Never mind what the law says, senior staff at the
Shire of York can do pretty much what they like—and have done so for years,
without fear of check or retribution
As we all know, local government in Western
Australia is administered—or supposedly administered—in accordance with the
Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations.
You can look up the Act and regulations on the
website of the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC). The DLGC is the state government department
charged with enforcing the legislation and keeping a watchful eye on the activities
of local governments across the state.
Local governments play an important role in
providing employment for residents of their communities. The Shire of York is no exception. At present, it has a fluctuating
workforce of around 60. I say
‘fluctuating’, because as we have seen in recent times it happens now and then
that employees leave, get a payout and come back a few months later for another
nibble at the Shire of York cherry.
As an employer, the Shire of York, like all other
local governments in WA, is bound by principles set out in Section 5.40 of the
Act.
The principles most relevant to the issues raised
in this article are contained in sub-sections (a), (b), (c) and (e). These read as follows:
‘(a) employees are to be selected and promoted in
accordance with the principles of merit and equity; and
(b) no power with regard to matters affecting
employees is to be exercised on the basis of nepotism or patronage; and
(c) employees are to be treated fairly and
consistently; and…
(e) employees are to be provided with safe and
healthy working conditions in accordance with the Occupational Safety and
Health Act 1984…’
Clear?
Simple? Unambiguous? Easy
to understand? Not, apparently,
for the Shire of York.
Part
1. The Charmed Life of Christian
Tarou Chadwick
Many of you will know that my friend David
Taylor, who writes regularly for our sister blog at http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/,
has published an excellent article dealing with the appointment and criminal
record of Mr. Christian Chadwick, who is due shortly to front court in Northam
for offences committed in Grey Street several months ago.
If you haven’t read David’s article, I exhort you
to do so. He provides evidence to
show that in 2009 Mr. Chadwick, a New Zealand national, was convicted and sent
to prison for various violence, driving and drug offences.
The violence offences included threats to kill and
assaulting public officers. Among other merry japes, he threw a multanova
operator into Albany Highway in the belief that she had taken a photo of his
car.
Judge Robert Mazza of the District Court
described Mr. Chadwick’s conduct as ‘spectacularly dangerous’. He sentenced Mr.
Chadwick to three years in prison.
He also disqualified him from holding a driving licence for six months;
revoked his extraordinary licence; and fined him $2800.
The fact that Mr. Chadwick had an extraordinary
licence to be revoked indicates a history of traffic offences, perhaps
including ‘driving under the influence’.
A
mystery
In 2011, Mr. Chadwick was released from prison
and came with his partner and their children to York. Before long,
he was a depot worker with the Shire.
Here begins a tangled mystery, which I shall try
to unravel.
It is said that the job in the depot to which Mr.
Chadwick was appointed had previously been earmarked for a young man whom the
Shire was then employing as a trainee.
I'm told that once Mr Chadwick had joined the Shire workforce, there was no job for the young man in question, and he had to leave.
I'm told that once Mr Chadwick had joined the Shire workforce, there was no job for the young man in question, and he had to leave.
The job as advertised stipulated the possession
of a current driving licence.
Mr. Chadwick did not have a driving licence at the time.
No doubt the Shire supported an application to
the magistrate for an extraordinary licence, on the basis that Mr. Chadwick’s
job required him to drive.
Fairly early in the course of his employment, Mr.
Chadwick began a career of workplace bullying, involving taunts, unpleasant
practical jokes and threats of physical violence, resulting over time in the
departure of at least three employees.
One of those employees, Mr. Richard Smith, a
person of Aboriginal heritage, took the Shire to court for constructive unfair dismissal. He had left his job as a reaction
against a campaign of racist bullying launched by Mr. Chadwick.
I am reliably informed—not by Mr. Smith, whom I don’t
know and have never met—that his claim was settled out of court, resulting in a significant payout
by way of damages. I’m told the payout
was in the region of $50,000.
Later, Mr. Chadwick’s bullying caused another
worker to go on compensation leave for several months before receiving, quite
recently, a final payout from the Shire.
I’m told—not by the worker concerned, whom I don’t know and have never
met—that the payout in this case was somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000.
You might have thought that after this the Shire would have
sacked Mr. Chadwick. It did not.
As noted above, the Shire is required by
statute to maintain a safe and healthy workplace. Can any workplace be
considered safe and healthy that would tolerate Mr. Chadwick’s bullying?
I should add that Mr. Chadwick was not only a
bully himself, he also inspired others to do a bit of bullying on their own
account or to act as his accomplices.
What
the Shire knew
You may have wondered how and why Mr. Chadwick
was given a job at the depot in the first place. David’s article displays a letter dated 4 December 2014 from
former Acting CEO Graeme Simpson admitting (or boasting) that ‘…the Shire was
well aware of Mr. Chadwick’s past when his appointment was made’.
To my mind, that letter, along with Mr.
Chadwick’s charmed life as a Shire employee, reveals an astonishing degree of
contempt for the York community on the part of the Shire administration.
Mr. Simpson must surely have known that a person
of Mr. Chadwick’s character and criminal antecedents might represent a danger
to his fellow-workers.
He must have known that Mr. Chadwick’s driving
history indicated not only his contempt for the law, but also that he had the
potential while driving Shire vehicles to endanger other road users in York.
That knowledge must also have occupied the minds
of senior staff responsible for employing Mr. Chadwick when he emerged from
prison.
So—how did this improbable chain of events come
to pass? Who got Mr. Chadwick on
to the Shire payroll? Why has Mr.
Chadwick enjoyed an undeserved level of security in his job, notwithstanding a
pattern of misconduct that should have led to his early dismissal?
To put the matter more simply—who’s been protecting
him, and why?
‘Aunty’
Tyhscha to the rescue?
I won’t pretend I can give definitive answers to
those questions. Instead, here are
some disturbing allegations, none of them new, to which I invite the Shire to
respond.
1. It
is alleged that the Deputy CEO, Tyhscha Cochrane, was instrumental in ensuring
that Mr. Chadwick got the job and that despite the danger he posed to workmates
and the general public was allowed to keep it.
2. It
is alleged that Ms Cochrane insisted on Mr. Chadwick remaining in the job, even
when other senior staff had expressed the opinion that perhaps it would be
better to let him go.
3. It
is alleged that Ms Cochrane has maintained, since well before he went to
prison, a long-standing relationship with Mr. Chadwick and his partner.
