THREE Busselton councillors who had an adverse finding made against them by the Corruption and Crime Commission over Smiths Beach maintain they have not done anything wrong.
And two of them, Crs Anne Ryan and John Triplett, said they had no intention of resigning.
The other councillor, deputy shire president Pippa Reid, has not sought re-election to council.
The three councillors were among seven public officers and shire councillors accused of alleged misconduct by the CCC, which released its long-awaited report yesterday.
The CCC report said their conduct could constitute a serious breach of the Public Sector Code of Ethics in that there was a failure to act with integrity in the performance of official duties.
Though it is considering the preparation of criminal charges that may result from its investigation, the CCC said it won’t be taking criminal action against the three Busselton councillors.
There is also grey area as to what local government action can be taken against them.
It would seem that under the current legislation individual councillors can’t be dismissed.
It would have to be the whole council.
The Department of Local Government and Regional Planning said it had has received the CCC report into Smiths Beach development and accepted the recommendations.
“Throughout the CCC’s investigation of this matter, the department has continually cooperated with the CCC in identifying and implementing improvements to strengthen the integrity of local governments,” a spokesperson said.
“It is through this liaison that the department has been in a position to have made significant progress on the implementation of the recommendations and will be responding to the CCC shortly.
“The department notes that the report makes no recommendations relating to the named councillors and until it has had an opportunity to review the report is not in a position to comment on what action it will take.”
Cr Ryan, who had four findings against her, said the report was full of “coulds and woulds” and she would not be stepping down.
“The findings are opinions of misconduct and would need to be substantiated in a court of law,” she said.
“The outcome has taken an inordinate length of time and money and I am glad it is all over.”
Cr Triplett said he would not be resigning.
“Absolutely not,” he said.
“As far as I’m concerned I’ve done nothing that warrants me to resign. The CCC has an opinion of misconduct. That’s its opinion. It’s “I’ll take it on the chin. I haven’t done anything wrong. But it’s a good lesson.”
Cr Reid said she “unequivocally rejected” the CCC findings as they related to her as she believed the CCC did not fully address the lengthy submission made by her lawyer after the hearings and had in fact used the most narrow and ungenerous interpretation of the CCC Act in their findings.
“I firmly believe I have always acted with complete integrity at all times during my term as a councillor,” she said.
”In their report the CCC states that I have not committed an offence under the Local Government Act or the Public Sector Act and therefore I cannot understand the reasoning behind their finding.
“In light of my previous comments I am seeking advice as to whether I can refer their decision to the Parliamentary Inspector for his review.”
While she was named in the report there was no adverse finding against former shire president Beryle Morgan.
She said it was unfortunate that some sections of the media only highlighted what they wanted to from the public hearings.
“It it is also unfortunate a few people read the transcripts and then formulated an opinion that they wanted the rest of the community to believe – whether it was factual or fictional.
“Any role that I played in this issue has been out of my concern for the future of the residents of the Shire of Busselton. It certainly has not been an easy time, but I have been very humbled by the amount of support that I have received from so many people – some I did not even know.”
Vasse MLA Troy BuswelI said that in his view the report vindicated his continued opposition to the development at Smiths Beach.
Anne Ryan
FOUR misconduct opinions were found against Cr Anne Ryan.
The report said she admitted that when she completed the requisite Form 9A, in order to disclose gifts she had received, she failed to disclose those costs previously incurred by her but which had been reimbursed by IAG (Independent Action Group).
“This failure was conduct that could adversely affect the honest or impartial performance of Ms Ryan’s functions as a councillor because it assisted in concealing the degree of a potential conflict of interest,” the report continued.
“Ms Ryan’s failure to directly inquire of the president of IAG, Greg Dean, as to the true state of affairs regarding the funding of her campaign, involved the performance of her functions in a manner that was not honest or impartial because it concealed the existence of a potential conflict of interest.
“Ms Ryan failed to declare a financial interest in the Canal Rocks Pty Ltd matter at the August 10 council meeting. A councillor who has received a modifiable gift at an election is obliged under the Local Government Act 1995 to treat the giver of that gift as a close associate.
“The effect of this is to oblige a councillor to make a financial interest declaration if a matter arises for consideration at a meeting and the matter is one in which the provider of the election funding has an interest.
“There is also obvious potential for such a failure to adversely affect the honest and impartial performance of the functions of a councillor because it conceals the existence of a potential conflict of interest
“Ms Ryan failed to make a financial interest disclosure at the Council meeting of the December 14, 2005, prior to the final consideration of Amendment 92 affecting Smiths Beach.
“This involved the performance of her duties in a manner that was not honest or impartial because it concealed the existence of a conflict of interest.
“To declare that there was a mere association or a perception of a connection was insufficient.
“This conduct was also capable of adversely affecting the honest or impartial performance of the functions of Ms Ryan as a councillor by concealing the existence of a conflict of interest.”
The report said her conduct constituted misconduct in that she could/would be in serious breach of the Public Sector Code of Ethics in that there was a failure to act with integrity in the performance of official duties in regards to each finding.
Pippa Reid
THE CCC concluded that deputy shire president Pippa Reid failed to make a declaration of an interest affecting impartiality relating to her personal relationship with Canal Rocks lobbyist Noel Crichton-Browne prior to the final consideration of Amendment 92 affecting Smiths Beach, at the December 14, 2005 Council meeting.
“At that meeting she seconded a motion on Amendment 92 in a manner favourable to Canal Rocks Pty Ltd, and participated in debate about Amendment 92,” the report said.
“This was conduct that could adversely affect the honest or impartial performance of her functions as it concealed the existence of a potential conflict of interest.
“This conduct could constitute a serious breach of the Public Sector Code of Ethics in that there was a failure to act with integrity in the performance of official duties. This conduct, therefore, constituted misconduct pursuant to sub-paragraphs 4(d) (i) and (vi) of the CCC Act.”
John Triplett
COUNCILLOR John Triplett was found by the CCC to have received election funding from Canal Rocks Pty Ltd and failed to make a financial interest disclosure at the Busselton Shire Council meeting of December 14, 2005, prior to the final consideration of Amendment 92 affecting Smiths Beach.
“This involved the performance of his duties in a manner that was not honest or impartial because it concealed the existence of a conflict of interest,” the report said.
“To declare that there was a mere association or a perception of a connection was insufficient. This conduct was also capable of adversely affecting the honest or impartial performance of the functions of Mr Triplett as a councillor by concealing the existence of a conflict of interest.
“Such conduct would be a serious breach of the Public Sector Code of Ethics in that there was a failure to act with integrity in the performance of official duties. The conduct, therefore, constitutes misconduct pursuant to sub-paragraphs 4(d) (ii) and (v) and/or (VI) of the CCC Act.”
