GREAT WALL BLUES

Chinese local authority ‘vandalism’ goes viral on the Net

Last week the Internet buzzed with reports from China concerning the concreting over of a mile-long section, dating from 1381, of the historic Great Wall.

The dubious ‘restoration’ was carried out on the orders of the Cultural Relics Bureau of Suizhong, a county forming part of northeast China’s Liaoning Province.

One observer complained that what had previously been ‘an unkempt, haunting 700-year stretch of the wall’ now resembled ‘a cement skateboarding lane dumped in the wilderness’.

Ding Hui, chairman of the Cultural Relics Bureau, acknowledged that the changes to the wall were aesthetically ‘not ideal’, adding that ‘the repairs really don’t look good’.

Park officer Liu Fusheng, who first alerted the public and media to what the Bureau had done, called it ‘an act of vandalism carried out in the name of preservation.’ 

He told an interviewer that even little children could see that the work had been botched.

‘It’s like a head that’s lost its nose and ears’, Mr. Liu said.  He explained that the Bureau was supposed to have restored original features of the wall, like fallen stone carvings and crenellations, but had chosen instead to save money by using new bricks and concrete and ‘tossing the carvings aside’.

 

Photo: Shanghaiist.com

Unrepentant

Despite the furor that erupted on national and social media, some local officials remain unrepentant about the Suizhong Bureau’s decision.

Bureau CEO, Wei Hupo, was the most outspoken, describing complainers as ‘idiots and scoffers’ who should reflect on the quality of their lives and ‘either shut up or expect a visit from the municipal ranger’.

Local business identity and former member of the Bureau’s governing committee, Ah Wonwa, refused to be fazed by criticism that the work had ruined a piece of China’s history. 

‘History isn’t for Suizhong’, he said.  ‘It’s only for silk scrolls and embroidered fans’.

An equally dismissive response came from Suizhong celebrity chef and Bureau committee member Wang Delti when he was asked about the likely impact on tourism of the Bureau’s action, which contravened its own policy of restoring historical monuments to their pristine state. 

‘People need to remember that Suizhong isn’t a big city like Shanghai or Shenzhen’, Mr. Wang told a reporter from the Liaoning Gazette and Communist Party Calendar. 

‘It’s in the country, so we have to take a flexible approach to this sort of thing.  Tourists like to walk on our section of the Great Wall, but now and then they used to slip on the ancient bricks.  Any fool knows it’s safer to walk on concrete. 

I anticipate millions of safety conscious tourists coming here, not to mention skateboarders eager for a new and unusual challenge’.

Told that some local residents were up in arms over unsightly damage done to the Great Wall, Mr. Wang replied that he wasn’t interested in the views of such people because they were known to be newcomers to Suizhong. 

‘I think they should be run out of town,’ he said. ‘And my friend and political adviser, Pa Hupa, agrees with me.  If your family hasn’t lived in Suizhong since Confucius invented prawn crackers and dim sums, you don’t count for much around here.

Those troublemakers can bugger off back to Beijing.’

http://shanghaiist.com/2016/09/26/great_wall_of_concrete_investigation.php

http://epaper.bjnews.com.cn/html/2016-09/26/content_653617.htm?div=-1

 

NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

Paul Miles takes over as local government minister

Following the unseemly, not to say bizarre, departure from office of local government minister Tony Simpson last weekend, Premier Colin Barnett has appointed Paul Miles MLA to replace him. 

Mr. Miles, Liberal member for Wanneroo in the lower house of the WA parliament, will not have to exert himself overmuch to improve on his underperforming predecessor.

The new minister was elected to parliament in 2008.  Previously, he had served as councillor for the City of Wanneroo’s North Ward.  He has an impressive record of community involvement, including stints as president, vice-president, treasurer and secretary of the Wanneroo Lions Club.

Since 2013, he has held the position of parliamentary secretary to the attorney general and the minister for commerce.  He has also chaired the parliament’s joint standing committee on delegated legislation.