I have not been able to pin down the precise
nature and extent of this alleged relationship. Some have suggested that Mr. Chadwick’s partner is a member
of Ms Cochrane’s extended family, which might account for Mr. Chadwick’s customarily
addressing and referring to Ms Cochrane as ‘Aunty Tyhscha’. I suppose he might be a nephew or cousin of Ms Cochrane's, though his New Zealand origin seems to make this a little unlikely.
Either possibility would raise the spectre of nepotism—i.e. misusing
one’s authority and influence to give preference to family members.
On the other hand, if the alleged relationship is
simply one of friendship, based for example on shared interests or an exchange
of past favours, that would raise the spectre of patronage—i.e. misusing one’s
authority and influence to confer benefits on one’s friends.
No
comeback
What puzzles me, though, is why, if the above
allegations are true, Ms Cochrane as a very senior officer of the Shire would
stick out her neck so far for somebody as low in the food chain as Mr. Chadwick. Surely she would be worried about
exposure, leading to disgrace and loss of her highly paid job? Wouldn’t she have to resign?
Relax.
Why should she worry? There’s no comeback for senior members of the
Shire administration. They are
untouchable.
The supposed local government watchdog has made
it plain over many years that it doesn’t give the proverbial hasty act of
copulation about what senior shire administrators get up to at public expense.
They can employ close relatives who like
themselves have no qualifications relevant to their jobs; persecute ratepayers
who annoy them; dish out preferential treatment to family members and friends, or
cover up wrongdoing by falsifying public records—and the high priests of
probity at the DLGC will never so much as bat an eyelid.
As for the Shire Council, it’s been hypnotized
for decades into believing that no matter how badly staff members behave, it is
powerless to intervene. It’s true
that only the CEO can exert discipline over the staff. In the past, the Council has tended to
forget, or failed to care, that it can insist on the CEO bringing errant staff
into line.
And as we know to our cost, CEOs in York almost
invariably come down on the side of their staff, regardless of right and wrong.
If the allegations concerning Deputy CEO Cochrane
and Mr. Chadwick are true—and of course they may not be—she should be asked to
resign. In that case, if she
refuses, she should be fired.
As for Mr. Chadwick, I’m told the Shire no longer
employs him. It appears that he
threatened or assaulted yet another workmate recently and was told—at last!—to take
his skill set elsewhere.
Part
2. Booze, cannabis, and crack cocaine
Mr. Chadwick is not only a serial bully and
convicted traffic hooligan. It
seems he has other dubious claims to fame.
Thanks to some public-spirited individuals, I
recently obtained sets of contemporaneous notes taken at Shire staff meetings
held respectively on 3 September 2014 and and 3 February 2015.
The purpose of both meetings was to consider the
situation of the Shire worker mentioned earlier as having been forced by Mr.
Chadwick’s bullying to take leave on worker’s compensation.
I have no doubt the notes are genuine. However, to protect the identity of my
sources, I will not be posting them as photos on this blog.
Meeting
on 3 September 2014
Members of Shire staff present at this meeting,
in addition to the victimised Shire worker, were Acting CEO Michael Keeble;
Human Resources Officer, Gail Maziuk; and Depot Supervisor, Peter Moore.
One of the topics raised at the meeting was that
of the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs on Shire premises. It was
alleged that workers usually remained at the depot drinking alcohol for a
couple of hours after work.
Mr. Keeble declared that the alcohol issue would
be resolved by making the depot alcohol free. This was already on the go. Workers had been given one week
to drink the contents of the depot refrigerator (!). After that, no more alcohol would be allowed on the
premises.
In fact, said Mr. Keeble, he intended to
introduce without undue delay a regime of random drug and alcohol testing.
At some point, one of the participants alleged
that Christian Chadwick was a user of crack cocaine as well as cannabis. Mr.
Chadwick’s behaviour, he said, could become more hazardous to himself and others if he continued
using crack.
Ms Mazuik asked both Mr. Keeble and Mr. Moore if
they knew about drug use at the depot.
Both said yes, they did know. It isn’t clear from the notes how long they had known about
it or if Ms Maziuk herself had known that it was going on.
However, Mr. Keeble said he had not known about
the drinking at the depot after work.
As comments on the blog have made clear, Mr.
Keeble’s promise to introduce drug and alcohol testing was not fulfilled.
It has been alleged that it was Ms Maziuk who
killed it, by threatening Mr. Keeble with worker unrest if such a regime were
to be introduced. If she did, that
would hardly be the action of a responsible HR Officer.
(It has also been alleged that Ms Maziuk’s
conduct towards Mr. Keeble was a factor in the latter’s decision to resign as
Acting CEO.)
Perhaps Ms Maziuk shared the view expressed by an
official of the Australian Services Union that alcohol and drug testing risks
breaching workers’ privacy.
Much more important than workers’ privacy is
workplace and public safety. This
is especially the case at a time when drugs far more dangerous than cannabis,
like crack and ice, are freely and cheaply available even in small rural communities
like York.
Meeting
on 3 February 2015
At this meeting, lasting just over an hour, the
Shire was represented by Gail Mazuik; Depot Supervisor Peter Murray; and Alan
Rourke, Works Manager. The
victimised worker was also present, as were a psychologist, a rehabilitation
provider and an injury management consultant from LGIS.
Mr. Keeble’s replacement as Acting CEO, Graeme
Simpson, did not attend.
The psychologist brought up the issue of
Christian’s drug use. Ms Maziuk
said— somewhat surprisingly, since she had had five months to investigate it—that
that was ‘only an allegation’.
The psychologist then asked if the Shire had a
drug policy. Mr. Rourke said there
was no Shire policy for drugs or for alcohol. The Works Supervisor had authority to send people off site
if they appeared to be ‘under the influence’. He said any drug and alcohol policy adopted by the Shire
would have to be approved by Council.
The discussion turned to the continuing
consumption of alcoholic beverages at the depot. According to the Depot Supervisor, drinking after work now
only took place on pay night, i.e. once a fortnight. Mr. Rourke said the CEO (presumably Mr. Simpson) had decreed
that drinking on the premises could take place, provided it was not to excess,
on pay night, at Christmas and at ‘send offs’.
Some
questions for Gail Maziuk
Somebody should ask Ms Maziuk:
1.
As HR Officer, does she agree
that the appointment and continuing employment of Christian Tarou Chadwick was
not, and has proved not to be, in the best interests of his workmates, of the
Shire or of the York community in general?
2.
