MODERATION APPLIED 24/12/2011
http://youtu.be/ufKJmld2JAU
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Yesterday, upon the stair…
COUNCIL TO SEEK APOLOGY?
A well placed source within the Charles Sturt Council, who I will refer to as “Councillor B” in accordance with Council procedures, said that the trivial nature of the Ombudsman’s findings in relation to suggested “Code of Conduct” violations has been underlined by Council’s dismissal of these recommendations.
(The recommendations were lodged by the Ombudsman with the relevant Council Officer – the Mayor Kirsten Alexander – in “Opinion 5” of the Ombudsman’s Final Report and ‘named’ Councillors “K: “P” “B” and “M”.
Council has resolved in an “in confidence” session to take no further action against three councillors. The in confidence session was chaired by Councillor Scheffler as noted in the minutes of meeting:
“Mayor Alexander, Councillors Fitzpatrick, Wasylenko and Agius disclosed an interest in Item 13.12 due to their involvement in aspects of the report to be presented and left the meeting at 11.53 pm.
In absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the CEO took control of the meeting until the appointment of a chairperson.” –COUNCIL MINUTES
Of these four, only the mayor Kirsten Alexander was not a member of council during the time period examined by the Ombudsman.)
Councillor B also stated that the Council might well consider a motion early next year calling for costs to be sought in relation to the legal proceedings undertaken by the previous Council , which might amount to up to $300,000 (A final tally on these costs had not yet been arrived at)
As part of this possible action regarding legal costs, Councillor B suggested that a letter might be drafted to the President of State Parliament’s Legislative Council, calling for an apology.
Councillor B said that he was not able to disclose the contents of the transcript of his interview with the Ombudsman, and this made it difficult for him to publicly contest some of the evidence relied upon by the Ombudsman. Councillor B denies forwarding an email from a member of the public to the local MP Mr Michael Atkinson, and added that Mr Atkinson’s staff only received such an email from “a former Councillor”
A well placed source within the Charles Sturt Council, who I will refer to as “Councillor B” in accordance with Council procedures, said that the trivial nature of the Ombudsman’s findings in relation to suggested “Code of Conduct” violations has been underlined by Council’s dismissal of these recommendations.
(The recommendations were lodged by the Ombudsman with the relevant Council Officer – the Mayor Kirsten Alexander – in “Opinion 5” of the Ombudsman’s Final Report and ‘named’ Councillors “K: “P” “B” and “M”.
Council has resolved in an “in confidence” session to take no further action against three councillors. The in confidence session was chaired by Councillor Scheffler as noted in the minutes of meeting:
“Mayor Alexander, Councillors Fitzpatrick, Wasylenko and Agius disclosed an interest in Item 13.12 due to their involvement in aspects of the report to be presented and left the meeting at 11.53 pm.
In absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the CEO took control of the meeting until the appointment of a chairperson.” –COUNCIL MINUTES
Of these four, only the mayor Kirsten Alexander was not a member of council during the time period examined by the Ombudsman.)
Councillor B also stated that the Council might well consider a motion early next year calling for costs to be sought in relation to the legal proceedings undertaken by the previous Council , which might amount to up to $300,000 (A final tally on these costs had not yet been arrived at)
As part of this possible action regarding legal costs, Councillor B suggested that a letter might be drafted to the President of State Parliament’s Legislative Council, calling for an apology.
Councillor B said that he was not able to disclose the contents of the transcript of his interview with the Ombudsman, and this made it difficult for him to publicly contest some of the evidence relied upon by the Ombudsman. Councillor B denies forwarding an email from a member of the public to the local MP Mr Michael Atkinson, and added that Mr Atkinson’s staff only received such an email from “a former Councillor”
Thursday, December 8, 2011
CODE OF SILENCE
Charles Sturt Council will consider in confidence a report dealing with the Ombudsman’s recommendations regarding suggested breaches of the Council’s own “Council Member Code of Conduct Policy”. Assorted behaviours of Councillors “K”, “P”, “A”, “G”(two counts), “M” (three counts) and Councillor “B” were raised as the subject of concerns by the Ombudsman. The Council report however advises that no action be pursued in the matter of “A” and “G” on the grounds that they are no longer members of the Charles Sturt Council. This recommendation, if adopted by the Council at its December 12th meeting, will have the consequence of clearing these former members ex gratia if they should present themselves for public election on Charles Sturt or any other Council in the future. It is the same as saying “Let bygones be bygones”. More serious is the secrecy provision that the Council report recomends – that the whole matter be dealt with confidentially. This is obviously incongruent with open and accountable government, in as much as it has been used as a cover-all to conceal the administrative methods Council is proposing to follow, not just personal details which do deserve consideration. For example, the public is given no information as whether the suggested breaches of Code of Conduct Policy have been classified Level One or Level Two, or whether they have been classified in any manner at all. If they have been classified as level two breaches, they must, according to the Council’s Code, be assessed by an independent body and that this assessment, along with proposed remedies from the independent investigator, should be presented to Council for consideration. The electors have been given no information on any of this. Nor, under the recommendation going to Council, will we ever hear if any of the Alphabetic Councillors have been found to have breached the code, and if so, who they are. Next time you cast your vote - if you are worried at all by the Ombudsman’s findings that is - you will have to vote for a candidate who was not on Council from 2006 to 2010, as this may well be the only way of holding councillors to account. Resident "C"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
