IN THE COURT OF COMMUNITY OPINION

THE YORK COMMUNITY v. THE SHIRE OF YORK COMMISSIONER

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT LAW

Any public officer who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse -

…(c) acts corruptly in the performance or discharge of the functions of his office or employment, so as to gain a benefit, whether pecuniary or otherwise, for any person, or so as to cause a detriment, whether pecuniary or otherwise, is guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

Criminal Code of Western Australia: Section 83

The word ‘corruptly’ is not defined in the Code.  It is to be given its ordinary meaning which, in my opinion, when one is concerned with the quality of the act or omission which is said to be corrupt, will involve the notion that there has been a dereliction of duty, an element of fault, some perversion of the proper performance of the duties of office…If the misconduct of that kind is performed by the accused for the purpose of gaining a benefit or causing a detriment, and the misconduct is without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse, then the offence of corruption, defined by section 83 of the code, will have been established.

Murray J. The State of Western Australia v Burke [No.3] [2010] WASC 110, p. 22

[Section 83] is to be read and understood to make criminal an act undertaken by a public officer, which could include an act which is ordinarily properly performed by that officer in the conduct of his duties, but which is a corrupt act because it is performed for the purpose of gaining a benefit or causing a detriment…

Rowland J. The State of Western Australia v Burke [No.3] [2010] WASC 110, p.22-23

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

1.     The accused was at all material times the holder of a public office, namely, Commissioner of the Shire of York, to which office he was appointed on or about 8 January 2015, for a period of 6 months, by the Minister for Local Government, Hon. Tony Simpson.

2.     The purpose of his appointment was to perform, in accordance with Section 2.38 of the Local Government Act 1995 as amended, the duties of the Shire of York Council, the Minister having suspended the council for the said period of 6 months on the grounds that it was dysfunctional.

3.     It is alleged that throughout his period of office, the accused failed to establish such a relationship of trust and mutual respect with the York community as the satisfactory performance of his duties might be deemed to require; and further, that he has developed and at times expressed a hostile attitude towards the York community, which has collectively refused to embrace and take part in his ‘visioning’ and ‘ideation’ workshops.

4.     It is alleged that among the few friends the accused made in York during his sojourn in the shire were a business couple, Richard and Nola Bliss of Faversham House.  

5.     Mr. and Mrs Bliss were at all material times the owners of a property in York known as the Old Convent School, otherwise known as ‘Chalkies’, situated at Lots 800-801 South Street, York.

6.     It is alleged that the accused facilitated the re-opening of the York Palace Hotel, also owned by Mr. and Mrs Bliss, by waiving or causing to be waived certain planning requirements, in particular the requirement to provide disabled access from Avon Terrace.

7.     It is alleged that the accused decided to assist Mr. and Mrs Bliss in their business affairs by purchasing the Old Convent School for the Shire for the sum of $625,000, which sum would be raised by means of a loan from the State Government Treasury.

8.     The proposed purchase and purchase price were listed as a ‘new item’ in the Annual Budget for 2015-16 under the misleading description ‘Town Square – Purchase and development’.  However, it is clear that the money is to be used for purchase of the property only, and that none of the money loaned will be available for development.

9.     It is alleged that the purchase price as agreed between the accused and Mr. and Mrs Bliss exceeds by a considerable amount the current market value of the property.

10. It is alleged that the purchase of this property by the Shire will bring no benefit to the ratepayers and residents of the Shire of York but is intended mainly to confer a financial benefit on Mr. and Mrs Bliss, contrary to section 83 of the WA Criminal Code.

11. It is alleged that the accused deliberately set out to thwart the elected Council, due to return to office at the beginning of July, in the knowledge that said Council would not assent to the purchase of the property or to any proposed development of a town square as ‘envisioned’ by him.

12. It is further alleged that the accused is aware that the said purchase will cause a detriment to the ratepayers of York by imposing on them the obligation to repay the sum borrowed at a statutory rate of interest, at a time when the York community can ill afford to waste money on fruitless and grandiose schemes.  The community will lose rates previously levied on the property and will have to pay for its upkeep and further development, if any such development occurs. 

