the opposing Councillors and the ex CEO acted in unison and if what has been written above is true, carried out an unlawful act. so that means if one acts in unison it is not un lawful whatever one does, but if one acts unilaterally even though the result is lawful, one is found guilty and deserves to be suspended. i am confused. perhaps someone can enlightened me.
ReplyDeleteAh anonymous, if only we knew. The Council was not suspended for ANY breach of the Local Government Act or any law. It seems they were guilty of some figment of the investigators wild imagination. In regards to the earlier Councillors and CEO, the Department did not look, did not see, went around in circles looking for how to avoid looking and did nothing. That is the tragic farce. many complaints and allegations of a serious nature.....nothing. Reid, well just make it look bad and out.
ReplyDeletePart 1,
ReplyDeleteJim, in your article, 'Notes From Underground 6', chapter 2- send in the clown's, you referred to a purchase order numbered 19327, where did this come from, its not supposed to exist, if it does exist, Gail Maziuk, Shire of York Freedom of Information Officer, would have been compelled to release it as part of a Notice of Decision.
Freedom of Information is a legislated process. If a document falls within the scope of an applicant's request for records, the agency has no choice other than to release it, it is not negotiable, nor is it up to how the particular officer dealing feels on the day, statute makes that very clear.
A brief rundown:
A freedom of information application was lodged with the Shire of York on 29 November 2012, requesting copies of 'memoranda of fees and OTHER (my emphasis) documents identifying the transactions relating to electronic payments for invoices 69943 and 69654', published in the financial report presented to Council at the November 2012 ordinary Council meeting.
On 21 December 2012, in her Notice of Decision,Ms Maziuk released copies of two invoices - INV69654 & INV69653 from McLeods Barristers and Solicitors. Invoice 69654 related to Vexatious Ratepayer and invoice 69653 related to Charitable exempion claim (Balladong).
McLeods tax invoice number 69654 (vexatious ratepayer), identified a further Shire of York document, a purchase order numbered 19327 (PO#19327). This document fell within the scope of the Freedom of Information application dated 29 November, however, the document was NOT released.
On 25 February 2013, a second Freedom of Information application was then lodged with the Shire of York, this request was very exact in that it specifically requested a copy of the purchase order 19327 (PO#19327).
The legislated, 45 day permitted timeframe for the Shire of York to deal with the application expired and no Notice of Decision had been forthcoming. Then, after 49 days, correspondence was sent to the Shire of York to inquire how the application was progressing.
On the same day, the 15 April 2013, the Shire of York emailed a Notice of Decision to the applicant. The decision maker was CEO Ray Hooper. Mr Hooper refused to deal with the application and refunded the $30-00 application fee.
On 18 April 2013, the applicant wrote to the Information Commissioner requesting his office conduct an external review of CEO Hooper's decision to refuse to deal with the application, contrary to section 39 part(2) (ii) Freedom of Information Act 1992.
On 29 April 2013, the Information Commissioner confirmed his office would conduct an external review into the Shire of York's decision to, 'refuse to deal with the access application'.
Part 2.
ReplyDeleteNow it gets really interesting!
The Information Commissioners office instructed the Shire of York to conduct further searches of its record filing systems.
The Shire of York FOI Coordinator, Ms Maziuk, advised the Commissioner's office that she had conducted a thorough search of the record filing systems and that her search included the following word prompts:
o McLeods with the date range 1 September 2012 to 25 February 2013;
o McLeods and vexatious within the same date range;
o McLeods and meeting within the same date range; and
o McLeods and councillor within the same date range.
In your 'Notes From Underground 6', you stated the following:
'On the morning of Friday 7 September 2012, he filled out and signed purchase order number 19327 for legal advice on two topics: ‘FOI processes’ and ‘vexatious people,’ with $1000 allocated to each. Then, accompanied by Shire President Tony Boyle, Deputy President Roy Scott, and Deputy CEO Tyhscha Cochrane, he visited Ms Stevenson at her Claremont office'.
I'm sure you would agree that according to your article, the purchase order contained at least four of the search word prompts used by Ms Maziuk during her thorough document search, they were; 7 September 2012, vexatious, McLeods and Councillor.
