14
Harriott Street
YORK
WA 6302
96412514
0409882908
Mr Kingsley
Joy
FOI
Coordinator
Department
of Local Government and Communities
GPO
Box R1250
PERTH
WA 6844
Your
Ref. 27-15;E1506304
13 March
2015
By email to foi@dlgc.wa.gov.au
Dear
Mr Joy,
Freedom of Information Act
1992—Notice of Decision—Application for Internal Review
I
refer to Mr Brad Jolly’s letter of 6 March 2015, and to the Notice and other documents
enclosed with it.
Apparently
Mr Jolly wishes to conceal for as long as possible the department’s true
reasons for suspending the Shire of York Council and the actual circumstances
surrounding that suspension. Only one of
the enclosed documents shed any useful light on the topic, and the part shedding
most of that light was a paragraph I was obviously not intended to see in its
entirety.
I
am surprised Mr Jolly should believe for a moment that he is a suitable person
to make decisions concerning my FOI application. As the officer responsible for drafting the
Show Cause Notice, and one involved in the so-called ‘probity audit’ imposed on
the Council, he has an obvious conflict of interest.
Moreover,
I have on occasion subjected him to a degree of public criticism that he may
have found less than flattering and of which I know him to be well aware. That by itself would be a cogent reason why
he should stay well away from my application.
Now
that I have examined Mr Jolly’s notice, I perceive I was unwise to agree that
material identifying third parties could ipso
facto be redacted. I have no
objection to the removal of names and contact details, but I do not agree that
more than that should be plucked from the public record (unless national
security is at stake, which seems unlikely in relation to the Shire of York
Council).
I
am pleased that an apparent oversight by your department has enabled me to
reveal to the people of York what seems to have been a sordid connivance
between Mr David Morris of your department and former shire president Pat
Hooper. I’m sure there are many more
such insights to be gleaned, and I would not wish the people of York to miss
out on them.
I
hereby apply for an internal review of Mr Jolly’s decision. I also request that
Mr Jolly have nothing further to do with any aspect of my application.
Yours
sincerely
James Plumridge
(Dr) James V Plumridge, PhD
James, you have to get a copy of Pat Hooper's "minority report", then give it to Simon Saint to put in his window.
ReplyDeleteIs it confirmed hooper was the author?
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree, it might be worth making it the subject of a fresh application - which of course will be refused...
ReplyDeleteI will never understand why public servants are so keen to conceal what the people they allegedly serve have every right to know.
You may not want to publish this Mr P but this secret report raises all sorts of new lines of attack. The author was a councillor, therefore the report MUST be a shire record, and therefore should be in the shire records. Otherwise a breach of the state records act. Further the DLG should be aware of that requirement which demonstrates the two faced approach to right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut it also raises the option of a second FOI attack on the Shire for all records associated. This could include all email traffic between selected employees and the Hoopers, with Morris and the DLG, Hoopers and the DLG, the scope could be very wide and also create a conflict of interest for the existing FOI officer, particularly if the application spelt out the perceived conflict and concern records will be destroyed. My recommendation would be to submit that to Best. The State Records Act applies to all councillors as well as employees. If i am correct this needs very careful planning and execution to achieve maximum bang.
i regret i cannot assist directly. Had a sleepless night going through all this, and this is to plant the seed for your consideration. The secret report should have been released under FOI by the DLG. Look forward to reading that.
best of luck and keep up the great work
If Pat Hooper wasn't author of the 'minority report' I don't know who else it might have been.
ReplyDeleteAs implied in my article, there seem to be two Pat Hoopers; the shrinking violet who was afraid to vote against his colleagues, and the bully who showed no concern for critics of the shire administration and supported the aggressive tactics of his namesake, the CEO.