WORRIED ABOUT ALLAWUNA? DON'T MISS DAVID TAYLOR'S LATEST ARTICLE ON THE 'OTHER' BLOG!

I’ve just finished reading David Taylor’s article, Mr. Carbone Monoxide—the man who would trash York, on the other blog, the ‘Shire of York official unofficial site’. 

You can find the article at http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/mr-carbone-monoxide-man-who-would-trash.html#comment-form .

It is an astute piece of research and writing that draws heavily on David’s experience in the spheres of local politics and journalism.  If you care about the future of York, and the parlous state of local and parliamentary governance in Western Australia, please read what David has to say about both in relation to the topic of waste disposal in the Avon valley.

What you read may distress you, but it may also inspire you to endorse more creative and sophisticated forms of protest than we have hitherto seen against the use of the Wheatbelt as a repository for metropolitan waste, including toxic waste in the form of packets of blue asbestos.

It may even inspire some of you to engage in such protests and encourage others to have a go.

What David has done is unearth and expose a complex pattern of relationships underlying the proposed Allawuna landfill, perhaps originating in an earlier unsuccessful proposal, launched when Dominic Carbone was Canning’s CEO, to dump the City of Canning’s waste at Grass Valley near Northam.   

Remember Dominic?  He’s the bloke who looks a bit like Chairman Mao smiling as he plans the Great Leap Forward. 

As David reminds us, in 2009 the City of Canning declined to renew Dominic’s contract, alleging in effect that he had misled them regarding the investing of a measly $60m of the City’s money.  He’s now a consultant with connections to WALGA and a favourite with at least one senior employee of the Shire of York.   

The Shire came perilously close to engaging his services for a second time earlier this year during the reign of another of WALGA’s anointed, Commissioner James Best.  The less said about the first time, the better.

Our former MLA, Max Trenorden, led the charge against that earlier proposal.  In this, he was ably assisted by his research and media officer, none other than David Taylor himself.

My last History Channel, published on this blog a fortnight ago, raised several questions about the Allawuna proposal, notably why Western Australian politicians and pundits of every stripe have shown so little interest in SITA’s determination to lob millions of tons of Perth’s junk into York's agricultural zone.

I feel confident in saying that David’s article provides comprehensive, indeed definitive answers to those questions. 

A word of warning, though—read David’s article, and you may never want to vote for Mia Davies again.  Or for anybody else, come to that.

A jarring note

I’m a fan of David’s.  When it comes to investigative journalism, he beats me hands down every time. 

So I’m more than a little upset to have to take issue with his closing remarks in the article I’ve just recommended everyone should read. 

Those remarks refer (without saying so) to a postscript to my recent note of congratulation to Council (Newsflash—Council responds to publication of Pat Hooper’s ‘Minority Report’) for issuing a media release, signed by Shire President David Wallace, apologising to the people of York.   

‘Apologising’ is really too strong a word.  The tone of the media release is more one of reassurance than of apology, but let that pass.

This is what the Shire President had to say:

All Councillors of the Shire of York are aware of the release of the Minority Report and of its significance.

Those in the York community who have also read the report may feel that its content requires a response from Council.

Obviously there are matters raised that may be considered controversial and regrettable in the way that certain events were handled at that time.

It would suggest that Council at that stage did not present a united front in acting for and on behalf of our community.

We as your newly elected Council acknowledge this and now wish to assure our ratepayers and our community that the unfortunate episodes reflected in the Minority Report will not occur in the future.

A couple of days after expressing my congratulations, I added a postscript:

On reflection, and having read readers’ comments, I think I may have missed an important defect in Council’s apology.

The issue was not, as the apology suggests, that the Council of the day didn’t ‘present a united front’.  A Council consists of individuals who are entitled to disagree if that is what conscience tells them to do…

What went wrong here had nothing to do with failing to present a united front…

I had inferred from Council’s media release that what it was apologising for was the failure of a past Council to maintain ‘a united front’ on the issues that had prompted Pat Hooper’s ‘report’.  From that, I deduced a principle seeming to motivate the apology, namely, that councillors should in the interests of their community pretend to be at one when in fact they are divided on this issue or that.