Hansard records that Mr. Miles in the course of his parliamentary career has made more than 370 speeches covering a wide range of topics.  His inaugural speech (or ‘maiden speech’, as it used to be known before the virus of political correctness congested the lungs of legislative deliberation) focussed on planning and road safety issues in his electorate.

In his life before politics, Mr. Miles worked in information technology as a senior technician.   Last month, he joined the WA Council for the Ageing in hosting a forum in Wanneroo on cyber security attended, according to his website, by ‘over 100 tech-savvy seniors’.

Mr. Miles now faces what I fancy he will come to regard as the challenge of a lifetime—namely, taking control of the multifarious self-replicating shape-changing lifeforms infesting the headquarters of the WA Department of Local Government and Communities in Gordon Stephenson House.

I wish him all the luck he’s going to need.

Hon. Paul Miles, MLA, Minister for Local Government

POSTSCRIPT:  Please note that my mischievous characterisation of DLGC bureaucrats wasn’t intended to apply to everyone employed by the department.  It was aimed solely at the senior staff responsible, among other evils, for the sacking of our council in 2014; for the appointment of James Best as commissioner, with all of its horrible consequences including the shifty purchase for an outrageous price of the Old Convent School; and for the subsequent persecution of Shire President Reid, culminating in his resignation shortly after resuming office.  We know who those people are, and so do they. 

It wasn’t intended to apply to everyone working for the DLGC.  I’m sure many of them at more junior levels were as disgusted as were most people in York by the actions of their superiors. 

*******

Bowled over?  Yes, but not out

In an article posted at the end of August  (Bowling Club President Pat Hooper Bowls for the Jack but Winds Up Well and Truly Skittled) I responded to a complaint from Mr. Hooper, aired in an open letter addressed to me and in a question he put to Council.

The complaint was that in an earlier article I had said that in 2012 the Shire had taken out a loan for the club but had subsequently waived the club’s obligation to repay the loan in instalments of roughly $30,000 per year.

According to Mr. Hooper, the club ‘had never received or sought’ any such loan.  He demanded an apology.

In my response, I apologised for having mistakenly typed ‘2012’ when I meant ‘2008’.  I then drew attention to the minutes of the special council meeting held on 5 September 2008, which record the offer of a self-supporting contingency loan to the club repayable over 15 years by annual instalments of $29,799.

The club had requested the loan to replace its grass greens with synthetic greens in the event of being unable to get the necessary funds from other sources—hence the ‘contingency’.

I admitted that I had failed in my search of council minutes to find later references to the loan.

Questions

Not long after posting my response, I submitted a series of questions—in writing, not in person—to the September ordinary council meeting.  They were framed as a single composite question.  You’ll find those questions and the Shire’s answers on page 7 of the unconfirmed minutes of that meeting, published on the Shire’s website earlier this week.

As it turned out, only three of my questions required answers (the answers to the first two rendered the others irrelevant).  The only questions of importance here are the first two.  They read as follows:

(a) Did the York Bowling Club in 2008, when Mr. Hooper held the office of Shire President, or at any other time seek a loan from the Shire for the purpose of replacing the grass greens at its former premises with synthetic greens or for any other purpose?

(b) Did the Club accept the Shire’s offer of a loan of $250,000.00 on the terms and conditions indicated above or any variation of them?

Responding to the first question, the Shire confirmed that the York Bowling Club had indeed requested a contingency loan as described above for the purpose of replacing its greens. 

So Mr. Hooper was wrong to suggest that the club had never sought such a loan—but right, of course, to say that the club had not done so in 2012, a fact acknowledged in my article of 30 August.

The answer to the second question was that the Shire had not raised the loan referred to on behalf of the York Bowling Club. 

So I was wrong to suggest that the club had received such a loan, and that repayments had later been waived.