If she does not agree, how
then would she justify keeping him on the Shire payroll after his bullying
activities had led to legal action followed by significant payouts from the
Shire’s insurers?
3.
It is alleged that she
conspired or acted in concert with DCEO Tyscha Cochrane to protect Mr. Chadwick
from the consequences of his wrongdoing.
Is that true?
4.
Are other employees, involved
with Mr. Chadwick in harassing workmates, still employed by the Shire? If so, have they been disciplined or
counselled?
5.
She would (or should) have
known that Mr. Chadwick had been convicted of drug offences before coming to
work for the Shire. How did she
deal with allegations made in September 2014 that he was currently a user of
cannabis and crack cocaine? What
efforts if any did she make to check if the allegations were true?
6.
Is it true that she opposed
Acting CEO Keeble’s endeavours to institute a regime of random drug and alcohol
testing? If so, what were her
reasons for opposing it?
7.
What is her present attitude
to random drug testing, bearing in mind that many businesses in WA, and more
than a few local governments, have adopted it?
8.
It has been alleged that Ms
Maziuk has taken a prominent role in organising staff complaints about members
of the public who ask embarrassing questions about the Shire. Is that true? In her view, is it proper, and if so why, for an HR Officer
to act as a spokesperson for staff, an organiser of staff protests or a
representative of a staff trade union?
9.
What qualifications does she
have, or is she studying to obtain, to carry out the duties of a Human
Resources Officer or any other senior position in local government?
Readers, please understand how unlikely it is that
these questions will ever be asked of Ms Maziuk, let alone answered. The point and purpose of asking such
questions is to reveal truths and correct misapprehensions. For that to happen, people have to care
about the truth. A good many
so-called ‘ordinary’ people do care, but from the standard bureaucratic point
of view they count for nothing except as donors of gravy to the local
government gravy train.
Mercedes, anyone?
Thank you for keeping this blog going. You are providing a great service to the residents. This type of information needs to be open to the public.
ReplyDeleteA good piece of work James, with a little more practice you'll be snapping at David's heels.
ReplyDeleteDavid and I are not in competition. I respect his work, as I think he does mine. Regarding the current topic, I believe our writings are complementary and all the more effective for that.
DeleteYour comment posits a rivalry that doesn't exist.
It's also snide, mean-spirited and condescending - 'damning with faint praise'. I've had plenty of practice, thank you.
It was meant as a compliment, I genuinely believe you've come a long way with your reporting skills.
DeletePatronage is a difficult one to prove, impossible even.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if it could be proven what would the penalty be?
Too late now, the damage is done, the perpetrator is installed and protected.
If there was any way of getting rid of him wouldn't they have done so by now?
So, I suppose it's a waiting game until something very serious happens.
An unsatisfactory situation all round!
Can't the Shire suspend him pending the outcome of the trial?
Unfortunately, all to often the system favours the guilty over the innocent.
Never mind, as long as the public are made aware, at least they can be on their guard.
Time will tell, the new Council have much work to do.
The Shire could easily have sent Mr Chadwick on his way once his bullying tendencies became clear. He was protected from the consequences of his wrongdoing. Meanwhile, good employees were badly hurt and driven to leave.
DeleteDon't despair, truth will out and the guilty held to account. Could take a while, though.
There may not be a trial. He might decide to plead guilty to whatever charges he has to face.
I agree with Pete in more ways than one.
DeleteNice Acrostic Pete
DeleteWouldn't put it past Aunty Tyhscha to re-instate this criminal under another name. We've already seen evidence of altered Shire records in relation to this low life.
ReplyDeleteIf Tyhscha knowingly condoned bullying in the workplace and payouts appear to confirm this, then she is unfit to hold the position of D/CEO, or any other position at the Shire of York and should be immediately sacked.
If she had one decent cell in her body she would never have stood by and allowed anyone to be treated the way these people were treated.
I will remain anonymous, because I know about one of these people and I am disgusted, beyond words, that any female could condone what was done to this person. Only someone with a extremely cruel streak in their personality could do this.
Tyhscha had a good teacher.
DeleteI am sickened by what I read. Tyhscha should hang her head in shame and resign
ReplyDeleteMany in York know she was 'selected' by Ray Hooper and he kept her in the Acting DCEO role until she complied with the 'experience' section of the selection criteria before the position was finally advertised.
I believe she expressed concerns about being appointed at a gathering of Councillors and was assured by Ray she had the job - prior to the interviews taking place.
It is questionable as to whether any other applicants were even interviewed for the position.
It would be interesting to know how many applicants there were for the position and whether any had Tertiary qualifications.
That file has more than likely accidently fallen into the shredder.
I believe there's staff with Certificates and qualifications - something Aunty Tyhscha doesn't have - and they are doing the work she is receiving the money for.
Part of the reason Ray would have selected her was that mean streak. He needed someone who would work comfortably with him - and she did.
DeleteIt is come to light that the Shire Depot was broken into for a third time last week.
ReplyDeleteEach time thieves have targeted the beer fridge money, yes that's right the administration over ruled CEO Keeble and refused to implement the dry site policy as he directed and as is law under the current OHS policies.
So the depot staff can collect cartons of beer from the public for favours rendered with the shire gear. The beer is sold to the workers and the money kept in the Rangers safe.
Problem is this time the thieves took the Rangers shotguns when they made off with the loot.
So who is responsible for this outrage, first the shire ignores the OHS laws and now it has facilitated the arming of a dangerous criminal.
What has the Union done about this, surely they would encourage a safe working environment free from alcoholism and bullying.
Why was CEO Keeble over ruled and by whom. Doesn't the works manager understand the OHS legislation.
Enough of this nonsense, bring the Shire into line with the rest of the industry and ensure we comply with the OHS laws.
I saw the Police coming out of the works yard last week and thought it was a drug bust or something.
DeleteI am sure the new A/CEO will realise the serious OHSW implications of selling alcohol to employees. Do they have a liquor license?
Was the gun in a secure gun cabinet.
Wonder if the criminal they employed had anything to do with the break ins
The Shire regularly employs criminals, which one are you referring to.
DeleteFor many years the local drug dealer was employed down at the shire depot.
When he was finally convicted for dealing he was still retained as key employee operating the mobile heavy machinery.
Over time this once lovable rogue was decimated by the drugs until he was a walking skeleton, a shell of a man, still the administration did nothing.
Finally a very courageous senior member of the depot workforce stepped up to the mark and demanded that the Works Manager at the time, Lanske remove this man from the machinery as it is only a matter of time before he kills someone.