Logic, it has been said, is the art of going wrong with confidence.  I was wrong to read into the apology an implication that isn’t really there, if that is in fact what I did.

It was reasonable for David to point out my error, if such it was, though why he should do so as the conclusion of an article covering at considerable length a completely different topic isn’t easy to understand.  His correction reads like something quite extraneous to the theme of his article, tacked on at a friend’s request.

I’m still not sure I was wrong, though I’m always happy to have my mistakes pointed out to me.  But I was sorry to discern a ripple of petulance in David’s final sentence, where he writes:

If I where [sic] the Shire of York Council, I would forget trying to do the right thing by communicating a sincere regret to the public, and let everyone wallow in the luxurious lack of transparency and no appropriate communication of the past.

No, David, you’d do nothing of the kind.   You would behave fairly and honourably, according to your disposition and custom.  I’m sure you’d never want to ‘forget trying to do the right thing’.  So who could have put that silly idea into your head?

Dominic Carbone

POSTSCRIPT:  People are ringing me up to tell me that Mr. Carbone is still on the Shire payroll.  Surely that can’t be true?  If it is true, how much are we paying him, and what for?

POSTPOSTSCRIPT: It's scarcely credible, but it seems our new councillors are going meekly down the same primrose path as some of their predecessors by rejecting the idea of open, honest and accountable government in favour of secrecy and confidentiality (which is just another name for secrecy when all's said and done).

This afternoon I received word that councillors are upset with the blog because people are using it to ask questions about the selection process for the new CEO.

Why shouldn’t details of the selection process be public knowledge?  (Nobody has asked to see details of the applications.)

Nor can I see why the reasons for using WALGA instead of a recruitment agency independent of the WA local government circus shouldn’t make it into the public domain.

As much as anyone, I’ve been keen to give the new council a fair go, to the point where one disgruntled individual accused me of being ‘besotted’ with it.

Let me make one thing abundantly clear—I’m not and will never be a mouthpiece for this or any other council or any member of council.  I leave that sort of thing to YDCM, which gets paid for doing it.

I called this blog The REAL Voice of York not because I have illusions about my ability to represent with full scope and accuracy the concerns of York people but because it was my ambition from the start to provide a forum for their opinions, whether in agreement with or hostile to mine. 

Open debate, together with open government, is the lifeblood of democracy.  It makes concealment, connivance, collusion and corruption just that bit harder to achieve for the political and bureaucratic narcissists who seek to benefit from them.

Nobody can say that I’ve strayed very far from my original intention for the blog.  I’ve given plenty of space—some say too much—to the inane witterings of an intellectually underperforming demographic.  Censorship does not come easily to me.

It’s not by arrangement that the great majority of those who post comments on the blog display an outlook on most issues that is similar to mine.  I would say that simply reflects the intelligence of the blog’s readers and their commitment to democratic values.

Why are councillors getting stroppy about the blog’s refusal to abandon the principle enshrined in its masthead, that there is no place for secrecy in local government—and precious little place for secrecy in government at any level?

You’ll have to ask them.  A couple of them you wouldn’t need to ask—they’re only on council at the behest and to do the bidding of the old guard and its hangers-on.  They wouldn’t know if ‘open government’ is a man or a horse.

It’s more difficult to understand why certain others seem to be going down the same road.  The best explanation I can think of is drawn from my experience of high school.  Remember the cosy feeling of being a member of a gang or part of the in-crowd—of being in the know, with access to secrets from which lesser mortals were excluded? 

Add to that some assiduous bureaucratic duchessing and a pinch of self-interest, and everything starts to make a peculiar kind of sense.

One councillor has even suggested that certain information was ‘leaked’ to the blog by my friend Roma Paton.  No, it wasn’t.  I have many sources, some of them surprising.  Having participated in selection panels from time to time, I also have background knowledge about how such processes tend to work.

Another councillor—yes, I think that’s who it was—posted a comment accusing Ms Paton of being ‘short on facts’.  My response to that, apart from exonerating Ms Paton from the implicit accusation, is that nobody would be ‘short on facts’ if councillors kept us properly informed.  It’s our money they’re spending.