The answer went on to point out that the Shire’s not raising the loan was reported ‘in the financial statements of the 2008/09 Annual Report’.  The 2008/09 Annual Report is my favourite bed-time reading, so goodness knows how I contrived to miss that crucial detail.

I’m happy to stand corrected, and to apologise to the club’s membership, past and present, for my error and for any anger, anxiety or suicidal ideation it may have provoked.

If you see a diminutive figure prowling along Avon Terrace covered in sackcloth and ashes, wailing mea culpa and lashing his back with a nail-studded whip, it will probably be me. 

(Unless it’s Mr. Hooper, belatedly making atonement for his authorship of the infamous ‘Minority Report’.)

An earlier request for money

There was an earlier occasion when the York Bowling Club sought money from the Shire—this time, however, not as a loan, but as a grant of $80,500 to help pay for the replacement of a grass green with a synthetic one.

You can read all about it on pages 72 to 74 of the minutes of the ordinary council meeting held on 15 October 2007, chaired by Shire President Pat Hooper (yes, the very same...).  The transaction is recorded under the heading ‘Late Reports’ as item ‘9.5.1 Application for Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund Grant in 2008/2009’.

The grant (or ‘allocation’, as the minutes describe it) is explained as one-third of the cost of replacing a single green, the remaining two-thirds to be funded equally by the club and the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund, managed I believe by the Department of Sport and Recreation.

Did the York Bowling Club accept this ‘allocation’?  I don’t know, and I won’t risk diminishing the force and value of my apology to the club by taking steps to find out.

One thing puzzles me, though.  In his ‘open letter’, Mr. Hooper ‘reminded’ me of something I hadn’t previously known, namely that ‘the Bowling Club contributed $80,000 to the Forrest Oval reconstruction’.

Would that by any chance be the same money, or most of it, that the club appears to have received as an allocation from the Shire towards the cost of a new synthetic green?
 
Or was Mr. Hooper referring to the club’s agreed contribution to a new green as recorded in the October 2007 minutes?
 

*******

Kerrie and Farren Wheeler are returning to Esperance.  Does this spell the end of the York Carriage Diner? 

From Facebook:

York Carriage Diner

6 hrs ·

Kellie and Farren are terribly sorry that due to personal reason we have had to close the carriage earlier then expected, we are very very sorry for the inconvenience and would like to thank you all again for your support #york #eat

From Michael Watts and Rob Cameron:

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Kellie and Farren for their time at the Diner.

We wish them every success for the future when they return home to Esperance to start their new venture.

The Diner therefore, will be closed indefinitely from the 1st October 2016, in order to negotiate a replacement team; although we will be open for special functions such as the "Medieval Fayre" on the 2nd October and the "All Ford Day" on the 6th November 2016.

Interested parties in either leasing or buying the business should contact Michael Watts of Elders York - 9641 3000 or Rob Cameron on 0451 944 877.

*******

MIRTH IN MUKINBUDIN

 (New material added 17 September 2016)

There was mirth in Mukinbudin, for the word had got around

That an Acting CEO was on his way:

There was merriment in Maddock Street, the depot and the pound,

When they heard the new messiah’s name was Ray.

‘This is just the man we’re needing’, cried the Shire President,

‘He’s a marvel, he’s a miracle, he’s a gem;

To which York and Chittering ratepayers will cheerfully assent

When they tell you what Ray Hooper did for them.

I’ve known old Ray for fifty years, since he and I were sprogs,

He’s got passion, brains and competence to spare.

Who cares that troublemakers whinge about him on their blogs?

He’s impervious, and doesn’t turn a hair.

So take no heed of grumbling from the distant shire of York,

Nor of twittering from Chittering—none of that,

We’ll just get advice from WALGA, maybe have a little talk

With bowler Pat, and Trevor in his hat…”

From The Mugs of Mukinbudin, by Teddy ‘Topsoil’ Higgs

Don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m still struggling to recover from the shock of David Taylor’s revelation on the other blog that our former CEO Ray Hooper has been appointed Acting CEO for the Shire of Mukinbudin.