This raises the following questions:
Why did the Shire of York Freedom of Information Coordinator, Ms Maziuk, fail to release the purchase order 19327 on 21 December 2012?
Why did CEO Ray Hooper refuse to deal with the Freedom of Information application 25 February 2013, contrary to section 39 part(2) (ii) Freedom of Information Act 1992 ?
Why did the Shire of York Freedom of Information Coordinator, Ms Maziuk, during the external review process, lie to the Commissioner's office about conducting a thorough search of the agencies filing system?
And, as you have questioned in your article, why were the minutes of the 19 November 2012 ordinary Council meeting falsified?
SS, I do have a copy of that purchase order. I won't say how I came by it; the Shire would be surprised and aggrieved if it knew. It does seem that, as you suggest, Ms Maziuk has been cavalier with the truth, but in fairness we should acknowledge that the issue may be one of incompetence rather than dishonesty.
DeleteI'll scan a copy for the blogmaster and ask him to post it. Of course you realise that once it's on the blog the Shire will be be able to argue that they don't have to give you the document because it's in the public domain! That would be bullshit, as JB might say, but what's the betting they'll try it on.
Published......and what an interesting document it is.
DeleteThe FOI search was less than thorough. Clearly the invoices identified the LPO number. LPOs are not just any old record but an accountable record forming part of the financial accountability requirements and the audit trail. There was no need for any key word search it was merely a case of going to the relevant LPO book or whatever system they use and find the required document. To not know how to find a copy of an internal LPO document is beyond belief. Noone could be that stupid.
ReplyDeleteThe FOI Commisioner cannot ignore the Shire failure. It must have been deliberate, illegal and possibly corrupt. What does Commissioner Best have to say? Is his management team that inept or bent?
The search would have been thorough, make no mistake, all documents, would have been vetted prior to release, any document which may incriminate them would then be withheld. Laws are only obeyed by honest decent people, I wouldn't put Ray Hooper and his acolytes in that category.
DeleteCapiche
In a conversation with some friends of mine, Acting CEO Simpson described Ms Cochrane, Ms Maziuk et al. as 'exemplary employees.' I'm beginning to understand what he meant. Is it possible that his criteria for that judgment are no different from ex-CEO Hooper's?
DeleteExemplary staff, how hilarious but I suppose it depends on the benchmark. Graeme Simpson's own writing standards and dull communication skills are hopelessly inadequate. Unfortunately the man lacks exuberance - it is quite possible that the mere sight of a wet dishcloth might just cause him a quiver of excitement.
DeleteMost intelligent people would have gone straight to the order book but we are talking about one of the 'exemplary employees' here. Allowances need to be made because this particular exemplary employee was hand picked by what our not very bright councillors Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel claimed was the best CEO in the state. Says it all doesn't it!
DeleteAbsolutely there are cases to answer on this 7 Sep 2012 Purchase order by RH and its references to FOI Processes, Vexatious People, and Councillor. Absolutely it conflicts with what GM 'allegedly' (I haven't seen that particular relevant documentation) led authorities to believe and failed to make known. Good that the Purchase Order has now been exposed.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I saw the copy of the Purchase Order 19327 posted on this blog today, I noticed that some of the material written on it looks as though it is in pencil, while the figures $1000 and $1000 look as though they are in ink. Or is the difference blue biro and black biro? The discrepancy looks curious to me. If most were in fact in pencil and the two financial sums were in biro, it suggests that the Purchase Order could potentially be altered for 'creative accounting' or 'creative reproduction' purposes. Could that by any chance have been capitalised on in false reporting to the Commission? That would, indeed, be very interesting and worth pursuing for verification. Or maybe the 'costs' were written in some time after RH signed?
Further: the General Ledger column records the 'FOI Processing' sum to be accounted for, as I read it, under "Admin' or 'ADMEN' and the 'Vexatious People' sum under 'Legal Expenses' or whatever that second word says. So if there is as record of where the General Ledger column says these are, why would the records be hard to find?
Then, why has the writer written 'Legal advice' in lower case script, and the rest of it bar the signature in capitals?
Another question: Could there have been duplicate Purchase Order books? Or is this a logical step too far in surmising?
