[Webmaster’s note:
The following lost motion, by Councillor Graham Walkom, presents a good summary of the two successive processes that have occurred in relation with Cr Bec Davis‘ complaints against Cr Rosalie Chirgwin, and gives an idea of the many failings associated with them. It appears this motion was an attempt by Cr Walkom to draw Council’s attention to the likelihood that these processes, to that point, may have been flawed.]
*****************
Kangaroo Island Council March Meeting of 14/3/2012
Motion submitted by Councillor Graham Walkom during confidential session, but now in the public domain:
Item 21.3 – Bec Davis Complaints – LGGP report;
That a supplementary report be provided to council to facilitate the provision of all relevant information to allow a fully informed decision on the complaints, investigations and determinations as follows:
In respect to the original section 41 committee/panel’s investigations and findings:
1. What were the official findings of the original panel and the specific and objective reasons the original findings were rejected by council.
2. Whether or not the information conveyed to council as a decision of the original section 41 committee was in fact an accurate determination / recommendation of that committee?
3. Whether or not there is provision under the relevant Code of Conduct Policy to undertake a second assessment of the complaints by an external body.
4. Whether or not there is provision under the relevant Code of Conduct Policy to refer or request review of the original findings through an external body.
5. Were the actual committee’s findings and recommendations to council modified before being presented to council.
6. Was legal opinion(s) sought in relation to 5, who sought that opinion, what was the brief given and what was the advice received.
7. It appears that the LGGP may not have investigated the original council’s section 41 committee report in accordance with council’s resolution to do so: “...that the report be given to the Local Government Governance Panel to investigate.” What were the actual terms of reference and brief as advised to the LGGP.
In respect to the Local Government Governance Panel’s findings of the 28th Feb:
8. Was the original panel’s report given to the LGGP
9. What are the findings as they relate to the original complaints.
10. What is the evidence that was found to support/justify each finding against the original complaints.
11. Which of the original 15 complaints , if any, were not upheld by the LGGP’s assessment.
12. Why were the new allegations made on the 29th November 2011 not taken as a new complaint under the current code of conduct and handled with due process.
13. What are the findings as they relate to the new allegations added on the 29th November 2011.
14. What is the evidence that was found to support/justify each finding against the new complaints.
15. Which of the added complaints, if any, were not upheld by the LGGP’s assessment.
Motion moved by Cr Walkom / seconded by Cr Liu: LOST 5 to 2
*************