I’m not sure yet why Mukinbudin needs an Acting CEO.  I can only assume that Mr. Stuart Billingham, who has held the position since June 2013—and is still listed as CEO on the Shire’s website—is taking leave of absence, leaving the door open for Shire President Gary Shadbolt and his fellow councillors to take leave of their senses.

Or perhaps Mr. Billingham has resigned to work elsewhere and hasn’t got round yet to updating his page on the FIGJAM site LinkedIn. 

Mukinbudin Shire President Gary Shadbolt

  

Anointed

Whatever the case may be with respect to Mr. Billingham, it appears that Mr. Hooper was duly anointed Acting CEO at a special meeting of Mukinbudin Shire Council on 19 August 2016. 

Needless to say, the council met in secret conclave in accordance with the provisions of section 5.23 (2) (c) of the Local Government Act.  That section permits a council to exclude the public from witnessing discussion of ‘a contract entered into…by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.’ 

WALGA

It’s said that WALGA recommended Mr. Hooper for the acting position.  Can you believe it? 

Yes, easily, when you remember that WALGA is no friend to the ratepayers of WA.   It’s a body that exists primarily to promote the interests and travel opportunities of councillors and local government staff, and to provide an annual talkfest for its members at taxpayers' and ratepayers’ expense.

Nor is WALGA a friend to the idea of open, honest and accountable local government.   

At its conference in 2015, WALGA’s membership voted down proposals from John Carey, Mayor of Vincent that would have gone some way to disperse the fog of secrecy that envelops local government at every level in WA, concealing rorting, corruption and systematic abuse of privilege and power. 

(Just ask WA premier Colin Barnett if you think I’m painting too lurid a picture of what goes on.)

No investigation…

It’s also said that in recommending Mr. Hooper as Acting CEO, WALGA assured the Mukinbudin Council that he had been ‘exonerated’ of all allegations made against him.

If so, that assurance is not true. 

The truth is that those allegations have never been investigated—not by the Fraud Squad, and not by the Corruption and Crime Commission.

What the Fraud Squad came up with was hardly ‘exoneration’ if the little we have been told about what it reported to the Shire of York is true. 

All the police seem to have done is shift the blame over to councillors of a past era on the basis that they approved ‘issues’ that might otherwise have amounted to wrongdoing.  The Shire has declined to tell us what those issues are.

For some reason, nobody in authority wants to carry out a proper investigation into such matters as the sale of the Old Convent and Mr. Hooper’s use of the Shire’s corporate credit card.

Nor are we ever likely to witness a full investigation by the Shire or any other body into allegations of bullying and abuse of authority contained in the Fitz Gerald Report.

…means no exoneration

You can’t have exoneration without first having a thorough investigation.  Thanks to successive floundering councils, over-cautious administrations, and a bullying state government bureaucracy, that too is something we are never likely to see.

Remember how perfunctorily the Department of Local Government dismissed what it called ‘historical issues’ and instructed Commissioner Best to hose down dissent in York?

Perhaps there is more than one delicate reputation depending precariously on the truth never coming out.

As Cr Saint pointed out a few months ago, the information handed over to police late last year was in all probability incomplete.  I suspect that the Shire deliberately withheld a good deal of relevant material.

I also suspect that some relevant material may have gone missing from the records.  We’ll never know.

As for the farce whereby the Corruption and Crime Commission returned documents to Graeme Simpson and James Best for them to carry out their own investigation—well, what more is there to say about that?

There seems to be little or no appetite on Council to pursue matters further.

Why Mr. Hooper should demand an investigation

Nothing of what I have said should be seen as a definitive judgement on my part of Mr. Hooper’s innocence or otherwise in relation to the allegations levelled at him.  He is of course entitled to the presumption of innocence.

