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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.