Jihadist Politics

The 2014 Council Elections.
Residents will be relieved to learn that there seem to
be no local issues in this election around which
candidates can engage their opponents and mobilise
their supporters.
All candidates are dedicated to responsible land
development – after meaningful consultation with
residents and stakeholders. All are fiercely
independent and unallied with any political party.
Efficiency and economy are saluted on all sides.
Traffic management is a certainty whoever wins, and
will be arranged to harmonise all existing and future
means of terrestial locomotion.
In short, a sure and certain expectation of almost
perfect bliss awaits the city from any and all possible
election outcomes on xx October.
There is however, one fly in the ointment - or at least
a fly high-diving into the ointment pot - and that is the
right Honourable Mr Michael Atkinson MP, Speaker
of the House of Assembly in the 53rd Parliament of
South Australia.
In a series of aspersions, Mr Atkinson has associated
members of the Facebook site “Save St Clair
Recreation Reserve” with jihadists - and if this was
not enough – as supporters of Soviet invasion. He has
in one case warned a constituent that leaflets would be
sent out to 273 residents of Ukranian extraction
naming her as a Russian fellow traveller in the
Donbass.
I should point out that over the last 4 years the
worthy Member has experienced all three life events
rated by health researchers as the most stressful. It
would be hard hearted in these circumstances to
attribute malicious afforthought to Mr Atkinson's
aspersions, whatever position one took on the
'Woodville Spring' which swept the leader of the Save
St Clair group to the position of Mayor in the last
council elections.The Atkinson Dilemma.
Two general views have been expressed by Facebook
readers. Some see the former Attorney General as a
laughing stock, while some others see his comments
as serious and therefore best ignored.
Hindmarsh Issues, as the journal of record for the
ward, requires something more 'thoughtful' as an
explanation, and in the interest of public debate I put
forward the following explanation.
Firstly, the Ombudsman's investigation of the St Clair
affair, by exposing the nature of Mr Atkinson's
involvement in the Council at that time, dealt a far
more effective blow to his political activities than
many suspect, and it is this expose which motivates
him in his attacks on the group. What one could
imagine from the Ombudsman's findings is the lone
figure of Mr Atkinson, at the centre generating the
talking points adopted by those elected representatives
who depend to a greater or lesser degree on the
patronage of Mr Atkinson for their positions on
Council Subcommittees and so on.
Secondly, this arrangement of 'democracy' from
above, while it may mirror the methods established in
the union base of Mr Atkinsons faction, the SDA,
nevertheless is made necessary by the absence of
popular involvement, not only in the ALP in
Hindmarsh, but in the withering away of most union
committees, community groups and forums. Mr
Atkinson must substitute himself, and his council
representatives, for the grass roots support now sitting
at home in front of the TV/computer or the hotel slot
machines.
Thirdly, the claim he made - to organise electoral
support around issues such as the Ukraine civil war-
does not therefore indicate an actual belief on his part
that council elections ought to be fought around
extraneous issues from the other side of the world, but
rather the realisation that in these small exile
communities, there remains the only grass roots
organisations left effective for his electoral purposes.
That is, the only freedom allowed him is to be
opportunist.

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"

CHARLES STURT V BINGHAM (OMBUDSMAN)

The City of Charles Sturt claim for judicial review of the Ombudsman was the subject of a preliminary hearing before Justice Withers of the Supreme Court today.  Michael Roder S.C. represented the Council, with Mr Bleeby appearing for the Defendant, Mr Richard Bingham. Also in courtroom 8 was  Mr George Karziz from Norman Waterhouse.

A proposal to attempt settlement of the matter by way of mediation as suggestedt by the Defendants’ solicitor will be referred to the Council for instructions by Roder S.C.

Judge Withers intimated that, should settlement  not be reached,  the matter might well be referred to the Complex Cases List:
“.. a matter that challenges the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be dealt with  at the  Justice level, if not in due course by the Full Court.”

Unless settlement is reached, the case will come before Justice Withers at 9:00 AM 29TH September 2010

updated 24/07- SUPREME COURT CASE: SCCIV-10-874

The Charles Sturt Council sponsored inquiry into the Ombudsman is set to kick off on September 1st this year. (hat-tip MICHELLE ETHERIDGE at the Messenger)

Council has directed its legal team to proceed with an appeal should the matter not be dealt with in a satisfactory manner.


Possible restriction to Councils’  ability to Appeal.

Recent changes to the Local Government Act, which direct Councils to enter into a caretaker mode after the close of nominations for the regular council election, may limit the window of opportunity for an appeal against an adverse finding in this Supreme Court case.

The Act bans Council from making decisions during the Caretaker period which, among other things, allow

“…a particular candidate or group of candidates to use council resources to their advantage.”

A decision to appeal a judicial finding relating to the Ombudsmans’ investigation into Charles Sturt Councillors, if it were taken by the Council during the caretaker period,  could be argued as benefiting one group of candidates - that is,  those candidates who were recontesting their positions.


POLICY REVIEW – LEGAL ADVICE

Charles Sturt Council will consider at its meeting Monday, 26/07/2010, the recommendation of the Policy Review Committee in relation to”Council Member Legal Advice Policy”. This policy contains information  pertinent to the Ombudsman affair. Item 3.30 page 103 Appendix A continued, states:


Section 39 of the LG Act describes the level of legal protection afforded to Council members, viz:


(1) No civil liability attaches to a member of a council for an honest act or omission in the exercise, performance or discharge, of the member’s, or the council’s powers, functions or duties under tis or other Acts.
(2) A liability that would, but for this section, attach to a member of a council attaches instead to the council

It could be argued that the Ombudsmans inquiry by itself would not give rise to any civil liability on the part of individual Councilors.


The recommended policy goes on to say:


4. Policy


Council members will, in accordance with this policy, be provided access to legal advice. This will generally be facilitated by the Chief  Executive in his normal administrative role. The Chief Executive may delegate this authority and responsibility, in accordance with this policy, to other Council officers.


Where legal advice has been sought in relation to a matter that is relevant to the performance or discharge of Council’s role, function and objectives, members will be provided access to the full text of the legal advice

Council in its in camera  resolution of the 15th June,( Page 19.  CL Minutes 15/06/10)
determined to:

(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

The question could be asked as to whether these requirements for legal aid are intended to be paid for by the Council, should the need arise.