Surprise surprise our brave old soul was bullied and abused until he left his job, with a payout, and then took his lovely family away from the filth that preside in York.
The drug dealer retained his job long after our much loved friend was gone.
Why might we ask are the local criminals and the senior administration so comfortable in each others company.
Birds of a feather flock together they say.
Are you alleging that depot staff 'moonlight', using Shire vehicles and equipment, and are paid wholly or in part in cartons of beer?
DeleteAnd then sell the beer to workmates? Sounds odd to me.
Its been going on for years James, its culturally acceptable within the local government ranks.
DeleteRay Hooper established the principal that we can't accept money but we can accept carton's of beer from the public as a sign of gratitude. Particularly contractors who are awarded work are asked for a carton up front.
Only those at the top of the pecking order are privy to the deals.
The plebs are told that we sell the beer and put the money in the tin for the Christmas party for all to share.
This time the slush fund was $800 by the time in was knocked off, I am reliably informed.
Who runs the books is a good question.
Check the size of the beer guts and you may get an insight into who may be in charge.
A purple nose is also a good indicator that the fluids are going down well.
That's why Keeble wanted a dry site.
Hooper had a large appetite for alcohol himself while he was in York - so long as Ratepayers funded the upstairs top shelf liquor supply.
DeleteIt's not just the depot employees who enjoy the alcohol - a couple of senior females are known to have more than a few themselves.
It is common knowledge in York depot staff 'moonlight' for grog!
ReplyDeleteWhat the shire is doing is illegal and Mazuik and Cochrane condone it.
Next Gail will be approving worker's compensation claims for work related alcoholism.
Great article James - keep it coming.
ReplyDeleteMore locals than ever are reading the Blogs.
I said that at 23 November 2015 at 18:29 and got my head bitten off by old misery guts.
DeleteMy apologies for what was obviously a misunderstanding. I thought you were drawing an invidious comparison. I'm glad to know that you weren't and withdraw my waspish response. Forgiveness, please. I do my best but I'm not infallible, whatever my wife may have told you.
ReplyDeleteYours sincerely,
Old Misery Guts Himself
Time Gail coughed up some reasons - she has NO RIGHT WHAT-SO-EVER to knowingly employ a person with a violent criminal background, let alone someone with a addiction to cocaine or ice!
ReplyDeleteGail you have a duty of care to the Ratepayers of York first and for most - get your act together and clean up your workplace and get rid of the drinking, drug taking bullies.
Gail, I also suggest you look up vicarious liability! It is a disgrace that you have allowed this situation to occur, let alone continue.
Gail should be the first one put down the road.
DeleteYou are right about vicarious liability, when she decided to hijack the shire administration and over rule Keeble and the Council at the time, she took responsibility herself for what has transpired.
The Works Committee, Council and CEO all tried to implement policy to clean up the act of the administration.
The bulk of the minutes taken at meetings were doctored by Gail to thwart these attempts. Several times the works committee were forced to move motions to have the minutes corrected to overcome her actions. A simple solution was found by Best, close the committees!
Simpson obviously thought that the DLGC was supporting Gail and followed suit.
Wrong move Graeme, you and Best are going to be held to account.
Sad isn't it that Gail was able to manipulate the local police force, using them to intimidate concerned members of the public at council meetings attended by numbers never witnessed before.
Yet the local boys in blue never once set up an RBT to sort out the drunks driving home from the depot.
Will they find the stolen depot shotguns before someone is shot, I do hope so.
The failure of the York Shire administration to take action to clean up the depot has created a volatile situation where significant divisions now exists within the community. Members of the public are rightly concerned that drug and alcohol fuelled monsters are now roaming at large with grudges to bear and a possible means to follow through.
Thanks Gail.
DeleteHere you go Gail and Tyhscha - this will save you having to look up vicarious liability!
Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person. In a workplace context, an employer can be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that they took place in the course of their employment.
Many employers are unaware that they can be liable for a range of actions committed by their employees in the course of their employment - these can include BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, VIOLENT OR DISCRIMINATORY ACT or even libel and breach of copyright. It's also possible to take action against an employer for the behaviour of third parties, such as clients and customers, provided these parties are deemed to be under the control of the employer.
Because Tyhscha employed her convicted criminal friend, she cost the ratepayers dearly in compensation payouts because of his actions and because Gail overruled the A.CEO Keeble (by screaming) refusing random drug/alcohol testing in the workplace, she also cost Ratepayers huge pay outs in compensation - Thanks Gail and Tyhscha!
Oh and Gail, don't bother squawking to the Union - they won't back you on this one. Unions demand a safe working environment!
IF the LGIS were provided with all the facts - that is the truth - including the link between employee Chadwick and the bullied employees who were all forced one way or another to leaving, surely LGIS would have declined the second and third claim under vicarious liability.
DeleteWas the change of Chadwick's name on the Shire records anything to do with sidestepping the legality of full disclosure in the multiple claims?
Were claims even lodged with the LGIS, or did the payouts made come out of the public purse?
Time Gail and Tyhscha provided the Ratepayers with honest answers about the sordid and disgraceful treatment of three very damaged employees.
Hope the CRIMINAL at the depot is deported back to New Zealand as is happening with the BIKE GANGS. Maybe when the charges come for the Administration the DCEO will also be deported. YAY!! :-))
ReplyDeleteI hope the Criminal at the Depot will be deported back to New Zealand after his once again Court appearance. Maybe Aunty will go with him!!
ReplyDelete'Aunty' Tyhscha, do you realises the irreparable damage done to a number of people because you employed and protected this horrible criminal?
DeleteShame on you Tyhscha, you are unfit to hold the position of DCEO for the Shire of York and you have let down the people of York.
Even your colleagues are laughing at your stupidity behind your back!
I would have thought Gail being the expert HR 'person' and 'top gun' Union organiser and Tyscha being the (lets stitch up York ratepayers for 5 years) DCEO that they would have realised their responsibilities with regard to violent behaviour in the workplace.
DeleteJust goes to show how incompetent they both are.
James, I've been informed that sometime ago there was a business called 'The Sugar Shack' operating from Balladong and I wondered if your readers have any knowledge of it?
ReplyDeleteI don't want to go into too much detail at this stage but if true, it needs to be aired in the public domain.
And the award for the longest muck rake goes to
DeleteNow you're just flailing your arms around, Fact. No muck is being raked, so far as I know. Whatever the Sugar Shack matter was, it's been dropped.
