Emails seen by the court showed the co-ordinator requesting the investigator not send his draft report to Darley until the co-ordinator had reviewed and responded to it, and then “effectively making submissions” about why aspects of the draft should be “reconsidered”.
The co-ordinator asked the reviewer to change the final report as well, including changing his recommendations that Darley be censured “in respect of two [of four] allegations, to a recommendation that she be censured”.
Loading
Schmidt found that when councillors were given the reviewer’s report, Connolly “improperly” did not provide them with key attached documents, “which they ought to have been provided with to consider”.
Schmidt quashed both the findings of the conduct review and Darley’s censure, “given the errors into which I am satisfied the council, its general manager, its complaints co-ordinator and its conduct reviewer each fell”.
Schmidt found the council “was wrong in defending its own decision as it did”, based on the legal principle that decision-makers should not defend their actions in court in order to ensure their future impartiality.
Darley said she felt vindicated by the findings, after “my integrity was questioned”.
“This is very serious for the council,” she said. “Not only did they make fundamental errors, not only did they give incorrect advice, not only did they withhold information, but they actively defended their position, prolonged the court case and are likely to have cost ratepayers almost the same as what’s been wasted on sponsoring the Eels.”
Darley estimates the total cost of the case to be about $1 million. Schmidt ordered the council to pay Darley’s costs, but the two parties will discuss this later. “We could have reopened Epping Pool with that money.”
Connolly did not respond to questions but referred the Herald to the council’s media officers, who said it was “currently reviewing the court’s decision”.
Read the full article here