CHARGE TO THE JURY

As jurors in the Court of Community Opinion, you are charged that without fear, favour or prejudice, and by the application of commonsense, you are to decide as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Remember that Mr. and Mrs Bliss are not on trial.  They are not public officers and cannot therefore be guilty of an offence against section 83 of the Criminal Code.

We await the outcome of your deliberations.

Meanwhile, usher, take him down.

 (Click photo to enlarge)

Sneaky or what? The property to be purchased isn't mentioned.  The description 'Town Square - Purchase and Development' is misleading - $625K will only cover 'purchase', there's nothing left over for 'development'.                                                        

NEWSFLASH - URGENT

The petition below requires at least 100 signatures to be effective.
 
It must be served on the Commissioner no later than Monday 29 June 2015.

Copies of the petition are available at Settler's Gift Shop and at the newsagent's, both  in Avon Terrace.

Settlers' Gift Shop will be open from 10 am until 5 pm over the weekend.

If you are an elector concerned about recent 'Council' decisions regarding the Annual Budget for financial year 2015/2016, please make every effort to sign the petition. 

Form 1

[reg. 16]

Local Government Act 1995

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996

REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS

TO: The President (Commissioner) of Shire of York Western Australia

1... Under section 5.28 of the Local Government Act 1995, the electors of ⁽³⁾ York Western Australia whose names, addresses and signatures are set out in the attached list and who comprise ⁽¹⁾ 100 electors/5% of the number of electors request that a special meeting of the electors of the district be held.

2. .. The details of the matter to be discussed at the special meeting are —

·       The Shire of York Annual Budget 2015/16.

·       Purchase of Lots 800 and 801 South Street York WA.

·       Borrowing $625,000 to fund the purchase of Lots 800 and 801 South Street York.

........ ......................................................................................................................

........ ......................................................................................................................

........ ......................................................................................................................

........ ......................................................................................................................

........ ......................................................................................................................

........ ......................................................................................................................

........ ......................................................................................................................

........ ......................................................................................................................

3... This request is served on behalf of the listed signatories by —

Name:.... .................................................................................................

Signature:  ...........................................................................................

Contact details:  ...................................................................................

Date:  Monday 29 June 2015

NEWSFLASH

260 signatures were collected.  The petition was handed to the Acting CEO this morning.  I'm told he seemed surprised to get it - silly man, he's obviously not keeping up with the blogs!

Kommissar Best was out of town.

MORE ON THE FITZ GERALD REPORT - AND ACTING CEO SIMPSON MAKES A FOOL OF HIMSELF BY TAKING A SWIPE AT THE BLOG

                         Man, proud man, 
Dressed in a little brief authority,

Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,

His glassy essence, like an angry ape,

Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven

As make the angels weep.

SHAKESPEARE:  Measure for Measure, Act 2 Sc. 2

More on the Fitz Gerald Report

In my previous post, I discussed Acting CEO Simpson’s unsupported claim that five separate agencies had thoroughly investigated allegations made in the Fitz Gerald Report against councillors and officials, and found them to be without foundation.

I indicated that in the absence of precise information about the nature, scope, purpose and authorship of those investigations, there is no reason why anybody should give credence to anything Mr. Simpson says about them. 

I challenge Mr. Simpson to make the reports of those agencies, if such reports exist, available to the public without delay. 

One thing that has struck several people as odd is that individuals mentioned in the Fitz Gerald Report as having complained to Mr. Fitz Gerald about misconduct on the part of Shire councillors and officials have denied ever having been approached by the CCC or any other agency seeking to investigate their complaints.

Yet Mr. Simpson states that the Shire ‘has consulted…with some of the people named in the Fitz Gerald Report’.  Presumably those consulted were people against whom allegations were made—not the ones who had made the allegations. 

Why Mr. Simpson thinks we should have the slightest regard in this context for the opinions of ‘LGIS Legal’—the Shire’s insurers’ lawyers—‘two legal firms [and] the Office of the Minister for Local Government’ is totally baffling. 