Curiously, why is the 'Quantity' merely 1, when there appear to be two items being paid for: 'FOI Procedures' and 'Vexatious People'? Secondly, why is nothing recorded under 'TOTAL'? Are these two oddities deliberate gambits in some nefarious plan?
Ah, but maybe it is I who should be writing 'fairy stories' (even of the Brothers Grimm type) and not JP as I suggested earlier. Oh well, it was just a thought....
Maybe we need the help of a forensic analyst to interpret the document and where it fits in to the real picture, to the truth?
Whatever, that Purchase Order looks shoddily written.
Oops, miswrote: no reference to Councillor on the Purchase Order as shown.
DeleteHow do we the ratepayers know whether FOI officers have made thorough searches of the filing systems for relevant documents, particularly if those documents contain sensitive matter such as a CEO's credit card statements?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is we don't, unless we know of the existence of a document prior to applying for it, even then, there is no guarantee a document will be released.
There is something profoundly undemocratic about ratepayers having to consistently ask for official information, more so when the asking involves a drawn out, expensive and complicated process. Agencies have discretionary power to release information outside of the FOI Act, indeed, they are spuriously encouraged to do so.
Unfortunately, given the culture of secrecy in York, nothing is going to change until the likes of Graeme Simpson are put out to pasture.
James Best needs to wake up to the 21st century and social media, there is little he can do to stop it, he can threaten, intimidate, punish, ignore, disenfranchise till the cows come home, he is colossal failure.
Consecutively numbered order books with carbon copies. And the FOI coordinator claims could not be found. And the invoice records the order number. The FOI commisioner needs to step in now. Or is this another State Agency that fails to carry out its statutory function.
ReplyDeleteAnd commissioner Best, what are you doing about accountability?
Mr Best will do nothing about accountability. It's not part of his brief, which is to quell the unruly citizens of York by shifting their attention from a horrible past to a nebulous future. If accountability is what you're after, you're going to have to wait for the return of Shire President Reid and the appointment of a new CEO.
DeleteYes I agree, but the Commissioner is bound by the local government act. And all I am suggesting is he either does his role properly ....which he isn't ......or it is just another damning indictment on him, the DLGC and the Minister.
DeleteThe same with the FOI Commissioner. Either steps in and takes action or this blog records another failue of statutory bodies. I will have a look at the FOI Act.
Who ever wrote the order out did not even have the courtesy to write McLeods full name and address - how unprofessional. I agree questions need to be answered about the order in which it was written out, when the $ figure was added etc. It could contravene the State Records Act..
ReplyDeleteIf those key prompts listed by Ms. Maziuk failed to find that particular document, there is something seriously wrong with the Shire's filing system. How many other documents have been withheld from other FOI applications because the prompts failed?
Is it any wonder the Probity Audit by the DLG was such a balls up.
Hooper and Cochrane changed the minutes of the OCM 19 November 2012 to remove the terminology 'vexatious' and replace with 'charitable exemption (Balladong)'.
ReplyDeleteWhere on the purchase order does it state charitable exemption?
Where on the McLeods invoice does it state charitable exemption?
It doesn't!
J.E.P. that's called falsifying state records which is a criminal offence.
DeleteIt is no wonder Ray Hooper left in such a hurry.
Commissioner Best and the Shire administration seem not to understand, or to resent, their obligations under the FOI Act. See http://www.york.wa.gov.au/Assets/Documents/Document-Centre/Briefing_Information_Session_Agenda/4.5.1_FOI.pdf (briefing for this week's Council meeting).
ReplyDeleteClearly the purchase order makes no reference to any charitable exemption.
DeleteIs it possible to publish the McLeods invoice?
Just read the Agenda item 4.5.1. late report. Oh dear me, DCEO Ms. Cochrane is weeping and wailing about the cost of FOI's.
DeleteMr. Best before you deal with this agenda item I trust you remember saying people could have access to any document they wanted.
I suggest you defer this Agenda item and ask the DCEO Ms. Cochrane to table the relevant information/evidence she used to compile the estimated annual expenditure.
Also ask the DCEO Ms. Cochrane to provide in writing a valid reason why residents were forced to use the FOI process in the first place.