The problem is that without proper investigation of all the available evidence, and without hearing his side of the story, nobody is in a position to make a judgement of that kind.

By the same token, WALGA is in no position to declare that Mr. Hooper has been exonerated. Neither is Mr. Hooper.  He is free to deny the allegations, but without an investigation that clears him, his reputation will remain under a cloud.

In the event of an investigation having such an outcome, I promise to make a comprehensive public apology for having ever doubted his integrity.  I would then encourage other York dissidents to do the same.

I must say, though, that if I were an innocent man accused of financial dishonesty, I would be clamouring for every allegation to be stringently investigated—every document scrutinised, every witness interrogated, every scrap of evidence weighed by the keenest of forensic minds.

But as the poet says:

Still the world is wondrous large—seven seas from marge to marge—
And it holds a vast of different kinds of man;
And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Khatmandhu
And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban.

(Rudyard Kipling, from In a Neolithic Age)

*******

BREAKING NEWS 

Minister for Local Government Tony Simpson resigns, citing lack of confidence in the Premier

Most people in York will be far from dismayed to learn that Tony Simpson, MLA for Darling Range, has stepped down from his position in Cabinet and will presumably serve out the remainder of this parliamentary term as a humble backbencher.

He has given as the reason for his resignation his belief that ‘the Premier’s leadership and the government’s direction are not serving the people of Western Australia.’

He said that he had resigned ‘reluctantly and with a heavy heart’, adding that he would not be the one ‘to drive a change of leadership’ but would give voice in the Liberal party room to his opinions on the topic.

Mr. Simpson will be remembered in York as the minister who on his department’s flawed advice, based in part on former councillor Pat Hooper’s infamous ‘minority report’, decided to sack our democratically elected shire council led by a popular reform-minded shire president, Matthew Reid.

He was also responsible, again on his department’s advice, for the catastrophic decision to appoint James Best, formerly mayor of South Perth, as commissioner to replace the sacked council.

That makes him, along with his advisers, indirectly responsible for such apparently inexplicable follies as the Shire's purchase of Chalkies at a grossly inflated price and an historically high and unjustified increase in our rates. 

Premier Barnett described Mr. Simpson as ‘a good minister’, saying he was sorry to see him go.

Perhaps the premier either never knew about or has forgotten the damage done to York and his government’s reputation by this foolish minister and his disastrous protégé, James Best.

Tony Simpson was not a good minister but a miserable failure.  He failed York, and he failed to implement his government’s program for local government amalgamation.

Let’s hope he isn’t replaced by somebody even less suited to the job.

17 September 2016

BOWLING CLUB PRESIDENT PAT HOOPER GOES FOR THE JACK BUT WINDS UP WELL AND TRULY SKITTLED

 (Postscript added 2 September 2016)

No apple for the teacher this time, just a few friendly words of advice

Mark Lloyd, my opposite number at York & Districts Community Matters, has kindly passed on to me a letter he received from a certain Mr. J P McG. Hooper, JP, of this parish. 

Some readers may remember Mr. Hooper.  He is a former York shire president, exposed by York’s blogs as author of the so-called ‘Minority Report’ that in 2014 encouraged Local Government Minister Tony Simpson to suspend our democratically elected council of which Mr. Hooper himself was at the time a member.

Mr. Hooper secretly submitted the report to the minister after publicly voting with other councillors to oppose the proposed suspension.

Since then, Mr. Hooper has crawled out of his funkhole and craftily reinvented himself as president of York’s bowling club.

I recall observing on his taking up that office that ‘underarm’ was a step up from ‘underhand’.

Mr J P ('Pat') Hooper, President, York Bowling Club and author of 'The minority report'

Anyway, back to his letter.  It is addressed as an ‘open letter’ to me, rudely styling me as ‘Mr.’ James Plumridge  (just ‘James Plumridge’ would have been fine if ‘Dr.’ was sticking in his craw).   

