NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND 7 James Plumridge

Incorporating Negativity Times, The Line-in-the-Sand Review, and The Persona Non Grata Gazette

Hooper days are here again…

Even in my wildest ‘visionings’, it never occurred to me that the new regime imposed by Minister Simpson might resort to the techniques of community control so familiar to us from the days of the Hooper-Boyle-Hooper ascendancy.

In those days, the rules went something like this.  If you were nice to the Shire Council and administration, did what Shire officials told you to do without complaint and didn’t ask embarrassing questions about how the Shire spent your rates money, you were unlikely to attract unfavourable attention from the Kremlin in Joaquina Street.

If you were friendly with Shire Councillors or senior officials, you might get special privileges, like a job you weren’t qualified to do, a contract not advertised or put out to tender or permission to install a swimming pool that didn’t fully accord with planning regulations.  You might even get to buy an historic piece of real estate for considerably less than its current market value.

On the other hand, if you were one of those nosy ratbags who tormented the Shire with troublesome requests for information, either during Public Question Time or by exercising your rights under the Freedom of Information Act 1992, you might have found yourself on the receiving end of various not-so-petty humiliations. These included being shouted at and publicly defamed by Shire Presidents, sinister visits from Shire employees and the arbitrary enforcement without prior negotiation of local government laws.

Don’t believe me?  Read the Fitz Gerald Report, posted in a truncated form in July 2014 and still accessible on this blog.  If anything, what I’ve just written is an understatement.

But enough of these ‘historical issues’ as the Department of Local Government and Communities and James Best like to call them.  Here’s a rather disturbing story from the present day, though to tell it as it should be told we need to go back a little in time, at least to last September.

Rates, refunds and reimbursements

The story concerns a resident whom I shall call Ms B.  I begin by saying that I have only a slight acquaintance with Ms B.  I have met her a few times, and have had a couple of brief conversations with her.  She has not approached me regarding what I am about to write. I have not told her of my intention to write it. 

In the minutes for September 2014  (pp.44-47), Council moved to defer to the October meeting consideration of a matter presented under the misleading heading ‘9.4.2 Rates Write Off.’  In fact, the officer recommendation was to write off interest charges and legal costs relating to unpaid rates, not the rates themselves. 

On 10 October 2014, Ms B wrote to former Acting CEO Michael Keeble asking for a refund of legal costs of $2638.51 and interest charges of $375.93. Ms B described those amounts as being related to a legal action discontinued by the Shire before it was to be heard in court.

In addition, Ms B asked for a refund of $800 in legal costs relating to ‘a caveat that was never actioned.’

At its meeting in October 2014, Council resolved (Resolution 111014) that the amounts specified in Ms B’s letter be reimbursed to her using money ‘from Tourism and Town promotions.’  The resolution passed 4/2, with Crs Hooper and Duperouzel asking for their opposition to be recorded.

Shortly afterwards, the Shire paid Ms B $800.  She has never received the legal costs refund of $2638.51 that the Council voted to pay her.

The first time I spoke to Ms B was at a friend’s house two or three months ago.  She joined briefly in a conversation about events in York.  Somebody—not me—made a mildly derogatory remark about Commissioner Best.  Immediately, Ms B sprang to the Commissioner’s defence.  She said he had listened sympathetically to her story and promised to do something about the money she believed was due to her.  She was adamant in her opinion that we should give him a fair go.  The notorious ‘passionate extremists’ present, to whom her comments were addressed, fell silent, suitably abashed.

Since then, some have remarked on a change in Ms B’s attitude. In a word, it appears to have soured.  As I recall, the change became apparent in posts on this blog to which Ms B had courageously subscribed her name.

Cynic that I am, I was therefore less than surprised to read in this month’s briefing information agenda a report from Acting CEO Graeme Simpson seeking the Commissioner’s approval ‘to revoke Council Resolution 111014.’ 

Now, I don’t know enough to have an opinion as to whether or not Ms B is entitled to the reimbursement she requested.  But I’m puzzled by the following words offered by Mr. Simpson in defence of his desire to have that resolution revoked.  He says:

‘The refund of rates monies [sic] has not yet been paid, as investigations are ongoing into the matter.  Funds for rates and charges were not paid by the landowner [i.e. Ms B] at the time, therefore justification to refund monies to a person that did not pay them is not warranted.   All outstanding funds that had accumulated from 2007 to 2012 were paid by the mortgagee in possession at the time of settlement, not by the landowner.’