You can deduct several items from the Estimated Annual Expenditure provided by the DCEO Ms. Cochrane.
Deduct the cost of Salary, Superanuation and workers comensation for Ms. Maziuk.
Reason: Ms. Maziuk is the Shire of York designated FOI Officer being paid to do those duties whether she receives FOI’s or not.
Deduct cost applied to Staff 2 and Staff 3.
Reason: Ms. Maziuk is the FOI Officer and should carry out the research, liase and attend meetings herself.
Deduct the training.
Reason: Training is an obligation the Shire of York must meet.
Maziuk is no longer the designated SOY FOI officer, it was because of her incompetence that the Shire is in the FOI mess now.
DeleteIn her report, Cochrane states:
"It would be reasonable to say that the Shire will deal with approximately 19 new FOI applications over the financial year, which could result in an additional $28,500 in consultant fees that has been budgeted for in the midyear review. This is based on approximately $1,500 per application and once again is dependent on the complexity of each application".
There you go, 19 people who are going to be denied access to records, I bet I could name them. Why doesn't the administration release information without FOI, members of the public aren't interested in third party information, the administration use this as an excuse.
The public are interested in is how their money is being spent, not who the waiter was who served the CEO food in a top metro restaurant!
Those who attended Council Meetings, particularly in the months after RH resigned last April, will remember Mark Duperouzel’s response to a resident who asked about the change of heading on the ‘vexatious resident’ letter from McLeod’s office. MD said he recalled that particular letter and, when he asked the CEO about it, RH told him it was a mistake. MD was happy with that – case dismissed. Interesting that a Councilor would so readily believe such a statement, especially when it concerns a letter coming from a solicitor’s office – never mind wanting to do the best for a resident.
ReplyDeleteJust had a read of this and apologies for sounding dim but how did charitable exemption (Balladong) come into this?
ReplyDeleteSorry if I made my story a bit too complicated. Balladong was a separate issue on which legal advice had been sought from McLeods. It was charged to a different invoice arising from a different purchase order. For reasons best known to themselves, the Shire administration and Council were embarrassed by the minute relating to expenditure for advice regarding 'vexatious residents', so they falsified the minute by changing 'vexatious residents' to 'Balladong Farm.' Deputy CEO Tyhscha Cochrane then tried to persuade McLeods lawyer Elisabeth Stevenson to agree that the meeting with her which had discussed issues relating to 'vexatious residents' was actually about Balladong Farm. Ms Stevenson declined to go along with Tyhscha's disgraceful request.
DeleteLooking at McLeods invoice final amount, then add the CEO's, DCEO's Salary, petrol, parking and probably lunch for everyone including the two councillors who tagged along for the fun of it.
DeleteIt sure as hell turned out to be a very expensive (and wasted) day out at the expense of the Ratepayers.
Lunch was provided for CEO Ray Hooper, DCEO Thyscha Cochrane, Cr Tony Boyle and Cr Roy Scott, paid for on the Corporate Credit Card
DeleteThe actual dining costs on Friday 7 September 2012 were:
7th Avenue Bar and Restaurant, Midland - at 1.17pm - 4 Covers
Carlton Draught Pint x 4 $ 30.40
Lemon Lime & Bitters x 2 $ 6.40
Coke Zero $ 3.20
Chicken Breast x 3 $ 89.70
Ribs $ 22.90
Chips $ 7.50
Total $160.10
Caltex Mundaring - at 1.42pm (identified as CEO & DCEO - 'snacks')
Magnum Ego Caramel $ 3.65
Magnum Infinity Choc $ 3.65
Total $ 7.30
Why didn't they just pop into Macca's?
DeleteI don;t understand how and why a council can just change minutes to suit, where there is no need to?
DeleteBeverley, I think it had something to do with Mrs Templar's complaint of 29 October 2012 (see ch. 5). And maybe the Councillors and their liege lord Ray Hooper wanted to cover up the fact they had wasted so much money and time on a wild goose chase. Bear in mind we're talking about unusual people. If you're an honest person guided by moral principles, you'll never understand.
DeleteDuperouzel was not the only Councillor to believe what Ray Hooper said. Every Councillor from the day he became CEO failed the Ratepayers because they were too lazy to check things out for themselves.