It is a letter of complaint demanding that I make a public apology.  Mr. Hooper asked Mr. Lloyd to publish the letter in September’s YDCM.

However, Mr. Lloyd wisely and fairly decided that I should have the opportunity to respond to the letter in The REAL Voice of York, where the matter Mr. Hooper complains of first appeared.  He has informed Mr. Hooper of his decision.

Without further ado, I give you Mr. Hooper’s ‘open letter’.

(Click to enlarge)

In effect, Mr. Hooper accuses me of misleading readers of the blog by making false claims about the bowling club’s past indebtedness to the York Shire Council.

Here is the text of my remarks touching on the bowling club exactly as they appeared in my article on York’s hungry ‘white elephants’, posted on 23 June 2016.

I was under the impression that the expense of providing services for the benefit of sporting clubs would be to some extent defrayed by agreed contributions from the clubs.   

Apparently that was once the case, but is no longer so.  Council waived that requirement a couple of years ago.

I recall that in 2012 or thereabouts, the Shire took out a loan for the Bowls Club that the club agreed to repay at the rate of around $30,000 per year.  It appears the remaining balance of that debt was also waived. 

Next year, the Shire expects to spend $11,350 on turf maintenance for the bowling greens and to receive green fees of $8,320 (a net cost to ratepayers of $3,030).   Of course, the club wasn’t responsible for the sinkhole, so we’ve really no right to grumble.

Allegedly false claim No. 1:  That in 2012 or thereabouts the bowling club obtained a loan from the Shire with annual repayments of around $30,000.

My response:  The date was wrong (a typo, mea culpa), but otherwise the claim was correct.

I refer Mr. Hooper to page 39 of the minutes of the special council meeting held on 5 September 2008 to confirm the proposed annual budget for financial year 2008/9.  I believe he was at that time shire president, but did not preside over this meeting because he was on approved leave until 19 October 2008.  Acting Shire President Brian Lawrance took his place. 

Other councillors present were Trevor Randell, Tony Boyle, Ashley Fisher and Tricia Walters.

Under the general heading ‘Loans and Self Supporting Loan Information’, the minutes record a self-supporting ‘contingency loan’ to the York Bowling Club of $250,000.00 repayable over 15 years by instalments of $29,799.00 per annum.  If the loan had run full-term, the club would have had to repay a total of $446, 985.00 with a total interest component of $196,985.00. 

It was billed as a ‘contingency loan’ because the York Bowling Club had asked for it ‘in case they [were] not successful in gaining sufficient grant funding to replace the existing grass greens with synthetic bowling greens’.  Those must have been the greens at the club’s old premises, because the YRCC was still in 2008 not much more than a slowly brightening gleam in CEO Hooper’s eye.

I searched council minutes for later references to the loan but found none.  That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, merely that I failed in my search.  If they do exist, and Mr. Hooper knows where they can be found, let him please point me in their direction.

A further point:  if the loan was accepted, and repayments have not been waived, then the club is contractually obliged to go on paying nearly $30K per annum to the Shire until 2023.  

Allegedly false claim no. 2:  That the Shire waived all debt relating to the loan.

My response:  That isn’t quite what I said.  The words I used were ‘the remaining balance of the debt’.  Admittedly, after only a few years of repayments, the remaining balance would have comprised most of the loan.

I have no access and seek none to the financial records of the York Bowling Club, but it seems clear to me that if the club were still forking over nearly $30K a year to the Shire, its president and management committee might by now have come to notice the continuing drain on their funds.  Mr. Hooper’s letter makes it clear that if ever such a drain existed, it ceased operating a while ago.

It’s possible that the club received sufficient funding from other agencies and had no reason to take up the Shire’s offer.  Information obtained from a usually reliable source indicated that that was unlikely to have been the case.

The same source also indicated that the club had in fact accepted the loan but that further repayments were waived because the club had transferred its activities to the YRCC.  