Finally, I’m sad to say that on certain issues the new council has already been weighed in the balance and found wanting.  The issues I have in mind relate to Ashworth Road and to former president Reid’s application for reimbursement of legal fees.  I’ll have more to say about the latter in a few days’ time.

SEASON’S GREETINGS

A Merry Christmas and Happy and Prosperous New Year to All Our Readers

As you celebrate, please spare a thought, and if you are so minded a prayer, for the persecuted Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East and elsewhere—victims of a shameful genocide that the politically correct West can hardly bear to acknowledge, let alone confront.

THE HISTORY CHANNEL

How government ministers, a former CEO and some councillors dumped on the people of York

Many readers will have wondered, as I have, why politicians, journalists and other prominent individuals in our fair state have failed so lamentably to rally behind the people of York in their fight against SITA’s proposed landfill.

Most conspicuous in their absence from the struggle have been our local National Party MPs, Mia ‘Missing in Action’ Davies, MLA, and her friend and colleague Paul Brown, MLC, with whom she shares an electorate office in Northam.

Less obvious, but on the face of it no less puzzling, has been the lack of support from the ALP in the person of David ‘Labor in Vain’ Templeman, MLA, Opposition spokesman on local government in the WA Parliament. 

Mr. Templeman was also silent on the suspension of our elected Council and its calamitous consequence, Minister Simpson’s appointment of James Best as commissioner in the Council’s place.

Not to mention the silence of Perth reporters and journalists—one of them, a popular TV personality, bluntly informing a York ratepayer of my acquaintance that there was nothing he could do to help the town.

I would have thought that for some of those people there might have been a good bit of mileage in the story of York’s heroic resistance to the threats and blandishments of a giant French-based multinational company.  But no. 

What are we to make of this? 

Is it the case that Western Australians, most of whom live in Perth, don’t give the proverbial instant of airborne sexual congress about the existential crisis facing the state’s first inland settlement and most historic country town? 

Or are sinister forces at work making sure that Perth’s need to dump its rubbish away from the coastal plain, and SITA’s desire to maximize its profits, will always trump the safety, health and comfort of a handful of hayseeds and tree-changers pursuing their petty and inconsequential lives in the poorest, most disadvantaged region of WA?

‘Conspiracy theory’

More than a year ago, at a public meeting in York, I suggested there might be a connection between the SITA proposal and the minister’s decision to suspend the York Shire Council, which. responding to pressure from the people of York, had voted against the landfill. 

At the time, my suggestion seems not to have been taken seriously. One prominent citizen rejected it, very politely, as a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Now, I’m no great fan of conspiracy theories.  Like most sensible people, I take the view that human stupidity, incompetence and malice are of themselves sufficient to explain most of the things that go wrong in the world. 

But I don’t discount such theories altogether.  After all, if you want to behave stupidly, incompetently or maliciously, there’s nothing so efficacious as throwing in your lot with others who are minded to do the same.

My gut told me there had to be a link between the landfill and the suspension.  It was common knowledge that the Barnett government was eager to promote landfill sites outside Perth.   Where better than in the Wheatbelt, just a hop, skip and jump from the metropolitan area—and especially in somewhere so conveniently close to the source of the rubbish as York?

Since then, I’ve learned that the SITA proposal had been floating in the ether long before it was broached with the York community.

Joining the dots…

Time to join a few dots.  The result won’t be conclusive, because the facts aren’t all in and the evidence in some places is sketchy at best.  But indicative it certainly will be.

At least two state government ministers have been backing the SITA landfill proposal from the start. Premier Barnett also supports it.  (I can’t prove this, unfortunately, but it’s common knowledge in government circles.)

It’s alleged that CEO Ray Hooper, no doubt with Council’s blessing, approached SITA early in 2012—perhaps even earlier—to suggest that Allawuna farm in York would be a good place to establish a landfill.  Presumably he had the blessing of his friend Rob Chester, the farm’s owner, who was dead keen on selling.