ReplyDeleteCouncillors (prior to Mr. Reid) may live to regret not insisting on council meetings being electronically recorded.
James Best was appointed Commissioner nearly four months ago on 7 January. He came here overflowing with haughty egoistical self interest, he thought by throwing a couple of 'visioning' forums he'd make a name for himself as well as lining his pockets.
ReplyDeleteBefore Best, Matthew Reid had indentified a systemic toxic culture in the shires administration, he was voted in with a huge majority to clean it up. Contrary to what Best believes, the York public know what's good for them and don't need to be reminded by a bumptious salesman.
James Best needs to ask himself why only a handful of people turn up to his visioning forums. On more than one occasion, James Best has stated that Matthew Reid should attend his visioning forums, James Best should ask himself, why the f*****g hell would a successful popular highly competent ELECTED representative associate with a little egotistical loser like him.
Matthew Reid's style of management differs hugely from James Best's, firstly, Matthew Reid doesn't talk shite, secondly, Matthew Reid understands what the community wants, Best doesn't, thirdly, Matthew Reid has integrity, Best wouldn't know what integrity means.
I could go on all day but what's the point? The best Best can do is keep his mouth shut, that way he can't lie or talk any more shite, then keep his head down see out his term to limit any more damage to OUR town.
Wild Bill-I have never seen a more amateur attempt at Economic Development Visioning that that recently conducted by James Best. Another talk fest, another attempt at recreating the wheel and an absolute dust collecting waste of my valuable time.
DeleteThis is what the Information Commissioner, Mr Sven Bluemmel, stated in his last Annual Report:
ReplyDeleteThe culture of an agency in regard to attitudes about concepts of openness, accountability and transparency is considered inextricably linked to how well FOI applications are administered by the agency and whether the intent of the FOI Act is met. For FOI to be administered effectively, efficiently and fairly within agencies, it is important for Ministers, CEOs and FOI Coordinators to have a strong commitment to the principles and promotion of openness, accountability and transparency
I rest my case.
Since when do Ratepayers pick up the tab for Lunch for the CEO and DCEO and councillors? What scumbags!
ReplyDeleteI am stunned to see we even paid for ice creams for the CEO and DCEO, were these two so tight they couldn't even buy their own ice creams?
I trust they declared their lunch/drinks and ice creams on their tax returns as fringe benefits!
The question of fringe benefits has recently been flagged to the ATO.
DeleteRay Hooper, Tyhscha Cochrane, Tony Boyle and Roy Scott all used Ratepayers money for lunch and alcohol, plus ice creams. What a bloody disgrace, every single one of those people have, or earn more money than most in York and yet they are willing to feed their faces using someone else's money. That is just so dishonest!
DeleteA person who will falsify documents on one matter is most likely to have done it before and likely to do it again — in most cases that is. Similarly, a person who will cover for those who have done so — even if it is a case of endless obfuscating and refusal to produce the evidence which would prove the falsification. Generally, past behaviour (all things being equal, and there will be exceptions) is the best predictor of future behaviour. (Occasionally someone has gone to gaol for misaccounting and become reformed, but not too many, I would hazard a guess.)
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of all of us citizens of York, and any who might be victims of these same people if they move on to work elsewhere, or if they stay here and are given higher positions than they already have, it would be totally appropriate to have the falsifier(s) (assuming our 'ideal' little town, by some chance, harbours such) reported, charged, taken to court, and required to atone. They might be wise and in the approx. 40% who reform instead of becoming members of the approximately 60% statistic of Australians in custody who have previously been to prison and become recidivists (repeat offenders). (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/25246662BD3F6E20CA25721F00126E2D). In case anyone thinks these figures are fanciful, similar rates of repeat offending apply in the USA, and slightly less in Britain if a Wikipedia article is correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism).
We have reason to believe that the person instructing our Shire Staff in the past behaved in similar ways in other Shires to how he did in York. He led our Shire Officers, and he was in a position to have a hold over them to do what he directed. They have been exposed to his example and his requirements.