If Mr. Hooper would like to take issue with this version of events and to clarify the club’s actual position regarding the loan, he is most welcome to do so on this blog. 

Regular readers of the blog will confirm that I am always happy for my mistakes to be corrected and have never failed to accord space to such corrections on the rare occasions when they have been necessary.   

I also said I was ‘under the impression’ that the sporting clubs had agreed to contribute towards the expense of running the YRCC, but that the Shire had waived that requirement.   I didn’t direct that comment specifically at the Bowling Club.

Allegedly false claim no. 3:  That the club was granted ‘special favour by waiving of funds they never received or sought’.

  

My response: The club did seek the funds mentioned in my article.  Mr. Hooper is in a better position than I am to say whether or not the club received them.

There was no suggestion or implication in what I wrote that the club got ‘special favour’ from the Shire, if by special favour Mr. Hooper meant a favour not available to other clubs.

I confess that my remarks in the same article about the Hockey Club, Shire President Wallace’s tender nursling, might reasonably be construed as an accusation of special favour. 

As I indicated at the time, those remarks were made in a heightened state of irritation because my English nephew, Kyle, a talented hockey player, had turned his back on the rest of his family, Brexiteers all, and voted to remain in the EU. 

But my tongue-in-cheek animadversions on that occasion had nothing to do with the Bowling Club.

A reminder

Mr. Hooper and his committee remind me that the Bowling Club ‘contributed $80,000 to the Forrest Oval reconstruction’, and relinquished its former premises as well as its former liquor licence.

I knew about the premises and the liquor license, but not about the $80,000.  I think club members were very foolish to let CEO Ray Hooper and his acolytes on Council con them into handing over such a large sum to the Shire and giving up their former premises and liquor licence in exchange for the dubious privilege of shifting their activities to the YRCC. 

By now, most Bowling Club members must surely agree with that verdict.  

The Bowling Club should have followed the example of the York Croquet Club, which eager to preserve its freedom, and guided by wise and intelligent leadership, elected to stick to its current venerable premises and flip the Shire the bird.

Recent photo of giant sinkhole, YRCC bowling green (Groundswell Images Pty Ltd)

Apologies

Mr. Hooper has demanded that I issue a public apology to the Bowling Club if I have no evidence to support my claim that the club entered into a loan arrangement with the Shire.

I think I have produced enough evidence to render such an apology superfluous. 

But to the extent that I have misrepresented any factual detail, or may have misled anyone in relation to matters of context or principle, I AM SORRY.

However, Mr. Hooper is absolutely excluded from the scope of that apology. 

I will not apologise to him about anything whatsoever, not even if he manifestly deserves an apology, until he has had the good grace to apologise to the people of York for his deceitful and treacherous conduct as author of the ‘Minority Report’. 

In that capacity, he played a significant part in unleashing the curse of James Best on York and must accept a corresponding degree of responsibility for the demoralising months of grief and strife that followed.

No apple for the teacher—Mr. Hooper’s language bloopers

I’m told that Mr. Hooper was for many years a teacher and deputy principal in the York District High School.

It’s therefore surprising that his letter contains some elementary English language bloopers.

Blooper no. 1:  The material he complains about was ‘brought’, not as he says ‘bought’, to the attention of his committee.  Sadly, this error is commonplace in Western Australia.  I wish I had a dollar for every time I encountered it in a student’s work.

Blooper no. 2:  Mr. Hooper in his fifth paragraph suggests that I might have to apologise for ‘an inference’.  I think he should have said ‘an implication’.  An implication is ‘something implied or suggested as naturally to be inferred without being expressly stated’ (Macquarie).  An inference is a logical consequence derived by deduction from a statement or premise whether expressed or implied.  For example, a speaker says something, at the same time implying something else; the listener infers that ‘something else’ from what the speaker says.