Did they investigate the allegations?  If so, did they approach the people who claimed in the Fitz Gerald Report to have suffered at the hands of Shire councillors and employees?  Apparently not.

Maybe I haven’t been keeping up with the times, but it’s my understanding that when investigating bodies, for example the police, determine to find out the truth about an instance of alleged wrongdoing, they consider it best practice and good form to talk to the alleged victim as well as the alleged perpetrator.

In this case, it seems very likely that the Shire ‘consulted’ only the alleged perpetrators.  Not best practice, and certainly not good form.  If I’m wrong, Mr. Simpson, prove it, and I will happily publish a retraction.

Who would credit it?

Whatever kind of ‘investigation’ Mr. Simpson claims to have taken place would presumably have cleared a former CEO of all wrongdoing.

However, Mr. Simpson does concede that ‘to provide clarity’ the Shire has changed its policy regarding use of the corporate credit and fuel cards.

To provide clarity?  Weasel words, Mr. Simpson.  As it happens, many of us already have a pretty clear idea of how the credit card was being used while that former CEO had charge of it.  Some among us have obtained full details of corporate credit card expenditure for the period from 2008 to 2013, when CEO Hooper and his followers on Council withheld them from public scrutiny. 

Just publish those details, unedited, on the Shire’s website.  That’s the kind of clarity York residents need.

Mr. Simpson also proposes making ‘minor changes’ to the ‘Attendance at Conferences Policy’.  What changes?  Will they include a provision to ensure that the Shire isn’t called upon to meet the accommodation and other expenses of the spouses of Shire staff? 

We have documentary evidence of that kind of thing occurring.  Would it have been permitted by the policy as it stands now or previously stood?

Whose report is it anyway?

As everyone knows, the Fitz Gerald Report was commissioned and paid for by the Shire Council under the leadership of Shire President Matthew Reid. 

The Council earmarked $20,000 for the report.  According to Mr. Simpson, the report and ‘associated legal fees’ together ‘cost $77,700 to investigate and produce’.

It appears that, according to Mr. Simpson, the Shire has put $57,700 into the pockets of its friends in the legal profession for advice on the report.   Why?  What legal issues arising from the report could possibly justify such an expense? 

Alternatively, has someone sued the Shire, or threatened to sue, and received one of those confidential payouts that lawyers love to broker?  If so, why haven’t we been told?  (This alternative seems unlikely, unless Mr. Simpson’s understanding of the meaning of ‘fee’ deviates from the common interpretation.)

Mr. Simpson tells us that neither a hard copy nor an electronic version of the report was lodged with the Shire.  He neglects to remind us that councillors Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel met in private with then Acting CEO Keeble in order to suppress the report. 

Not one of those councillors declared an interest, even though each was adversely mentioned in the report and therefore stood to benefit from suppressing it.

It remains open for a future council to reverse the decision to suppress the report, and to release it from ‘quarantine’ as Mr. Simpson poetically refers to its present location.

Meanwhile, I take issue with Mr. Simpson’s idea that he has the right to ‘quarantine’ the report.  That right belongs to Council, not to him, and ‘Council’, in other words the Commissioner, hasn’t voted on it yet.  

Of course he will get his way, because his relationship with the Commissioner seems closely to resemble former CEO Hooper’s with certain councillors—i.e. one of administrative dominance and submission, or fifty shades of Ray.

From a moral viewpoint, Mr. Simpson and his acolyte Mr. Best ought to leave the Fitz Gerald Report well alone.  It doesn’t belong to them.  It belongs to the people of York, who paid for it, and their elected councillors.

From a practical viewpoint, they might as well leave it alone, because an electronic version is freely available on the Internet.  You can find it at http://shireofyork6302fitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/ .   

Taking a swipe at the blog

Both Mr. Best and Mr. Simpson have told many people that they don’t like either this blog or the one, now restored, that preceded it.  The blogs seem to represent, in the biblical phrase, a thorn in their sides.  Poetic justice, some might say.