The councillors of the day were Tony Boyle, Roy Scott, Mark Duperouzel, Brian Lawrence, Pat Hooper and Denese Smythe.

I have no idea if any of those councillors opposed making the approach.  What I do know is that not one of them at any time chose to share their knowledge of what was going on with the community at large.

Pages from Ray Hooper’s notebook

I have in my possession copies of pages from CEO Hooper’s notebook, left on his desk when he departed from the Shire.  These refer to meetings with SITA held respectively on 5 July 2012 and 31 August 2012.  I have posted photocopies at the conclusion of this article.

I have presented Mr Hooper's notes in the sequence provided to me, with the first and second pages pertaining to the 5 July 2012 meeting.  It seems possible that the second page might belong to the later meeting.  However, how the pages are arranged does not disturb my contention that for a good many months CEO Hooper and councillors wilfully kept the York community in the dark about SITA's plans for Allawuna.

As you consider the contents of those pages, please remember that the rest of us ratepayers and residents of York knew NOTHING of the landfill proposal until November 2012, when we were invited to attend a presentation given on 19 November by Mr. Nial Stock, SITA’s state general manager.

Meeting of 5 July 2012

The comments, italicised questions and points of clarification enclosed in square brackets are mine.  I have done my best to reconstruct what was discussed and apologise for any inaccuracies.

(a) [The proposed landfill] could handle putrescible waste, green waste and recycling

(b) A ‘stakeholder’ meeting would be convened comprising government agencies and [unspecified] representatives

(c)  Landfill is a noxious industry – a use not listed [? in relation to the current planning scheme]

(d) SITA’s planning application [would extend over] ‘the full life cycle’ of the landfill

(e) SITA’s application would require the amendment of the [current] planning strategy to permit rezoning of the landfill site

(f)  ‘Footprint’: the site would cover 10% of the area [covered by the Allawuna farm]

(g) The site [would be visited by] 12 trucks per day [NB considerably fewer than we were subsequently threatened with!]

(h) The landfill would produce enough methane gas [to provide power to] 3000 houses

(i)   The landfill would operate during daylight hours and provide work for 12 employees [a number that as I recall has fluctuated considerably over time]

(j)   [The next bit isn’t entirely clear to me, but involves ‘Adam’ from (presumably) Swan Regional Office of the then Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).] 

According to Adam, the landfill would require DEC works approval and clearance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  It was expected that the EPA would give approval on a ‘not assessed’ basis.¹

(k) Adam seems to have been interrupted by somebody called ‘Pat’ [now who could that have been?] with the suggestion that a ‘24 hour caretaker’ should be [in attendance at the site]

(l)   [Pat] suggested presenting the proposal to a meeting of Council, advertising the presentation and sending out a series of information sheets to householders.  [If ‘Pat’ was indeed Cr Hooper, it seems that he was already hooked, gaffed and landed in SITA’s net.  He was certainly eager to help]

(m)  The landfill site would not require clearing but clearing might be needed [to facilitate] upgrading of the entrance road

(n) Nial said SITA would be prepared ‘to offer York a significant discount on waste disposal’.  The site’s lifespan would extend over 40 years if its sole activity were to be landfill [and if not ‘just landfill’, what then?]

(o) [Nial added] that it would be possible to ‘relocate’ [? sell] ‘clean’ compost—the landfill could accept biosolids. ²

He said the first truckload [of Perth’s rubbish] would arrive at Allawuna early in 2014, subject to a smooth run for all approvals.

The only names mentioned in CEO Hooper’s notes of this meeting are those of Nial Stock, ‘Adam’ and ‘Pat’.  There is no indication that councillors other than Pat Hooper were present, but it’s reasonable to assume—if Ray Hooper was doing his job—that the others knew in advance about the meeting and what it was for.

Don’t forget—this meeting took place a full four months before the people of York knew anything of the horror waiting in the wings.