The erroneous reversal of meaning between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’ is now so commonplace that for more than 30 years the Macquarie lexicographers have classed it as ‘colloquial’.  Colloquial it may be, but surely it should be out of bounds for members or former members of the teaching or any other erudite profession. 

Blooper no. 3:  ‘Repayments…was’ in Mr. Hooper’s first paragraph should of course read ‘repayments…were’.  (Too obvious to merit further comment.)

I also have a problem with Mr. Hooper’s arithmetic.  In his second paragraph, he calculates that annual repayments of $30,000 meant that the loan must have ‘been in excess of [i.e. ‘more than’] $500,000’.

Well, no.  Annual repayments of $30,000 over the prescribed period of 15 years would amount to $450,000, which is not ‘in excess of’ half a million.  Assuming that the repayments included interest, we might reasonably infer that the actual loan would be much less than the total repayments, as indeed it was.

By the way, I thought Mr. Hooper was disputing the existence of the loan.  So how could he have known that the loan period was 15 years, which he must have done to arrive at anything like the (erroneous) figure he suggests?

My article gave no details of the loan other than the amount of the annual repayments.

Can it be that Mr. Hooper’s demand for an apology has arisen solely from a childish cavil regarding the date when the loan was taken out?

Hooper’s bloopers—jeepers creepers!  Sometimes I just want to pull a rug over my head and quietly give way to despair.

POSTSCRIPT:  At last month’s Ordinary Council Meeting, Mr. Hooper asked Council to confirm ‘that in 2012, or thereabouts…the Shire did not secure a loan on behalf of the York Bowling Club’.  (See pp. 7-8 of the current minutes, just released.)

He gave as his reason for asking the question that ‘a Dr James Plumridge’ (my word, he knows how to make a fellow feel special) had ‘blogged’ that the Shire had during the period stated taken out a loan for the club and had subsequently waived the balance of the debt.

I’ve confessed to having typed the wrong date.  But these questions remain:

1.              In 2008, did the Shire secure for the Bowling Club a contingency loan of $250,000 repayable by annual instalments of $29,799?

2.              Did the Bowling Club take up the loan?  If so, how many repayments did the club make to the Shire?

3.              If the club did take up the loan, did the Shire at any stage waive the balance of the loan, and if so, when?

4.              If the balance wasn’t waived, is the club still making annual repayments to the Shire?

5.              When he asked his question, did Mr. Hooper know that the Bowling Club had in fact been offered a loan in 2008—when he was Shire President—more or less matching the description given in the blog article he quotes from?

6.              If he did know that, why didn’t he mention it either in his open letter to me or in his question to the Shire?  In other words, was he just trying to be smart, presumably at my expense?

‘Open and transparent’

In a second question, Mr. Hooper raises concern—as he claims, community concern—over the possible closure of the YRCC.

He calls on Council to ensure ‘that there will be open and transparent processes… regarding any planned changes to the YRCC and that all users of the YRCC and the Forrest Oval complex are full [sic] consulted about planned changes’.

He adds darkly that ‘If the YRCC was closed the Bowling Club would not have a home’.  Well, Mr. Hooper, whose damned silly fault is that?

‘Open’ and ‘transparent’ aren’t words that spring unbidden to the mind when Mr. Hooper’s name comes up in conversation.   

His attitude to openness and transparency has been fully on display since his exposure as author of the ‘Minority Report’—not to mention the Shire’s refusal during his presidency to publish details of corporate credit card transactions.

But on this matter, he has my support.   I would be very sorry to see such an important question as the fate of the Splurj Mahal decided by a handful of people behind closed doors.  

There’s just one point of difference between us.

It’s not only the small minority of York residents who use the centre who should be consulted about its future.  So should the majority of residents who don’t use the centre but are compelled to pay for it anyway.

Priority No. 1 must be shutting down the tavern restaurant and bar.   I’m sure Mr. Hooper and his entourage, regular users of the tavern, will have no difficulty finding alternative munching and swigging stations closer to the centre of town.