All the more surprising, then, that Mr. Simpson should be so hell-bent on promoting this blog.  He has done that to great effect in the agenda for the June Council meeting. 

However, what Mr. Simpson says about the blog is rather less than accurate and not at all flattering.  To begin with, he gets the name wrong.  This blog is not called ‘Voice of York’, which is the title of the fortnightly anodyne spray from the Commissioner in York and Districts Community Matters.  Instead, it goes under the name The REAL Voice of York. 

Secondly, it did sport the sub-heading ‘The new official unofficial site’ (Mr. Simpson has omitted the word ‘new’) but I have removed that description out of consideration for his blood pressure. 

Mr. Simpson is at pains to let the world know that the Shire of York ‘has no connection to this blog or its previous incarnation’, and further, that ‘the Shire does not endorse its contents and it in no way represents the views or opinions of the Shire of York’.

Good God, who would have thought it? 

Given the respective sizes of our Internet footprints, it would be more accurate to say that this blog has no connection with the Shire of York, so I’ve used a statement to that effect as the blog’s new sub-heading.

Not content with disparaging the blog, Mr. Simpson goes on to remind us that the Shire ‘is obliged to create and maintain a safe workplace for its employees…and will take all steps necessary to protect staff and the reputation of the organisation and not allow that to be infringed’.

 Like what, Mr Simpson?  How can you expect me to cower in a corner if you don't tell me what steps you intend to take?

Try as I might, I fail to see how the blog is a threat to the Shire’s employees.  I am not a terrorist.  I don’t go in for guns, bombs, knives or poison.  I don’t encourage suicide bombings.  I abhor violence.  My métier is black marks on a page.

I suspect that Mr. Simpson has an authoritarian cast of mind. CEO Hooper used to tell his staff that he and they, and not elected councillors or residents, were the real power in the shire. 

That proposition is based on a warped interpretation of the Local Government Act, but I believe the Minister for Local Government and the DLGC also subscribe to it.  I suspect that Acting CEO Simpson subscribes to it too.

It’s a proposition that would meet with approval in the People’s Republic of North Korea, where bullying the population is even more rife among public servants than it was for many years here in York. 

A corollary view is that local government employees are a protected species who must have immunity from any form of criticism.  To make matters worse, they are permitted, even encouraged, to scuttle away on stress leave whenever someone blows them a satirical raspberry. 

You know, that might explain the otherwise inexplicable silliness of Mr. Simpson’s threatening words.  

I have in my head a picture of a tearful shire employee, fearful of distressing truths that may be told on the blog and uncomfortable questions that may be raised, pleading with Mr. Simpson for protection. 

And there being no fool like an old fool, he falls for it, says ‘There, there’ and shakes his puny fist at the blog and me.

There’s a saying sometimes attributed to a former president of the USA:  ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen’.  It’s an axiom Mr. Simpson might consider impressing on his staff.  If criticism worries them, let them respond in kind, or he can respond in kind for them. 

Answer the critics, don’t try to shut them down as somebody did with the other blog (only to get a flea in the ear from Google).

James Plumridge, reporting from New Pyongyang.

 *********

NEWSFLASH:  Last night, signs posted on properties bordering the Great Southern Highway between York and Allawuna were whited out.

The signs had been erected in protest against the proposed SITA rubbish dump at Allawuna.

Firefighters were called because two trailers on which signs were mounted had been set alight—according to one firefighter, apparently with a blowtorch.

Police are investigating.

Although most York residents oppose the proposed dump, there are a few who would stand to benefit if SITA is permitted to go ahead with it.

However, there is currently no suggestion that anyone from York was responsible for the damage.

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!

THE HISTORY CHANNEL James Plumridge

From now on it’s good news week every fortnight

Congratulations are due to this blog’s competitors, Mark Lloyd and the team at York and Districts Community Matters, on the improved style and appearance of their now fortnightly broadsheet publication.

I say ‘competitors,’ but of course there’s no comparing us so far as reach and influence are concerned.  Our readership is global, while theirs is merely local.  

This week, adding to its already extensive presence throughout Australia, the blog has recruited readers in the USA, France, Spain and perhaps most surprisingly, Russia. 