Meeting of 31 August 2012

On 31 August 2012, CEO Hooper met with Rob Chester, owner of Allawuna; Nial Stock; and the mysterious ‘Adam’ from DEC. ³

Reading between the lines of his notes, it seems that the Wheatbelt Development Commission was not interested in the proposed landfill, but may have expressed concern over the implications for traffic flow along the Great Southern Highway leading to York.  (If it didn’t, it should have.)

We can see that CEO Hooper and his co-conspirators discussed the feasibility of the proposed landfill as a source of power generation.

The tone of these notes suggests that for their author, CEO Hooper, the landfill is pretty well a done deal. It’s no wonder that Nial Stock, early in the SAT process, complained that he thought SITA ‘had a deal’ with the Shire of York.⁴

The penultimate paragraph of the notes is especially interesting.  It states that the initial application would be for a landfill—then raises the possibility of later applications for other, presumably commercial activities like composting and ‘waste processing’ to be ‘located 3 km into the property’.  Effectively, that would create an industrial area deep within the agricultural zone.

Finally—who was the ‘Mark’ who raised concerns about the bend at Berry Brow Road—that is, the junction of that road with Great Southern Highway? Whoever he was, perhaps Cr Duperouzel, he has proved to be a true prophet.  Only the other day, a large wheat truck rolled over at just that spot after swerving to avoid a car approaching from the opposite direction. 

As everyone who lives in York knows, the Great Southern Highway, our corridor to the Great Eastern Highway when we travel to Perth, is unsuitable for heavy traffic.  If the landfill goes ahead, expect a few more rollovers—and maybe fatalities, too.

Amalgamation meeting July 2013

On 11 July 2013 a meeting was held, at Cunderdin, of the South East Avon Regional Transition Group (SEARTG).  This body had been set up to facilitate the projected amalgamation of the Shires of Beverley, Cunderdin, Quairading, Tammin and York.

Local Government Minister Tony Simpson was present at the meeting, as were CEO Ray Hooper; his apparently indefatigable namesake, Cr Pat Hooper; Cr Tony Boyle, York Shire President; Cr Roy Scott, York Shire Deputy President; and York DCEO Tyhscha Cochrane.

The minutes show that both Hoopers had plenty to say for themselves.  At one point Ray Hooper suggested that the York councillors should resign and the Minister replace them with Shire President Boyle as commissioner! 

On page 30 of the minutes, CEO Hooper is recorded as having raised the topic of waste management.  After complaining that York had to pay $89,000 per annum to Northam by way of tipping fees, he referred obliquely to the SITA proposal by saying that ‘Five year's free tipping fees will be possible through a new proposed landfill, which would be closer and easier to service’ (emphasis added).

I have no doubt that Minister Simpson was fully cognisant of what CEO Hooper was talking about.  It is no less certain that the entire York contingent was equally well informed. 

So what was going on?

For what they’re worth, these are my conclusions.

First, whether or not former CEO Hooper was responsible, as some have suggested, for initiating contact with SITA and pointing it in the direction of Allawuna, he seems to have favoured the landfill proposal from the very beginning.  (So, apparently, did former councillor Pat Hooper.  Former councillor and shire president Tony Boyle is alleged to have told his cronies at the Avon Terrace coffee club that he would have been willing to sell his farm to SITA if they had asked for it.)

Secondly, that CEO Hooper would have instructed councillors to keep shtum about the proposal until he and SITA decided it was time to disclose it to the public, and they were fools enough to act on his instructions instead of warning us of what we had coming.⁵ 

Thirdly, that SITA enjoys and will continue to enjoy the support of politicians from both sides of parliament in its quest for rural sites as receptacles for Perth’s rubbish.

Fourthly, that the Barnett government supports SITA and is committed to allowing it to despoil the Wheatbelt with rubbish heaps and clog up our roads with giant rubbish trucks as part of a panic-driven policy to solve Perth’s future rubbish problems.⁶  

I predict that if the improbable happens, and the SAT rules in favour of the people of York, the premier will step in to have that verdict overturned as he has just promised to do regarding the Supreme Court verdict on Roe 8 (which ruled that EPA approval of the project is invalid).

In that case, the state ALP might decide to run with Roe 8 as an election issue in 2017.  I strongly doubt that it would see any electoral advantage, then or now, in speaking out for the people of York.