Again, if by any chance any of our current Shire Officers have indeed been falsifying documents, regardless of whether they reform or not, we might be lucky to get a better set of employees than them in future. This will certainly not happen if such people are allowed to stay on through inaction on the part of those with the power to report them to powers with the ability and the will to act to stop them in their tracks once and for all. They will stay to break their code of conduct again (and again....).
Who, if anyone, will act on our behalf? Who will see to it that these people (assuming they are not figments of our imagination) are called to account.
Our Commissioner doesn't believe this culture exists amongst the staff and explained that they have all sworn their allegiance. The Ceo believes he has excellent staff and the DLG we already know will do nothing so we're stuck with them. How much proof do you need Jb?
DeleteSwore allegiance to whom, I wonder? Was it to the people of York?
DeleteCouldn't say and dare not "misquote" him. You'd have to ask JB. I can safely say though it wasn't an allegiance to me.
DeleteReference the lunch on 7 September 2012, this is one of many lunch expenses paid from the municipal purse, they are numerous and frequent with many being very suspect.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, in the Shire of York financials, the cost for the lunch on 7 September 2012, (following the meeting with McLeod's to discuss a 'vexatious ratepayer') was allocated to 'Training and Conference' expenses.
Recently, a friend copied me in on a letter received from Acting CEO Graeme Simpson in response to a similar situation claiming falsification of public records regarding council spending in November 2012. The expenses referred to in the letter partially relate to a lunch (ironically, also at the 7th Avenue Bar & Restaurant in Midland) the costs of which were again allocated to 'Training and Conference' expenses. The spending was identified as relating to an LGMA Conference in Perth, when, in fact, the lunch date was eleven days after the said LGMA conference had finished. The true reason was a lunch for CEO Hooper, Cr Boyle and Cr Scott following a different meeting in Perth to discuss the same ratepayer (previously described as 'vexatious') only this time with David Morris of the DLGC.
It would be interesting to see if A/CEO Simpson would justify using a similar excuse for the McLeod's lunch expenses on 7 September 2012 as he does in the following extract from his response to the November 2012 claim.......
"It is clear that the clerical staff, being the York CRC employee and the Shire employee entering the primary accounting information into reports, some two years apart, have both failed to notice the change in name from the previous primary documents and allocated the cost to the LGMA Conference. It is not an uncommon error when dealing with repetitive data entries. Mr Hooper would not have had any involvement in the process and the error is the fault of the administration processing staff.
The Reasonable Person principal is a well settled Rule of Law that is clear and does not need to be proved. In my opinion there has not been any attempt by Mr Ray Hooper or others to falsify public records or change the allocation costs in the Shire record. The costs have been allocated to the correct account but the function identified incorrectly".
So Mr Simpson why was this expenditure allocated to the function 'training and conferences' when clearly it bears no relation whatsoever?
I have a very good friend who is a solicitor and their legal opinion is that there can be little doubt a record has been falsified. I believe Simpson is covering up for certain people, he obviously calls it, maintaining - 'a safe working environment for all employees of the Shire of York', I call it CORRUPTION!
ReplyDeleteReferring to the McLeod's meeting of 7 September 2012 (for the 'reasonable thinking person') it has been established that the meeting was, in part, to obtain legal advice for Cr Boyle and Cr Scott.
ReplyDelete1) Are there written application documents from Cr Boyle and Cr Scott requesting financial assistance for legal representation?
2) As Council approval is required for this type of funding, is there a public record to show that approval for financial assistance was granted to both Councillors for the legal representation?
3) In the absence of 1) and 2), where is it written in the Shire Delegation Manual that CEO Hooper or any other senior staff have the authority to spend municipal funds on legal advice for a 'Governance' matter?
Oh, please somebody ask these questions at the next ordinary council meeting. But listen, don't mention the blog! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right........
ReplyDeleteDr Plumridge.
ReplyDeleteCould you, on behalf of the ratepayers, send your article together with any relevant documents to the Corruption and Crime Commission and request they investigate and provide you with a considered informed response?
I have grave concern as to the mental ability of the current CEO to access whether or not a record has been falsified. Your article is comprehensive and conclusive, leaving very little doubt to the 'reasonable' minded person that a crime has been committed.
This culture of protecting staff who are plainly guilty of serious wrongdoing only serves to worsen an already critical period of poor governance of York.