And it’s less than three weeks since it set up shop as the real voice of York!

The revamped YDCM, no doubt at the direction of Commissioner Best, seems to specialise in good news stories.  Well, if this blog’s rapid rise to prominence on the global stage isn’t a good news story, I don’t know what is.

If Mr. Lloyd is interested in following up on the blog’s international significance, I will be happy to make myself available for interview, supposing of course that my employer, the York Consortium, permits.  For this purpose, I may be contacted by email at wildwood@westnet.com.au .

Another good news story is the return of the older blog, which began life around the middle of last year as a vehicle for the ‘leaked’ Fitz Gerald Report.  You can find it at http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/ .

 

Fitz Gerald Report—suppression unofficially lifted (again)

Readers will recall that early last year York Shire Council commissioned Mr. Mike Fitz Gerald to enquire into the activities of former CEO Ray Hooper.  As things turned out, other shire officials, and some councillors—notably Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper—got caught in Mr. Fitz Gerald’s net. 

That enquiry culminated in a damning report, which a secret meeting of three councillors, each of them adversely mentioned in the report, speedily convened to suppress without bothering to declare an interest.  In this, they were encouraged and supported by their cronies in the WA Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC).

 

However, some public-spirited individual took the initiative to launch the report into cyberspace for all to read.   This made the minister for local government and senior executives of his department very cross.  They retaliated by suspending the council and appointing a commissioner in its stead. 

If you haven’t read the report, you can do so at http://shireofyork6302fitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/ .  

The book of revelations

What Fitz Gerald revealed (oh all right then, alleged), to nobody’s surprise, was wrongdoing by Ray Hooper and other shire celebrities on an almost industrial scale.  It was wrongdoing that had left many people scared and badly hurt and in some cases seriously out of pocket. 

In recent months, I have been plied with an Everest of documents, many obtained by way of the tortuous Freedom of Information process, that support Fitz Gerald’s findings.  

 I have spoken to York residents who having somehow aroused CEO Hooper’s ire, for example by asking questions about expenditure on his corporate credit card, were persecuted by him and plagued so maliciously by other shire employees acting under his direction that they felt compelled to shut down a thriving business in Avon Terrace.

I have listened to hair-raising accounts of the bullying and bad temper allegedly demonstrated by former shire presidents Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper in their management of public question time. For Mr. Boyle, that behaviour led to public censure by the Local Government Standards Panel. 

The chair of the Panel is Brad Jolly, the DLGC’s ‘probity’ guru.  This is the only instance known to me of Mr. Jolly doing the right thing by the people of York, which indicates that he and his co-panellists must have found Mr. Boyle’s behaviour shocking indeed.

So you can imagine my astonishment when I read in this week’s issue of Mr. Lloyd’s newspaper, in the section entitled ‘Voice of York’, a statement from the Commissioner, James Best, that the Corruption and Crime Commission ‘had finished its investigation into allegations of misconduct at the Shire, with no adverse findings made against Shire officers or councillors’.

Readers, have you ever experienced the weird feeling of being suddenly translated into a parallel universe where all the rules governing everyday existence have transmogrified into their polar opposites?  

If so, you will have a glimmer of how I felt on reading the Commissioner’s words.  On the one hand, I had seen ample documentary evidence to the contrary of what he seemed to be saying.  On the other hand, how could I as a rank outsider, a humble citizen peering, often incredulously, into the labyrinths of power, reject the findings of the CCC? 

Didn’t evidence count for anything any more?  What about the graft and the bullying?  What about the sale of the old convent, still a matter crying out for proper investigation?  What about mismanagement (to put it mildly) relating to construction of the YRCC, with its huge cost blowouts and devastating impact on local businesses? 

What about ‘jobs for the boys’, including a young fellow with a criminal record and just freed from jail who wasn’t qualified for the job he got but luckily for him was friendly with a senior official of the shire?