DeleteYou seem to have some connection with the Shire. When are you people going to figure out that Shire officials are not immune from criticism and complaint? Telling people what's being done in their name and at their expense isn't raking muck.
It's hard to avoid the impression that the panjandrums at the Shire have had it their own way for years and don't like to see their activities exposed to public scrutiny. Too bad.
Is this something to do with the Shire of York? If not, why would anything to do with it need airing in the public domain?
ReplyDeleteIndirectly, yes it does. It concerns an elected member and a certain business which used to operate in Balladong (allegedly), many moons ago.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that an elected member of Council was involved a long time ago with a business in Balladong and people need to know about it because...?
DeleteWas the person involved an elected member at the time? Is this about drugs?
You know, I have a strange feeling that somebody is trying to set me up.
No, I'm definitely not trying to set you up. The person was not an elected member at the time, nor does it relate to drugs, although, I imagine the odd spliff may have been sucked on, among other things, at the time. I'm really not game to say what the business was until it can be categorically confirmed, however, if the rumours are true, then no people don't 'need' to know about it, but yes I'm the sure the people will want to know about it.
ReplyDeleteWell, let's see if anyone knows what you're on about. I'm baffled. Perhaps the member concerned will stand up and be counted.
ReplyDeleteI think there's probably more chance of the member laying down and being counted.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm even more baffled.
ReplyDeletePlease don't denigrate this blog by hosting sensational stories that have no direct link to the operations of the Shire of York...let's not introduce an episode of Bold and The Beautiful to what is, a serious forum.
ReplyDeleteIf the story is sensational and irrelevant to Shire operations, I won't host it.
DeleteAt the moment, I don't see how a councillor's long-ago business venture in Balladong, whatever it was, and whatever went wrong, before they were elected to Council, can possibly be relevant to topics discussed on the blog.
Let's steer clear of anything that might be construed as mere malicious gossip. If there's 'no direct link to the operations of the SoY', there's no reason to give it an airing.
Gossip thats what this sight is all about facts there a bit harder to come by but here's one gail isn't and never was a union delegate so are you going to delete all references to this if so I'll tell a few other fallacies floating around on this blog
DeleteNo, this site is not 'all about gossip'. The documents I was working from emanated from the Shire. Facts are easier to come by than you think.
DeleteThat said, I am always open to contradiction. If you have a different set of facts, or can point out fallacies in what's published here, I promise to post them. I've made that clear from the outset. Usually, all I get from the opposition is abuse, rants and threats. See if you can do better.
If the depot workers are all drugged up alcoholics like you're site suggest why is there safety recordso good no accidents in over two years
ReplyDeleteYou should learn to read. I did not suggest that 'depot workers are drugged up alcoholics' (though I admit some comments from other people tend that way). I reported Shire staff discussions strongly indicating that all wasn't well in the depot so far as booze and drugs were concerned. I also reported on bullying in the depot leading to payouts to victims.
DeleteThose were facts. Do you have anything serious to say about them?
I'm glad the depot has a good safety record, but that could be due to good luck (and good management) as much as good judgement. On the other hand, what about the safety of the guys who were bullied to the point they felt they had to resign? Do you have something sensible to say about that? If you have, I'd be delighted to publish it.
fact 28 November 2015 at 02:40: Random drug/alcohol testing should be an issue then.
DeleteI am an ex employee of the SOY and I clearly recall a Union rep coming to the office to be available to discuss any issues that staff may of had. I also recall no-one ever taking the poor bloke up on the opportunity...
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with union reps visiting the SoY or any other workplace. How workers respond to their visits depends on many factors, including peer pressure and pressure from above.
DeleteBy the way, Fact at 02:32, I didn't say that Gail M is or was a union delegate. I was interested to find out what she regards as the scope and limitations of an HRO's job. I was prompted to ask this by reports from various quarters that she had encouraged workers to complain that their health was being affected by questions and complaints from residents, and had tried to get them to sign a paper to that effect.
I'm told she called in the union for that purpose. Is that true? If it isn't, let me know, because several people have told me that it is.
I never knew this to be the case. It was neither encouraged or discouraged. It was just discussed that it was our right to have contact with a union rep either within or external to the workplace hours and operations.
DeleteThanks for the clarification.
DeleteWhat was the context of the discussion? Several sources have relayed to me that the health and safety of staff were considered to be endangered by articles and/or comments posted on this and the other blog. Indirectly, one such source was Graeme Simpson, and another was James Best.
I was also told (but not by those two) that Gail had asked staff to sign some kind of document relating to this ersatz 'health and safety' issue. James Best let it be known that the blogs had pushed one member of staff into a nervous breakdown - something strenuously denied by that person's mother!
Who called the stop work meeting when the Shire office was closed till lunch time then?
DeleteThe context of the discussion was simple, just like anywhere else I have ever worked.... a Union Rep will be making a scheduled visit on such and such a date, feel free to speak with him..if you wish to make an appointed time then do so. No cloak, no daggers, so smoke screens.... just a natural right of any employee in Australia.
DeleteSo what was the stop work meeting about?
DeleteWere Best and Simpson lying when they blamed staff distress on the blogs?
Didn't work there during that period.
DeleteNot surprised no one took the opportunity to speak with the Union bloke.
DeleteFrom experience any one with serious issues needs to make contact 'off site'.
Anonymous29 November 2015 at 19:07
DeleteAs I mentioned, this offer was made available.
James, the nervous breakdown did happen, just not to who you were thinking. The blog has damaged people's lives and families. You just don't understand the damage that is being done here. The health and safety of staff at the SOY have been a very big issue over the past six months. Safety a major issue as unfortunately there are a few unhinged locals in town that made threats against staff members and their families. No assistance or protection available to junior staff of course, you needed to be a senior staff member to get any attention around there.
DeleteI don't understand this. How exactly has the blog 'damaged people's lives and families'? All I have tried to do - perhaps not always successfully - is to expose deficiencies in how the Shire has been operating. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I have never pointed the finger at an innocent party.
DeleteI'm sorry if 'unhinged locals' have made threats against anyone (some did against me). That's something I wholeheartedly condemn. Maybe those on the receiving end of such threats should tell the police about them. Are you sure the threats and the blog are connected? How are they connected, and how do you know they are?
Did you show the same concern for the residents who suffered under CEO Hooper and his 'acolytes' on the staff and the Council? It's all documented. Everyone deserves compassion and respect, but Shire employees are no more (and no less) deserving than the rest of us.