Hold it right there, Mr. Simpson.  Unless I am gravely mistaken, Ms B has never asked for the return of moneys that somebody else had paid.  The subject of her claim was not a rates refund but a reimbursement of legal costs and interest charges.  That was also the subject of Resolution 111014.  (And how long should it take to ‘investigate’ a simple matter like this?)

I can see that Acting CEO Simpson and Commissioner Best might not be too pleased to see Ms B posting hostile comments on the blog.  I know from personal experience that in the world according to Commissioner Best contributing to the blog makes one persona non grata*. But that’s no excuse for seeking to have Resolution 111014 revoked on spurious grounds, presumably to teach Ms B a lesson.  The only other explanation would be rank incompetence on Mr. Simpson’s part. 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Ms B‘s situation, Resolution 111014 was passed by a Council duly elected by the people of York, consisting of councillors who live here and have a longstanding commitment to the York community. 

It should not be open to revocation by somebody who wasn’t elected, doesn’t live here, doesn’t like us, thinks we’re violent, calls us names, condemns our opinions, rubbishes our blog, is here as Minister Tony Simpson’s gauleiter and probably can’t wait to shake York’s dust from his heels forever.

For heaven’s sake, Commissioner, take your own advice: get ‘future-focussed’, give the lady the money she was promised and move on.

And while we’re on the subject of bureaucratic retaliation…

Readers may recall that in late February and early March of this year a Shire ranger was directed on at least three occasions to take photographs of material exhibited in the windows of the Saints’ home in Avon Terrace.

The material consisted mainly of copies of news reports and official documents but included extracts from this blog relating to alleged misconduct on the part of former CEO Ray Hooper.

To the best of my recollection, there was nothing in the windows that referred to current employees of the Shire.  (There is now—a photograph of the Ranger taking photographs.)

Simon Saint telephoned Commissioner Best to ask him why the Ranger was taking those photos.  The Commissioner said it was because the Shire’s insurers’ lawyers had requested them.  I believe Mr. Best introduced the word ‘defamation’ into their conversation.

On 3 March 2015, following the last of the Ranger’s visits, Simon Saint emailed Acting CEO Simpson asking for confirmation that the Shire’s insurers’ lawyers had instructed him to obtain the photos in question.  He added: ‘Could you also confirm to me who exactly is being defamed?’

After 5 weeks, and a couple of reminders, Mr. Saint received the following response dated 8 April 2015:

‘Dear Mr. Saint,

I have a very clear responsibility to ensure I maintain a safe working environment for all employees of the Shire of York.  Monitoring publication of issues raised in the public domain is only one facet of the task.

Regards

Graeme’

Leaving aside the obvious fact that it reveals Mr. Simpson to be a truly outstanding monument to pomposity, this silly sentence is virtually meaningless as a response to Mr. Saint’s inquiry. How was the material in the Saints’ window relevant to current employees of the Shire of York?  And why so many visits, when one would have sufficed? Did Mr. Simpson think he had a duty to protect former CEO Hooper, who had left the service of the Council almost a year before?

As I recall pointing out at the time, if Mr. Hooper was contemplating an action in defamation, it would have had to be taken against Mr. Saint, not the Shire.  In that case, Mr. Hooper should have got his lawyers to arrange a photographer for him—or arranged for one himself.  The job shouldn’t have been done at ratepayers’ expense.

No, this was about intimidation, not information, like the threats of legal action that have been made against contributors to this blog.  It’s back to the bad old days, I’m sorry to say.

*PERSONAL NOTE:  Without going into details, I have recently discovered that I myself am persona non grata with Commissioner Best.  I can’t imagine why.  It must have something to do with the cartoons accompanying my articles rather than the articles themselves, which would only offend humourless, self-important people with scant concern for historical issues.  I do not produce the cartoons and am not consulted about them.  Mr. Best, I have no artistic talent and am not to blame.  I’m not the only one around with a sense of humour and the ability to puncture inflated egos.