“4. Should the Ombudsman decline the Councils invitation to cease his present activities until the resolution of the legal action set out above,
Council instructs its legal advisors to seek injunctive relief preventing
further investigative activities by the Ombudsman until the resolution
of the legal action. “
The complete recommendation was supported unanimously by Council members:
City of Charles Sturt 19. CL Minutes 15/06/10
[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 28 June 2010]
13. BUSINESS – PART II – CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
13.3 LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED REGARDING OMBUDSMAN’S INVESTIGATION! ST CLAIR
(B6006, B6206)
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
That pursuant to Section 90(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, Council hereby
orders that the public be excluded from attendance at this meeting with the
exception of the Chief Executive and administrative staff currently in attendance
in order to consider the item in confidence as the matter falls within the ambit of
Section 90(3) (h) in order to receive and consider legal advice from Councils
Lawyers.
Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick Carried
Suspension of Proceedings – 8.21 pm
That Council suspend the operation of Division 2 of the Local Government (Procedures at
Meetings) Regulations 2000 to facilitate informal discussions regarding the ombudsman
investigation.
Moved Councillor Keneally, Seconded Councillor Wasylenko Carried
Resumption of Proceedings – 9.34 pm
That the period of suspension be brought to an end.
Moved Councillor Rau, Seconded Councillor Angelino Carried
City of Charles Sturt 20. CL Minutes 15/06/10
[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 28 June 2010]
Motion
1. That the City of Charles Sturt notes advice from Councils legal advisors
dated 4 June 2010.
2. Council resolves to instruct its legal advisors to take legal action to seek
declaratory relief or judicial review to:
(a) overturn the Ombudsman’s refusal to specify the
‘administrative acts’ the subject of his present investigation
into the City of Charles Sturt;
(b) require the Ombudsman to permit those the subject of his
interviews to have legal representation at the interview and to
provide transcript to them of that interview
3. Council further instructs its legal advisors to seek clarification from the
Ombudsman that he will await the resolution of the legal action
referred to above prior to continuing with his present investigation
activities.
4. Should the Ombudsman decline the Councils invitation to cease his
present activities until the resolution of the legal action set out above,
Council instructs its legal advisors to seek injunctive relief preventing
further investigative activities by the Ombudsman until the resolution
of the legal action.
5. Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the power to enact the
above resolutions and provide any further instructions to Councils legal
advisors consistent with the above.
6. That pursuant to Section 91(7) of the Local Government Act 1999,
Council hereby orders that the report to Council and appendices of this
item be kept confidential for a period of 12 months [Note: The grounds
for this order are outlined in the resolution above whereby the matter
was considered in confidence by Council under Section 90(2)].
Moved Councillor Rau, Seconded Councillor Angelino Carried Unanimously
Friends Fall Out.
The move by Council runs counter to its previous whole hearted support for the Ombudsman enquiry, where residents were able to access his first four reports, published in the Council Agenda. They cleared the Council of any administrative errors in the St Clair land swap.
Charles Sturt CEO Mark Withers was quoted then as saying:
"We published those final reports on complaints made between September and December because there was a lot of criticism of the council back then"
One must assume that the final report is unlikely to be so highlighted.
2 comments:
Do other Charles Sturt residents feel incredulous about this? Here is a Council apparently prepared to use ratepayers funds to take legal action against the Ombudsman!! Does anyone else think that is bizarre? One can only wonder why? Could it be that they hope to impede a full and proper investigation into potential conflicts of interest over the St Clair land swap until after the local government elections? If at all??
These are very good questions. Mick Atkinson M.P. (Croydon) commented on the matter to Hindmarsh Issues here:
https://docs3.google.com/document/edit?id=1Gg5bGUsWw1gNeENmBvOKZunFwT9akhvcvQ7CuYAH2S0&authkey=CNvVveoO&hl=en#bookmark=id.z5vuam-29ssgz
As for the timeframe involved, it seems likely to be a lengthy one, and if the matter does get to be heard in the Supreme Court, it seems unlikely to be before the council elections this year. Hindmarsh Issues has been informed by Charles Sturt Councils’ Marketing Consultant that:
“ We have not been advised whether the Court will hear the matter immediately or first assess whether there is a 'case' and then set down a further date to hear the case.”
On the other hand, the Registrars’ Office reports that:
“I can advise we have received a summons for Judicial Review - however, it has yet to be listed. For further reference the Action Number (how the Court keeps track of these documents) is SCCIV-10-874.
In order for this matter to move forward in the Court, documents from the defendant or an application from either party would need to be lodged with us.”
Post a Comment