As I've said many times, the blog is open to everyone (everyone with a brain, that is). I welcome correction and disagreement. If you'd like to expand - anonymously, if you prefer - on the iniquities of the blog, and how it does the damage you allege, I'll be happy to publish your views.
Anonymous1 December 2015 at 04:36...bullshit, f**k the staff, its not all about staff, what about the poor bastards who pay their wages? Who looks after them?...Exactly!
DeleteAnonymous 1 December 2015 at 16:16 if you say f**k the staff then why not go to the Local Government Minister, have him shut the place down and see what happens then. Have a brain mate. Do you want to merge with Northam?
DeleteNo one is saying it's all about the staff, but staff are being drawn into this bullshit too, without reason apart from the fact that they work for the Shire of York and are answerable to the CEO, whomever that happens to be at the time. The CEO is the one that calls the shot's and asks many of the staff, I am not saying all, to carry out their duties. Why should junior staff be drawn into the blame game regarding what went on in the Hooper days, when some of them weren't even there.
Stop judging the staff there by their employer. Stop judging the staff by former CEO's. Everyone needs to earn an income. Some staff don't want to be there, but out of pure necessity remain. How many other jobs are there around this area? Think about the wider picture.
I have not read anyone attacking the junior staff. It's pretty clear to me Gail and Tyscha are the ones under attack and deservedly so. Chadwick is the only other. And if you think the CEO, whomever that may be at the time is calling the shots your delusional.
DeleteI'd rather merge with Northam. At least they are progressive. All this crap in York wouldn't be allowed in Northam. Problem is they wouldn't touch us with a barge pole. Even little old Beverley didn't want to merge with us because they have money and could see thru all the bullshit figures York were presenting at SEAVROC and saw too much risk. I bet they're glad they did now.
That boat sailed anyway when Pat, Ray and Tony left Brendan Grylls innaugral Supertown meeting in Northam in a huff. York was asked to meet afterwards and offer suggestions where we could help Northam to grow. For example we have a telecentre and they don't. If we could commit to a regional approach, money, and lots of it was there for the taking. Tony refused to help Northam in anyway simply due to ego at great cost to York. Ironic considering how many investments he has in Northam. Pat spat the dummy because he was left off the after meeting invite list by accident-ego again, and Ray-well being in a position where Northam might have an interest in our finances simply wouldn't do.
All the supertown money is Northams now and we're just the poor neighbour. Idiots!
Bullying is a safe workplace issue and is clearly defined under OH&S. Everyone has the right to earn an income for their family in an environment free from harassment.
ReplyDeleteIf the depot hasn't had an accident for 2 yrs thats fantastic but if people had to resign due to bullying the safety record is not clean instead subject to interpretation.
Bullying in the workplace IS illegal and indicates poor Management. Any organisation that has paid out employees as a result of bullying should be ashamed.
DeleteSeems we have senior staff more concerned about the 'clean' OHSW statistics - and protecting one employee who has a criminal record and calls Tyhscha Aunty - than they are about the welfare of the law abiding hard working employees.
Lets hope the new CEO lets Gail and Tyhscha know THEY are not in charge of the Administration! A bonus would be that he/she realises neither are competent or fit to hold the position.
Implement KPI's for all the staff.
Is it true female senior staff off load work they are incapable of doing and take credit for the effort?
If Senior Staff are off loading their work onto junior staff, it will be difficult for this to be detected through KPI's.
DeleteThe CEO needs to go back at read some of the letters the two female senior staff have written in the past four years and he/she will see they are not all that bright.
Hush money (bribes) is NOT considered 'Best Practice' nor is it ever included in Risk Management policy for accident prevention in organisations who value and care for their employees.
DeleteShame on who ever thought of the idea.
Employees need to consider implementing their own Incident Report records. Make sure another employee witnesses the information on the report and date it.
It may not be best practice, but its common practice. Many companies such as mining companies and govt agencies such as water corp offer bonuses for zero incidents.
DeleteTo suggest the SOY came up with this new incentive and it is hush money is a little unfair.
Some morons dont take safety seriously and only think about safety when there are incentives.
For the sake of the safety of those around them its not necessarily a bad thing.
I didn't suggest the SOY came up with this new incentive - I said - Shame on who ever thought of the idea.
DeleteThe Shire of York Administration must have 'chosen' to implement the 'hush money' incentive instead of focusing on workplace Safety Audits and Risk Management.
Water Corp and similar Government agencies use contractors rather than direct employees - contractors usually have to provide their own Work Cover insurance.
Thanks Keep Calm a balanced perspective is a healthy approach.
DeleteHowever I will add that all of these organisations will have an independent safety auditor review their safety systems and performance on a periodical basis.
The fist port of call for the auditor is the incident register which by law should exist and should include all incidents including near misses. When the auditor is told that there are no incidents a red flag immediately goes up. If there is no incident register the system is deemed to have failed.
I am aware the York shire was audited by Worksafe in 2011 after the safety representative resigned citing systemic failure, bullying and bastardisation. He received a payout and has signed a confidentiality agreement.
One of the issues raised was the beer economy and the bullying culture that existed in the shire depot at the time.
After a flurry of activity by Ray Hooper and his apostles things settled down and eventually life in York returned to the way it was.
I believe there was an incident report number given by Worksafe, No 251194.
Obviously the Shire of York is above the OHS laws as nothing ever came of this investigation.
Are Worksafe implicated by their failure to make a lasting impact, I doubt it they, are very unlikely to be able to influence the DLGC or any Shire under its umbrella.
Had they been able to influence the Shire we may have saved the ratepayers a significant sum in compensation payouts for the bullied workers who have since fallen foul of the mongrel mob in charge down there.
Not to mention the grog that has been sourced using the shire gear.
In addition Keep Calm, not one mining company worth its salt starts the day without all of its employees being breath tested at start up, no exceptions from the mine manager down to the toilet cleaner.
Perhaps our Shire could start with that one small step in the right direction.
You are spot on Anonymous30 November 2015 at 00:48.
DeleteIf there is no Incident Register or it has no entries, something is seriously wrong.
Some mines also do random urine testing.
Yes, breath testing is the way to go, but who would conduct it?
No good having someone from the Shire of York do the testing because it would be a conflict of interest and they would want everyone to pass.
Bonuses for zero incidents can be PART of an overall safety plan. I agree it is no good as a stand alone policy though.
DeleteContractors are usually subject to the same safety standards as employees i.e. drug testing, blue cards etc.