Fitz Gerald allegations not investigated by CCC 

Well, as it turned out, what the Commissioner wrote in ‘The Voice of York’ had absolutely nothing to with any of those ‘historical issues’, as he and the DLGC like to think of them.  Those were not the allegations to which the CCC had turned its incisive attention.

That became clear to me on reading online news reports from the ABC and The West Australian.  The ABC report, after referring to the Council’s suspension ‘following ongoing concerns about its ability to provide good governance’, cited ‘specific misconduct allegations… made against the shire, before it was suspended’.

In context, this must surely mean allegations made—by Minister Simpson, his departmental advisers and disgruntled senior members of the shire administration—against Shire President Reid and his supporters on council in the period leading up to the council’s suspension.

True to form, Commissioner Best said nothing to clarify the issue.  I think he wants us to believe that the CCC has cleared Shire councillors and officials of all wrongdoing, including all the bad things that happened during the dark days of the Hooper-Boyle-Hooper ascendancy.

He told the ABC he was happy that the ‘issues’ had been ‘dealt with appropriately’, but he was ‘unable to outline the details of the misconduct allegations, except that they were concerning governance and administrative practices’.  

Actually, his words were ‘I’m happy we’ve dealt with them appropriately’, thereby staking a tenuous claim to a bit of such credit as may be drawn from the CCC’s decision.

NOTE:  Since this article was posted, a reader has written to me pointing out that Mr Best's comments as reported by the ABC were even more misleading than I have indicated.  The ABC online news editor has appended the following clarification, which I missed, to the report:  'This story was originally published stating that the Shire of York had been cleared of allegations of misconduct by the CCC.  This is not the case.  The CCC review determined that the process the shire undertook to handle allegations of misconduct was appropriate - the shire has not been cleared of the allegations' (emphasis added).

So what were the allegations that the Shire of York wasn't actually cleared of? 

Credit squeeze

Mr. Best seems to have quite a reputation for claiming credit where it might not be entirely due.  You will have read among the comments on this blog that during one of his workshops he claimed some credit for the 29-storey block of flats planned for the South Perth peninsula.

He is, as we all know, a former mayor of the City of South Perth.  He held that office for two years, from 2010 to 2011.

To the best of my knowledge, developers applied to the city for permission to build the flats after Mr. Best had ceased to be mayor.   The present mayor and council are on record as having expressed strong opposition to the development.

So if Mr. Best did have something to do with it, it would have been in the teeth of opposition from his former friends and colleagues on the South Perth city council.

From what I can gather, most residents of South Perth detest the proposed development.  If Mr. Best continues to claim even a smidgin of credit for it, he may put himself in danger of being thrown off the top storey by an infuriated mob.

In the modern world, with its intense competition for fame, jobs and money, it pays to keep telling people how wonderful you are and how awe-inspiring are your achievements.  That’s why we have FIGJAM social media websites like Linked In.

Mr. Best has also claimed credit for transforming Toodyay and Fremantle.  I wouldn’t mind betting he’ll be telling the world before long what a wonderful job he did in York. 

 

I get the feeling that if the Chinese ever land an astronaut on Uranus, Mr. Best will claim some credit for that, too. 

STOP PRESS

Who takes care of the caretaker, when the caretaker’s busy taking care of itself

Just as I was tacking the final flourishes on to the foregoing article, my wife came back from the shops with today’s West Australian (June 18, 2015).

Under the headline ‘CCC MISCONDUCT’, the paper describes a report by Parliamentary Inspector Michael Murray on the unlawful activities of ‘a rogue unit’ –the covert Operational Support Unit—of CCC officers.

Mr. Murray is reported as saying that ‘The systemic nature of the conduct investigated revealed a disturbing culture of entitlement and unaccountability…contrary to the standards and values of public officers, particularly those employed by the State’s anti-corruption body’.

If only there was a Parliamentary Inspector commissioned to investigate ‘the disturbing culture of entitlement and unaccountability’ that despite Mr. Best’s protestations to the contrary in ‘Voice of York’ still operates in the Shire of York, much to the dismay of some of the people who work there. 

 

Never mind ‘Voice of York’.  Read ‘The Real Voice of York’ which tells it like it really is.