…but you may not want to
believe it!
Somebody calling him- or herself ‘A person who would like to see the
truth out there’ has sent me a copy of an email from Ray Hooper to Mark
Duperouzel. The document is reproduced at the end of this post.
I’ve no clue as to how that person came
into possession of the email but I’m convinced of its authenticity. I’ll go so far as to say on stylistic
grounds that nobody other than Ray Hooper could have written it. It bears the stamp of his unique
personality in every line.
For the benefit of people unfamiliar with
York’s political landscape over recent years, Ray Hooper is a former CEO of the
Shire of York and Mark Duperouzel used to be Deputy President of the Shire.
Ray Hooper resigned from his employment
with the Shire in April 2014. His
departure met with widespread rejoicing among the ratepayers and residents of
York. Mark Duperouzel resigned
from his office and council in November of that year.
Ray Hooper, the Sage of
Alexander Heights
My decision to publish the email has not
been taken lightly.
My friends will tell you I’m a man who
likes to please everyone. Giving the
email so public an airing will not please Ray Hooper, who as you can see marked
it ‘STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL’. Nor is it likely to please Mark Duperouzel, who by his own account
resigned to devote more time to his business and family and may these days wish
he had never got involved in local politics at all.
(However, Mark is the man who at one of
James Best’s poorly attended ‘visioning’ meetings proposed that those of us who
declined to take part in Best’s nonsense should be ‘named and shamed’—no
kidding! He may still have his toe
in the water, for all I know.)
It may not please former councillors and successive
shire presidents Pat Hooper and Tony Boyle—though Pat Hooper’s capacity to
bounce back with equanimity from the torrent of public opprobrium that followed
his exposure as author of the so-called ‘Minority Report’ is nothing short of
heroic, so he may not worry about further evidence of his talent for duplicity and
deceit.
Pat’s even got himself elected as president
of the local bowling club. A truly
amazing man, then, whose influence on Council’s deliberations persists through
his protΓ©gΓ© Cr Randell, as I think was made manifest in Council’s decision on the
Ashworth Road truck depot.
Mark 'Name and
Shame 'Em!'
Duperouzel
Pat's elevation promptly led, I’m told, to
the resignation from the club of the previous president. It sounds a bit like politics in
sub-Saharan Africa, except that the previous president wasn’t shot,
macheted or
driven into exile in a neighbouring shire.
Pat 'Minority Report' Hooper
Tony 'Standards Panel' Boyle
A
guide to reading Ray’s email
The email is dated 27 July 2014, a full
three months after Ray Hooper’s resignation from the position of Shire of York CEO.
It appears to respond to a request from
Shire Deputy President Duperouzel for advice on what to do about the Fitz
Gerald Report (FGR). It is highly
probable that Crs Boyle and Hooper, who are mentioned in the email, were
parties, though not signatories, to that request.
to read the final version of the report.
Under the State Records Act, Shire Deputy
President Duperouzel was obliged to submit copies of Ray’s email, and of his
own request for advice, to the Shire of York. Did he? If not, should that failure be referred to the WA
Corruption and Crime Commission?
Impropriety
It was improper that Shire Deputy President
Duperouzel should have been asking for such advice from ex-CEO Hooper, and
scarcely less so that Ray Hooper responded to it as he did. Any such request should have been
directed to Acting CEO Michael Keeble, or failing that, to one of the overpaid
and underworked drones in the DLGC who would no doubt have been glad to be
given something to do to destabilise York’s popular and reformist shire
president, Matthew Reid.
It seems equally underhand and no less
improper for councillors to seek guidance from ex-CEO Ray Hooper without first acquainting
A/CEO Keeble and Shire President Reid of their intention.
The
Fitz Gerald Report
The email shows Ray Hooper to have been
extremely worried that the FGR might be released into the public domain. Those of us who’ve studied the report
won’t be even slightly surprised by this; it describes in lurid detail aspects
of the reign of dishonesty and terror unleashed on York under his stewardship,
apparently with the full backing and in some instances complicity of a majority
of councillors. As well, it
touches on questions concerning shire finances about which the former CEO was
extremely sensitive, in particular the use of a corporate credit card.
Again, it comes as no surprise that Ray’s
advice to Mark, Tony and Pat (‘the three of you’) is to adopt underhanded
tactics to remove the FGR from circulation. Notice, in his second paragraph, the phrase ‘in our
favour’—was he plotting a comeback?
His advice in that paragraph amounts to
this: that Mark as Deputy Shire
President should call a special meeting of councillors, in the absence of Shire
President Reid, to decide the fate of the FGR. If five councillors were present—the best scenario—Mark,
Tony and Pat would be in the majority. If only four were present, Mark, as chairman, would have a
casting vote. In the expert
opinion of former CEO Hooper, that would be a worse outcome because using the
casting vote ‘could lead to public dissent’. We can’t have that, can we?
