Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

G. Penneshaw Jetty Timbers:

At the April 2012 Council meeting report 15.2 advised: “Additionally there has been an enormous amount of Community interest shown in this timber, including some unauthorised possession from locals attending the construction site. This unauthorised possession has caused angst in the Community, with the Community believing they have missed out on their opportunity to gain some of the timber for their projects.” Further supplementary advice at this meeting advised Council that some of the missing timber was actually retained by DTEI for their purposes.

Q1. Approximately what percentage of the total timber removed from the jetty was Council meant to receive?

Answer G1:

There was no fixed or estimated percentage of the timber supposed to have been available as a result of the refurbishment works. Clearly this figure would be affected by the means of removal and the ultimate condition of the timber once removed. The offer from DPTI was basically that any timber resulting from the refurbishment that was surplus to their requirements would be delivered to the nominated Council Depot(s) in consultation with Council when ready to move.

Q2. Approximately what percentage of what Council was meant to receive did it end up receiving?

Answer G2:

As there was no fixed percentage we ended up with the quantity that DPTI did not require for their own purpose.

Q3. Was any of the “unauthorised possession from locals attending the construction site.” believed to have been relocated for any period to any property in which the Kangaroo Island Council mayor has an interest?

Answer G3:

At the start of the project the DPTI contractor was making available timber to interested locals. When Council Officers became aware of this they spoke with DPTI Project Manager and the practice was stopped immediately.

Two pieces of timber were offered to Mr Ashleigh Bates (Mr Bates does occasional work with SeaLink and was one of several workers in the vicinity offered timber) and on learning that the timber was not for distribution, he delivered the timber to the Council Depot. The matter was verbally reported to the CEO at that time by the Presiding Member.

This matter occurred at the start of the project in early February and therefore it is somewhat surprising (and a little concerning) that Councillor Walkom has raised this issue at this point in time. Councillors are obliged under the Local Government Act 1999 Section 61 Subsection 3 & 4 not to either be in material benefit from information or position or to cause detriment to Council. The way that this question is written may be taken to suggest that the Mayor – directly or indirectly – was associated with “unauthorised possession…”. In this respect the intimation that may be taken could be considered to be to the detriment of Council reputation by virtue of the detriment to the reputation of the Presiding Member of that Council.

Any Elected Member who may have evidence available to justify a question such as this should either:

•                  Raise this directly with the Presiding Member in private;

•                  Use the Elected Member Code of Conduct Procedure by submitting a formal written complaint to the Deputy Mayor;

Any potential that the issue is as a result of illegal behaviour must be directed straight to the relevant Department of the South Australian Police.