Disgraceful EFC - Extending pokies license to 2042

Guy’s wife’s charity got money from Essendon.

Guy voted to benefit Essendon.

I’ve been at pains to point out I don’t think the guy, his wife, the charity or the club acted in a manner that was corrupt.

I’ve not mentioned the pokies once in this part of the discussion.

Worst part of this whole little chat has been the fact that some of you are so freaking incorrect that you caused a lawyer to support me. A lawyer.

For this, I shall never, ever forgive you. You, or your children, or your children’s children… For three months.

That’s all from me on this topic.

you’d think the mayor/local govt of melton would be trying to better their shire considering how downhill its going.

That’s fair. I’ll cop that one

4 Likes

Is @SMJ the only lawyer on Blitz? And frankly, as much as I love SMJ, my rain obsessed partner in crime, I am disappointed if he is supporting your unequivocal statement that a conflict of interest has occurred in this case.

Anyway, I would like you to direct me to the legislation (the relevant Act) and the specific provisions you believe that Turner has breached. Surely, you have checked these and cross-referenced the details of this case against them before being convinced of your position (which is clearly in contrast to the legal advice Turner has received). While you are at it, let me know your thoughts on the remoteness exemption under the Act and any other ‘gut feeling’ ideas you may have. :wink:

1 Like

Love you too buddy.

I am not the only lawyer on Blitz but I am definitely the worst lawyer on Blitz, so that’s something?

(But it is a conflict. The amount of money is critical. Im happy to write it up if you like but nobody wants legal advice, surely)

I’ve been trying not to get involved but I do have extensive training in this area at my current employer. I have to complete a 4 slide presentation on corruption/bribery/conflict of interest every 2 years and my latest test result of 4 correct answers out of 5 confirms that I know what I’m talking about.

Ummm, what was the question again?

5 Likes

Hire this man

Anyway, which fucken pokie machine do I load my money into?

1 Like

The one that hasn’t paid out in ages and is Definitely due to soon, …

3 Likes

Just don’t kick me off my machine!

(Really, you shouldn’t. I’ve p/ssed on the chair)

1 Like

Beauty you’ve warmed it up for me.

1 Like

Just a brief summation (if you don’t mind) (with the relevant provisions you believed he has breached). Also, can you address the supposed legal advice (without knowing the specifics) he claims to have received, clearing him of any conflict?

Does this (Essendon’s donation to his wife’s NPO) fall under the ‘Indirect Interest - Applicable Gift’ section of the Act? If so, isn’t there a time limit on this?

1 Like

Why do we keep referring to this councilor’s “wife’s charity”, as if he isn’t himself directly involved. He IS Vice President of this charity, and should have recused himself from voting.

Well dingy let me try and explain it to you.

In my view you guys are mixing up a moral dilemma with a legal matter. Lawyers can’t comment as they have no morals.

Bob Turner has done nothing that will conflict with the laws on the Local Government Act. Is there any concerns from an ethical perspective? Perhaps for some, but not for me.

This “charity” is a drop in and support centre for youth in Melton, it is not owned or run by Turner, though Bob and his wife work hard to help.

Reckon some here take a moral high ground when they have no farking idea.

And to be picky, the article has it wrong. Bob did not use his casting vote. There were nine councillors present, the democratic vote was 5 to 4. Casting vote is only used by a Mayor if the vote is tied and the Mayor gets an extra vote.

2 Likes

I was skimming the relevant Act earlier.

Assuming the donation falls under the ‘Indirect Interest - Applicable Gift’ provisions, there is indeed a five-year threshold. I need @SMJ to clarify whether the donation would fall under this category. If the donations were made around 2013, they may fall outside of this threshold.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 - SECT 78C

Indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift

S. 78C(1) substituted by Nos 64/2009 s. 46, 58/2010 s. 12(1).

(1) In this section, "applicable gift "means one or more [gifts] with a total value of, or more than, the [gift disclosure threshold] received from a [person] or [persons] specified in subsection (2) in the 5 years preceding the decision or the exercise of the power, duty or function.

1 Like

Well @JohnRain, because of rather bad behaviour and heinous acts by many Councillors over past years, many changes were made including massive education programs to ensure that Councillors knew the rules and the consequences. If you have ever dealt with an Ombudsman or the Local Government Directorate, then you would know that they have more powers than the Police or Tax Department, and can throw you in jail for refusal to answer questions and worse if you lie.

That said, my understanding under the Act, is that this money given to Gap on Graham by EFC, would not in any way be classified as a gift to Bob Turner or his Wife. If Stephen Mayne has referred the matter to the Directorate they will fully investigate and a report with be provided within the next three years. They are thorough but very slow.

1 Like

Maybe they would put in other forms of entertainment like live music as it was before pokies

Maybe craps, or poker then?

Bingo!

You a Melton rate payer, Mill? Sorry, resident.