The
public’s right to know v. the Shire’s right to keep it ignorant
Ray’s dictatorial contempt for public
opinion emerges more vividly in the advice given in his next paragraph, that
‘if possible, all contentious matters should be listed for special Council
meetings’. No agenda needs to be
given out in advance of such meetings, limiting the public’s opportunity of
finding out what the council (or more correctly, the shire administration) has
in mind for the shire before any decision is made.
Note, too, this cut-price Machiavelli’s
insistence that ‘Any matters relating to staff’ should come before Council ‘as
a Confidential Report’.
Ask yourself—why should council staff be
protected to that extent from public scrutiny of their conduct and other
matters pertaining to their employment?
Why should they be treated more favourably
in this respect than ratepayers and residents whose least consequential
infractions of local laws appear in detail in documentation presented to
council? Above all, what about the
public’s right to know about everything done in its name and that it pays for—including
employment of staff?
A few years ago Ray got very upset about
cartoons in the local paper representing him as an avatar of der FΓΌhrer complete
with swastika armband and Hitler-style moustache. I vaguely recall feeling sorry for him at the time. Who wants to be compared, even in jest,
with one of the most horrible villains in world history?
My sympathy has evaporated. The advice Ray peddles to Mark, Tony
and Pat in this email could have come straight from the pages of Mein Kampf.
Poor
me, says Ray, it’s so unfair
In his fourth paragraph, insisting on the
need to destroy all copies of the FGR and refrain from publishing it further,
Ray strikes a note of self-pity not unlike that depicted in a much-parodied
scene from the German film Der Untergang
(Downfall), about the final days of
the Third Reich.
‘No attempt,’ Ray complains, ‘has been made to afford me any
level of natural justice throughout this stressful and debilitating
period.’
How those sorrowful words must resonate with
the unfortunate victims of Shire persecution who crowd the pages of the FGR!
Ray goes on to observe that ‘certain
sections of the community will seize any opportunity to besmirch my
character…’ At first blush this comes over as
paranoia, but on reflection it seems no more or less than the truth. The strange thing is that Ray doesn’t
seem ever to have asked himself why those ‘sections of the community’ regarded
and continue to regard him with feelings ranging from mere distaste tempered with
amusement to bitter hostility and scorn.
Social
media—triumph of the blogs
Ray’s penultimate paragraph contains a
veiled threat, that if the FGR is not dealt with as he advises, Council and the
Shire might end up ‘being joined in any potential legal claim’—that is, a claim
arising from further dissemination of the FGR.
He seems to have reckoned without the power
of social media and the Internet.
Virtually from the day of its first publication, the FGR has been
available electronically. It has
been cited and quoted on several blogs, including this one and its sister, the Shire of York Official Unofficial Website.
Strangely, though, I have found no evidence
of legal proceedings having been launched by Ray Hooper or any councillor or
shire official mentioned in the FGR.
Nor have I seen any attempt by any of those individuals, including the
DCEO, to defend their reputations in any other public forum. In my view, those two states of affairs
are not unconnected.
Authenticity
When I received the email, I had a
momentary concern about its authenticity.
I observed that it was unsigned, and further, that it emanated from an
email address that seemed to have no association with Ray Hooper at all.
As I studied its contents, I soon came to
the conclusion that only Ray could have written it. A phrase like ‘perpetual antagonists’
gives the game away, as does the telling comment that a particular outcome
‘would be in our favour while appearing to be open and accountable’—vintage
Ray, in my opinion.
But I was left with the mystery
of the email address. Who, I
wondered, is the helpful Debbie Scaturro?
What could be her connection with the Sage of Alexander Heights?
As usual in such situations, I went to the
FIGJAM website Linked In, to see if
Ms Scaturro has a presence there.
Indeed she does. As well as
working as an administrator for a Perth firm of consultants, she is a
consultant for a company trading in bedroom accessories of an erotic
nature—what used to be known in a more innocent age as ‘marital aids’—together with unguents and lotions designed to stimulate the senses and enliven amatory inclinations.
The company in question styles itself Pure Romance. Alas, I am too long in the tooth to consider myself a
potential customer of such an enterprise, especially in the current hot
weather, but if any of my readers feels inclined to put some business Ms
Scaturro’s way, here’s the relevant website:
Ms Scaturro presents herself as
‘Entertaining, empowering & educating women…ask me,’ she goes on, ‘how to
have fun with friends, shop for free, make extra$$$’ and she signs off as ‘Your
own Intimacy Advisor.’
Ms Scaturro is also registered with Facebook
and Twitter and has a Pinterest website.
She appears to enjoy an active social life and judging from her
photograph (below) is a pleasant, cheerful and attractive young woman.
So how, I asked myself, could such a person
have anything to do with Ray Hooper?
Is she a kind neighbour who helps him out with technology—never his
strong point, I’m told—or an editor or amanuensis helping him to write his
memoirs?
Does anybody know the answer? What on earth has Ray Hooper to do with pure romance?
