ACTING CEO SIMPSON SAYS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED, NEVER MIND FITZ GERALD, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, PEOPLE

If you're looking for a few minutes' entertainment this weekend, read item 9.5 of the agenda for the next so-called 'Council' meeting on 22 June.  You can find it on pages 67-69.

Believe me, it's a hoot.  Don't be selfish, share it with your friends.

It's the work of Mr Graeme Simpson, Acting CEO, though as I read it I think I detect the influence of his deputy as well as of the inimitable Commissioner Best.    

Mr Simpson's thesis, if so it may be called, is that York's woes result from 'perceptions of misconduct'.  How silly of us to think it was actual misconduct that caused them!

In fact, according to him, no such misconduct ever took place.  

How does he know that, bearing in mind that he didn't live or work here while the bulk of it was going on?  

 Well, he says, people need to know that five agencies have thoroughly investigated the Shire's activities and found nothing wrong.

Apparently, those five agencies are: the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC); the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC); the Shire's Finance, Risk and Audit Sub-Committee; the Shire's auditors Macri Partners; and Mr Simpson himself.

Where are the reports? 

 

I think most of us would expect an investigating agency to be fearlessly independent in its approach to the task.  We all have doubts about agencies that investigate themselves, or about investigators who are not at arm's length from the person or body under investigation.

Now let's look at those five agencies in turn.

Mr Simpson appears to suggest that the CCC has fully investigated the Shire and found nothing amiss. Surely he must know that isn't true.  The agency found only that the Shire had processed certain allegations correctly.  It did not rule on the allegations themselves.  As to those, it neither condemned nor exonerated anyone.

If Mr Simpson has evidence to the contrary, let him share it with the rest of us.

As well as being independent, an investigating agency must be free of any conflict of interest - real or perceived.  I'm not confident that description fits the senior bureaucrats of the DLGC.  Those are people whose careers might suffer from a finding that bad things were happening in York during what I have termed the Hooper-Boyle-Hooper ascendancy, and that they paid scant heed to hundreds of complaints from residents.

Anyway, if the DLGC did investigate, which frankly I doubt, why haven't its conclusions been made public?  Why the secrecy, if everything in the Shire is hunky-dory?

The Shire's Audit and Risk Sub-Committee is hardly an independent body.  Nor is Macri's, because they have a continuing professional relationship with the Shire.

Moreover, some of the allegations raised in the Fitz Gerald Report - for example, questions surrounding the sale of an historic building to a former employee for rather less than its then market value - would have called for a forensic audit.   So, I fancy, would issues arising from the construction of the York Recreation Centre and alleged misuse of a corporate credit card. 

If Macri's did in fact carry out a forensic audit into any of those matters, where are its findings?  We're not all stupid, Mr Simpson; some of us can read financial documents.  If Macri's did investigate, as you claim, publish its report!

The last of our investigating 'agencies' seems to be none other than Mr Simpson himself.  Independent?  No conflict of interest? I think he nailed his colours to the mast months ago.

How were the investigations carried out?

Most educated people are required from time to time to study and evaluate reports of one kind or another.  What are the first things we look for, aside from the name and professional status of the investigator, as we settle down to such a task? 

We want to know precisely what matters are under investigation, why they are of interest to the investigator, and what methods of investigation have been employed.  Without that knowledge, we are unable to exercise our judgement to much advantage. 

Yet Mr Simpson fails to give us any properly identifying information about the purpose, nature and scope of any of the investigations he claims have been carried out or the professional status and experience of the investigators.

Does he expect us to take such matters on trust?  Does he think we all came down in the last shower?

The Fitz Gerald Report

Mr Simpson has decided to bury the Fitz Gerald Report once and for all.  That won't go down well with many of the people who spoke to Mr Fitz Gerald about their sufferings at the hands of shire councillors and officials, past and present.

I agree with Mr Simpson (and his friendly legal practitioner) that the report is seriously flawed.  It seems to have been completed in great haste.  Just as a trained editor and proofreader, I wish it had fallen into my hands before it went to press.  It is muddled in places and inexpertly written.

On the other hand, it gave York residents the first real opportunity they had had to air their grievances to somebody prepared to listen and take them seriously.  In my book, that considerably outweighs its many flaws.

I remind Mr Simpson that in his efforts to discredit the Fitz Gerald Report he is also trying to discredit the individuals who contributed their stories to it.  That is detestable.

Sooner or later, preferably sooner, Mr Simpson will depart from York.  Few, I wager, will be sad to see him go. 

And when he does go, if he is replaced by an intelligent CEO with brains and professional qualifications acquired outside the Jurassic swamp of local government, perhaps the Fitz Gerald Report, with all its flaws, will be released from quarantine and subjected to sober, independent analysis.   For good or ill, it is part of York's history.  After all, on Mr Simpson's own admission, it cost us ratepayers a hell of a lot of money.

'Damage to the reputation of the York community'

One of Mr Simpson's most ridiculous statements is that 'negative publicity generated by...perceptions of misconduct have damaged the reputation of the York community'. 

No, it hasn't.  What it may have done is further injure the reputations of certain individuals who did a damned good job of injuring their own reputations by ripping off their fellow citizens and treating them with contempt.

I don't know how Mr Simpson and Mr Best feel able to arrogate to themselves the right to speak for or indeed about the York community.  They don't live here.  They are temporary placeholders,  carpetbaggers, doing very well for themselves at our expense and spending copious amounts of our money on shiny public relations wallahs and overpaid lawyers and consultants.

Gentlemen, time to go.  We can no longer afford you.

Tomorrow:  Acting CEO Simpson threatens free speech and the blog!