And the conspiracy theory? 

Anyone who has studied Minister Simpson’s ‘Show Cause’ Notice—an absurd document—and compared it with the Shire’s cogent, considered and definitive response must wonder how the minister could possibly have decided that the council had to be suspended.  If he based any part of his decision on Pat Hooper’s muddled and deceitful ‘minority report’, he would have been grasping at straws.

The problem for the minister and his bureaucratic goons was that Matthew Reid as shire president enjoyed overwhelming community support.  He was seen as having the conviction and capacity to mobilise York residents against the tip (as well as to reform the shire administration, thus embarrassing the lotus-eaters of Gordon Stephenson House).

By suspending the newly elected council, Tony Simpson and his donkeys thought they might be able to neutralise community opposition to the tip while saving themselves from embarrassment elsewhere.  

James Best was sent here explicitly to hose down the population and coax us all into apathy or obedience. 

York’s long struggle against SITA has demonstrated the courage of York’s people and their determination to defeat leviathan.  Something tells me that whatever may take shape in the next couple of months, the struggle will go on.

NOTES

1.That is exactly what the EPA did. The ABC’s Louise Merrillees reported some 15 months later, in October 2013, that the landfill site would not undergo a formal assessment following the agency’s ruling that ‘the potential environmental impacts are not so significant as to warrant formal environmental impact assessment’–see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/locals-oppose-dumping-of-waste-near-rural-towns/5038540

So far as I know, the EPA never published the results of the informal assessment on which its ruling was based—assuming, of course, that it carried out any kind of assessment, which is open to doubt.

It seems likely that relevant government agencies, doubtless with ministerial knowledge and consent, had everything worked out in SITA’s favour long before the general public had heard of SITA’s plans.

2.  Biosolids: ‘Sludge from a wastewater treatment plant that has undergone further treatment to reduce disease-causing pathogens and volatile organic matter significantly, resulting in a stabilised material suitable for beneficial use. Does not include industrial and food processing sludges.’  See http://www.der.wa.gov.au/images/documents/our-services/approvals-and-licences/western-australian-guidelines-for-biosolids-management-dec-2012.pdf ]

3. Presumably, ‘WDC’ stands for the Wheatbelt Development Commission.  ‘Cardno’ is an environmental consultancy with expertise in power generation; it has an office in West Perth.  ‘Byford’ is a reference to SITA’s Class 2 (putrescible waste) Shale Road facility in Cardup, just down the road from Byford.  I believe the proposed Allawuna landfill is meant at some stage to replace the Cardup facility.

4. Louise Merrillees in the ABC report cited above has Mr. Stock denying that SITA had struck a deal with the Shire of York Council.   Technically, of course, absent a formal agreement, that would have been true.

5. From a newspaper report of the 19 November meeting in York Town Hall: ‘There was laughter from the audience when SITA Australia’s WA state general manager Nial Stock said the company was doing its best to keep the community informed on the project’s progress.’ http://www.avonadvocate.com.au/story/1156407/firm-airs-york-rubbish-dump-plans/

6. From Louise Merrillees’ ABC report, cited above: ‘York Council CEO Ray Hooper says the council is yet to see a planning application but even when it does, it is not a decision it can make.

"Within the council there are certainly those that will be opposed to it but council won't get a vote," he said.

"The decision is based on planning law; they changed the way it was done a few years ago, I think to remove the emotion from it, and base it purely on planning law.

"My view is the State Government has failed to address land and waste management in the metropolitan area, so it has to go somewhere and they are now looking for options.

"They've made a commitment not to use any land on the coast so they are looking to the east and somewhere not too far from Perth to transport the waste.’

 (click images to enlarge)

Nial Stock

 Ray Hooper

BREAKING NEWS…

Former councillor and shire president Patrick ‘Minority Report’ Hooper is the new president of York’s bowling club.

Congratulations, Pat.

‘Underarm’ is a step up from ‘underhand’.