Why attempt to save what's left of the reputations of two or three senior members of staff when their reputations are shot anyway?
I have to agree. If half of what you read on this blog is true then action should be taken. We pay these people to look after OUR interests and NOT their OWN.
DeleteRichard, sadly, there's little point in doing that. See the story headlined 'CCC won't chase minor complaints' on p.18 of today's 'West Australian.' The wrongdoing we regard as serious, the CCC would regard as 'a low-level complaint' and refuse to follow up. It has just reviewed its first 10 years of operation and as the paper says, 'found it was being inundated by ever-growing numbers of low-level complaints.'
ReplyDeleteThe inconvenient truth is that white-collar roguery of a 'minor' kind is nowadays tolerated throughout society to a greater degree than in the past. Crime-fighting resources are limited, so what there are have to be directed at the Mr Bigs of the criminal world, not intellectually and morally challenged rustic despots like those who have tyrannised over York for many years - and are still ruling the roost here today.
What, no good news? Yes, the 'West' tells us that 'investigative responsibility for low-level matters' will be 'transferred to the Public Sector Commission later this year.' Let's see how that works out. My colleagues on the blog have documentary evidence of what we believe to be illegal, even criminal behaviour on the part of shire councillors and staff. But the rogues can rest easy. From the Olympian standpoint of Premier Barnett, DLGC Minister Tony Simpson and the latter's departmental advisers, our malefactors are very small fry, and in some instances, friends.
What really puzzles me is the failure of our statewide media to take even a smidgin of interest in the challenges facing York and the distressing, sometimes horrifying, experiences of York people under the Hooper-Boyle-Hooper ascendancy. What are they afraid of?
Well that's not such bad news. A pragmatic viewpoint would be that the Department of Local Government is firmly in the firing line. The Public Sector Commissioner will handball any Local Government matter over to the queen bee at the Department.
DeleteI can well understand the CCC's view on what it may consider to be relatively trivial matters, but add those trivial matters up and you have a huge problem, the sad part is, the damage will have been done. In medicine, the old adage is; prevention is always better than cure.
The very best way to police Local Government is public scrutiny, unfortunately, there are not enough members of the community who are prepared to scrutinise.
Another adage, you feathered your bed, now lie in it.
Low level corruption generally escalates into high level corruption if it is not stopped.
DeleteThe consequences of attempting to cleanse our community of corruption can be dangerous, look what happened to Matthew Reid. A Government Minister was prepared to trash Matthew Reid's reputation in preference to exposing his own dysfunctional Department. I believe it is called collateral damage in Government circles.
The question is, are people prepared to accept the continuing corruption in LG as an acceptable standard for York?
If the CCC won't help, then we do the leg work ourselves and use the Blog to expose those involved.
One thing is for sure, we can never ever allow those distressing experiences James Plumbridge refers to under the Hooper-Boye-Hooper ascendance to be repeated.
People need to know, some residents came close to suiciding because of what was done to them.
Maybe a certain amount of low level corruption is acceptable in the Local Government sector, which leads to the question, when does low level corruption become medium or high level corruption?
DeletePersonally, I believe that when Council decisions have a detrimental effect on members of the public, it becomes a serious matter.
If higher authorities choose to ignore the warning signs, they do so at their own peril, has all the undertones of the tragic Penny Easton affair.
There is absolutely no room for any corruption when people are entrusted with Public money!
DeleteOnce a person crosses the line with corruption, no matter how low the level or inocent it appears at the time. They have both 'sold' themselves because there is always at least two people who will know about every single corruption deal done - the dealer and the receiver.
And the moral of the story is:
ReplyDeleteDon't send your Councillor a "quotation from scripture" it will cost the municipal purse.
Better still, choose wisely at the next election and be sure to vote for a candidate with a brain and not one that simply wishes to feather his own nest.
DeleteToo many egotistical and greedy past Councillors had a personal agenda and made a very good job of spending money from the municipal purse without any prompting from ratepayers..
"For this case, you, readers, are the jury. It’s for you to decide whether or not the falsification was carried out corruptly, and with corrupt intent".
ReplyDeleteHow do you find the accused, guilty or not guilty?
Guilty.....