I have not read the Shire’s policy on drugs, alcohol and safety, if any, so it would be remiss of me to comment any further and assume there isn't one based only on rumour.
Perhaps the SOY might make it available? Not going to hold my breath though, or might have an incident of my own.
The reason the depot hasn't had an accident for 2 years is because the Shire pays them a monthly safety bonus if there are no reported incidents. ie they are paid to keep their mouths shut.
ReplyDeleteThe Shire also fails to run an incident register nor does it employ competent people who understand OH&S to manage the workforce.
Running a bar at the depot is hardly an example of professional management.
One of the recent Works Managers was an out an out fraud. Using the fraudulent qualifications of BgB, it stood for bloody good bloke, the moron didn't have a qualification past year 10, sounds familiar. Yet the Shire employed him to co ordinate the design of the realignment of Mokine road where the truck rolled on the sharp bend. The Shire received blackspot funding then handed it back when BgB dropped the ball and gave up.
Numerous near misses involving the Shire workforce have been reported by the public yet you won't find any mention in the Shire records.
And to top it off our illustrious workforce continues to build roads that are unsafe and fail to meet any basic industry standards.
Take a drive down the brand new Spencers Brook Rd and see how you feel when the semi trailer coming the other way starts to cross onto your side of the road.
And if its dark and raining just don't bother because you will find yourself on a black featureless surface that's covered in ponds of water, and then the steep boggy shoulders are there to make sure you don't have a chance of correcting any deviation from the assumed road alignment.
One day the Shire will engage a competent CEO who actually has a basic understanding of Risk.
When they do all hell will break loose because he will realise he is culpable for the actions of those he employ's.
If he needs some advice regarding managing bullies the Blog has identified that they are easiest to manage when picked up by the throat. A bit like you would handle a venomous snake.
Safety bonus my backside.
Does this mean the York Administration is bribing employees to make the Shire records look better than they really are?
DeleteIs there a Policy on this?
If it is true the Management is paying hush money, it shows Senior Staff have a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of OHSW Risk Management. Worse, it indicates Senior Staff focus more on their image than the welfare of their employees.
I suggest those who do experience near misses with Shire vehicles/heavy machinery or have dash cam footage of unsafe work practices that they put them on the blog - if the Senior Staff cannot do their job properly, then lets shame them into providing a safe work place for the employees.
Safety bonuses are quarterly and are based on accidents only
ReplyDeleteCome on only three more sleeps and that big nasty moon with start to go away
Please Mr Fact 19.46 can you confirm whether the Depot bar fridges are still stocked with donated booze.
DeleteHas the CEO introduced a dry site policy, or did dribbles Murray protest again.
Fact or friction ?
I think there should be a no smoking policy.
ReplyDeleteAll Government properties have a no smoking Policy. Administration staff are aways puffing out the back of the building.
ReplyDeleteMy advice to any ambitious non smoking shire employee is to take it up. Spend 10 minutes of every hour out the back dragging on a durry with Gail and Tyscha, it will get you a lot further than any qualification or relevant experience.
DeleteRatepayers DO NOT pay Gail and Tyhscha to smoke - we pay them to work. How many hours down time are we being slugged for.
DeleteCombine that with an 'on the ratepayers' whisky upstairs and you could get your contract renewed for five years!
DeleteFOR SALE
ReplyDeleteTwo Shotguns - one careless owner
Offers
Surely the Shire had security cameras protecting the Works depot - oh don't tell me someone turned them off!
DeleteHere's a question worth considering: if the allegations concerning Gail and Tyhscha set out in the above article are true, or even partly true, what should Acting CEO Dacombe's next move be? Should he investigate the Chadwick matter? Will he?
ReplyDeleteI suggest that if he does nothing, he will be guilty of the same degree of contempt towards us as was customarily displayed by his predecessors in office. No more cover-ups, thank you.
Of course, if he finds that the ladies in question have done nothing wrong, he should issue a statement exonerating them and tell us who was in fact to blame for appointing and protecting Mr Chadwick.
Dacombe will do nothing unless he is put under pressure by the elected council to resolve these matters.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the elected council are bound by confidentiality agreements and scare mongering by the ruling elite, it may take them some time to work out how to use the power given to them by the community.
I suggest the best approach is for some brave soul to front the council meetings and put the question to Dacombe, make it official, record it for history and have it minuted because although the Blog is a useful tool but brings no real pressure to bear on the CEO.
Pressure must also be put on him to release the minority report and flush out the cowards behind it before they weave any more magical spells on our new CEO.
Pat Hooper and his snivelling cohort are now trying to pretend nothing happened because no one has been charged with anything. Yet !
Only consistent pressure at council meetings has brought the Chalkies fiasco to head, a similar approach may pay dividends with the Chadwick issue. Present the hard core facts and get them minuted. Keep asking the difficult questions until they run out of nonsensical answers, eventually they will crack and some gems of truth will emerge.
Pressure makes diamonds James.
O Seeker of Truth, are you volunteering?
DeleteO James I seek the truth not certain extermination.
DeleteI have seen your Mr Chadwick in person, and on the youtube clip of his antics at the Templars.
No thank you he is frightening, so big, so strong and those crazy reptilian eyes, my god Sigourney Weaver would baulk at a stoush with our man mountain from the depot.
Ask no questions have no shotguns put in face.
I shall seek other truths less likely to end in tears thank you :)
Mr. Chadwick is really a coward hiding behind the skirt of Aunty Tyhscha!
DeleteWhat sort of a Man needs a female to protect him?
'So big, so strong and those crazy reptilian eyes...' Seeker of Truth, are you sure you're not falling in love?
DeleteSeeker of the Truth. It would be a brave soul indeed as they or their families and their closest friends will pay the price. That's how the administration rolls. Always has and always will whilst the 3 witches are still there.
ReplyDeleteSadly Cadre you are so very right.
DeleteAll who have ever stood up to be counted have been targeted and damaged in a myriad of ways by the Shire Administration.
The long forgotten Fitz Gerald report made that abundantly clear.
And to make matters worse the succession of jelly fish that have been rolled out as CEO's have allowed this to continue whilst the community tries its best to bring the truth to light and demand justice for the 10 years of persecution we have endured.
More power to the few brave souls who are still standing up to be counted because the persecution has not stopped to this very moment.
I can assure you, the Fitz Gerald Report has not, and will never be forgotten by those who were persecuted - nor has it been forgotten by their families and friends.
DeleteThe difference now is, most reasonable people in York have accepted the information in the Fitz Gerald Report as the truth of what happened.