NEWSFLASH—COUNCIL RESPONDS TO PUBLICATION OF PAT HOOPER'S 'MINORITY REPORT'

Media Release - Minority Report

Posted on: Thursday, 10 December 2015 at 10:23:17 AM

SHIRE OF YORK MEDIA RELEASE - COUNCILS RESPONSE TO THE MINORITY REPORT

All Councillors of the Shire of York are aware of the release of the Minority Report and of its significance.

Those in the York community who have also read the report may feel that its content requires a response from Council.

Obviously there are matters raised that may be considered controversial and regrettable in the way that certain events were handled at that time.

It would suggest that Council at that stage did not present a united front in acting for and on behalf of our community.

We as your newly elected Council acknowledge this and now wish to assure our ratepayers and our community that the unfortunate episodes reflected in the Minority Report will not occur in the future.

DAVID WALLACE

Shire President

http://www.york.wa.gov.au/news/101/media-release-minority-report

Well done, Shire President Wallace and our new Council.

This may be the first time in its history that the Shire of York Council has acknowledged wrongdoing in its ranks, apologised for it and promised to do better in future.

In true bureaucratic style, the apology is cautiously worded but no less welcome for that.

It signals that the relationship of Council to community is well and truly on the mend.  The old days of arrogance and contempt for the residents of York, so far as Council is concerned, appear to be over and gone.

I commend and thank my friend and fellow blogger David Taylor for his persistence in obtaining a copy of the 'minority report' and making it available on our sister blog.

Time now for a thorough review of the culture prevailing at certain levels in the Shire administration.
Over to you, councillors and Acting CEO Dacombe.

Restore our confidence and pride in the Shire of York.  You can do it.  Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

POSTSCRIPT:  On reflection, and having read readers’ comments, I think I may have missed an important defect in Council’s apology.

The issue was not, as the apology suggests, that the Council of the day didn’t ‘present a united front’.  A Council consists of individuals who are entitled to disagree if that is what conscience tells them to do.  What matters to the electorate is how they conduct themselves in the course of that disagreement.  And if there is disagreement, honesty dictates that they do not try to conceal the fact from the people they were elected to represent.

What went wrong here had nothing to do with failing to present a united front.  Cr Hooper had every right to disagree with his colleagues and indeed with the rest of us. 

Where he went unforgivably wrong was in deceiving his colleagues and almost everyone else by voting one way, then conspiring with Morris, Borridge and Mazuik to present a contrary view to Minister Simpson by way of his ridiculous ‘minority report’. 

This showed him up as a liar and a coward.  I think we would all have accorded him at least a grudging respect if he had voted as his conscience told him to do and not pretended he was on the same side as the rest of us.

We certainly wouldn’t have torn him limb from limb, which apparently is what he thought we would do.

As the old hymn says: ‘Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone’.   That is the standard of courage we ordinary folk are entitled to expect from our representatives at every level of government.  Please, councillors, keep that in mind.

POST POSTSCRIPT: Somebody using the description ‘A person who would like to see the truth out there’ has written that they have a copy of a letter from former CEO Ray Hooper to former Deputy President Mark Duperouzel.

The letter is dated 27 July 2014—two days after Boyle, Pat Hooper and Duperouzel voted illicitly to suppress the Fitz Gerald Report, and three months after Ray Hooper had resigned from his job as CEO.

The person employed as Acting CEO at that time was Michael Keeble. 

What, if anything, was going on between Ray Hooper and Duperouzel?  The person who would like to see the truth out there doesn’t say, except that Hooper was giving Duperouzel advice as to what he should be doing.

If Duperouzel needed advice on matters related to his office, protocol would require him to seek it from Acting CEO Keeble, not from the Sage of Alexander Heights.

I wish I could tell you more, but my informant doesn’t want ‘for obvious reasons’ to send me a copy of the document.  Sorry, the reasons aren’t obvious to me. 

Please, if you have documents you wish me to make public, scan them and email to wildwood@westnet.com.au, or if you live close by, drop photocopies into my letterbox.  Have no fear, your personal details will remain absolutely private.

Otherwise, the truth will remain well and truly ‘out there’—that is, well and truly out of reach.