The three stooges (Boyle, Hooper and Duperouzel) confirmed everything in the Report as the truth when they panicked and voted (in breach of the Local Government Act) to withhold it.
They thought they could hide it, but it didn't work because the F.G.R. is now on both Blogs for the world to read.
Not sure how those three stooges or any of those involved in the persecution and bullying of residents can face the people in York. They are all disgusting specimens of the Human race. Shame on them all!
Here's another link to the Fitz Gerald Report, this time the final report as presented to Council:
Deletehttp://yorkwatransparency.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/7/1/42713461/york_final_report.pdf
Thank you for the link to the official copy of the Fitz Gerald Report James.
DeleteI spent an hour reading it and I feel sick.
Did Ray Hooper resign because he didn't have the guts to face the music and explain his appalling out of control behaviour?
All councillors since the appointment of Ray Hooper have a lot to answer for, including Fisher and a current sitting councillors Randell and Smythe.
Tony Boyle and Pat Hooper as Shire Presidents and Roy Scott, Brian Lawrence as Deputy Shire Presidents were a bloody disgrace! They relished in the glory and not one of them had the spinal fortitude to stand up to Ray Hooper and do what was right. The treatment of Cr Walters by Boyle, Hooper and Hooper was disgraceful and shows the level these men stooped to in their attempt to get her to resign. These 'so called men' claim to be upstanding citizens of the York community and one somehow got approved as a JP and yet their behaviour is that of bullies who operate in the shadows.
It is unbelievable the people of York voted Randell and Smythe back in - what were they thinking?
I hope people (including other Shires) read this Report prior to using the services of the Town Planner.
page 20 - item 6.17 Is it any wonder York residents are calling for DCEO Cochrane to resign. Her appointment was an inside set up and dishonest. How does she hold her head up in public?
York will not move forward until all the issues in the Fitz Gerald Report are dealt with.
Fitz Gerald Report item 6.17:
Delete'Ms Walters states that she walked into a Forward Planning Meeting one day and witnessed Ray Hooper and Graham Stanley saying to Tyhscha Cochrane “Don’t worry, the job is yours!” Following which Tyhscha was appointed to the position of Deputy CEO without other applicants being interviewed and/or without the job being properly advertised. Ms Walters states that WALGA had identified two other candidates, but they were not interviewed and that Ray Hooper just gave the job to Ms Cochrane. Ms Walters described the structure underRay Hooper as one of nepotism and cronyism.'
We all know Tyhscha doesn't have tertiary qualifications for the DCEO position and she proved she is incompetent.
DeleteDoesn't it worry her the residents of York know she only got the job because Ray knew he could manipulate her.
What worries me is that none of the senior management in that organisation has any qualifications.
DeleteDoes the A/CEO have a proper qualification that proves he can read, write and add up.
Its all smoke and mirrors with the rest of them.
How frustrating it is when a member of the public raises a valid issue and is then ignored because the relevant officer has no idea what is being relayed to them. Simply does not have the brains to comprehend the issue.
When questions are asked the administration closes ranks and protects the incompetent party at all coasts, usually ours.
How much longer can this farce continue.
We are heading toward a recession, should the community be expected to pay top dollar for incompetent people when fully qualified, highly experienced individuals are readily available.
I implore the new CEO to introduce meaningful KPI's and insist on compliance, or manage the non compliant individuals out the door.
Anonymous4 December 2015 at 19:46 I agree, I am sick of my money supporting incompetent, arrogant and very rude Senior female Staff.
DeleteKPI's - then out the door they go.
Didn't Mr Kreig get a copy of the Minority report on behalf of the people of York? If so why won't he share it here? It's irrelevant if its suppressed by the Shire. It was obtained legally so share it please Mr Kreig.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened with the fraud squad investigation? Have they arrested anyone?
DeleteAnonymous 65 2 December 2015 at 14:44
DeleteThe Minority Report is a confidential document written by Pat Hooper.
Would you consider requesting the document under Freedom of Information?
After all, if its been released once it can be released again.
The Shire should make it public anyway.
It was supposed to be available the Monday following the Council elections.
DeleteThe secrecy continues!
As Cadre has so clearly pointed out Mr Kreig is rightfully fearful of vindictive persecution.
ReplyDeleteHe is a 70 year old man with a wife, children and grandchildren, non of them deserve what has already happened to dozens of us in York.
Let us younger less vulnerable souls step up to be counted.
I will ask the CEO at the next council meeting myself why he is refusing to release the Minority Report.
I will also ask why CEO Simpson and James Best ignored my advice when I condemned Chalkies as unsafe for public use prior to the decision being made to purchase it.
And then there is the small matter of putting large trucks on roads that have not been maintained let alone been assessed for risk.
Hell they didn't even check the bridges.
I have no children, no wife and strong family that are well versed in dealing with scum.
Time for some straight answers.
Is the A/CEO actually refusing to release Pat Hooper's 'minority report' - or has nobody asked for it yet?
DeleteIf Mr Krieg has obtained a copy, I would be very grateful for the opportunity to publish it in full on this blog.
'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' The more we know of the truth and make it public, the less reason there will be for anyone to feel afraid.
Local Civil Engineer2 December 2015 at 22:10 -
DeleteThank you.
I hope your voice is heard loud and clear by the younger people in York, after all it is their future we have been fighting to protect.
I am sure you will receive support and backing of those who have been fighting this war on corruption. You will certainly have mine.
As an ex employee - I can say with my hand on my heart that Councillors Smythe and Lawrence DID NOT always abide by ex CEO Ray Hoopers practices or treatment of people. Many times I over heard very heated arguments where they went up against Ray Hooper. Let me assure you, it was better they were there than not....they tried tirelessly to keep the other bastards honest...
ReplyDeleteTo ex employee - you say Smythe and Lawrence 'did not always' abide by ex CEO Ray Hoopers practices. History shows they did mostly!
DeleteYou obviously did not see Smythe's disgraceful behaviour during the elections for the Deputy Shire President. It changed my view on her and she no longer has my respect!.
Lawrence used his power when he was a Councillor - he is not a nice person! Look at who voted to prosecute various innocent people in York!
Smythe looks out for Smythe.
ReplyDeleteShe did not get to be Deputy Shire President by popular vote - she got there through the luck of the draw!
Can't blame someone for the luck of the draw! It was a fair vote that was tied...someone had to be drawn to win.
DeleteNo one is blaming her, just saying she did not get the popular vote!
ReplyDelete