annual report 2010 – 2011 · 2019. 12. 6. · local government standards panel . annual report...

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANELAnnual Report 2010 – 2011

Government of Western AustraliaLocal Government Standards Panel

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2010 – 2011 August 2011 Prepared by: Department of Local Government 140 William Street Perth WA 6000 GPO Box R1250 PERTH WA 6844 Tel: (08) 6552 1500 Fax: (08) 6558 1555 Freecall: 1800 620 511 (Country Only) Email: [email protected] Web: www.dlg.wa.gov.au All or part of this document may be copied. Due recognition of source would be appreciated. If you would like more information please contact the Department of Local Government.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dlg.wa.gov.au/

CONTENTS

Overview .................................................................................................................... 4

Composition of the Standards Panel .......................................................................... 4

Disciplinary Framework .............................................................................................. 5

Administration and Support Services ......................................................................... 6

Number of Standards Panels Established.................................................................. 6

Complaints Received by the Department Member..................................................... 6

Number of Standards Panel Meetings Held ............................................................... 7

Findings of Minor Breach or Otherwise ...................................................................... 7

Types of Allegations ................................................................................................... 8

Complaints Dealt with Under Section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) ............................................. 9

SAT Reviews.............................................................................................................. 9

Non-Compliance with a Standards Panel Order or a SAT Order ............................... 9

Review of the Operation of the Local Government Standards Panel and its Supporting Legislation................................................................................................ 9

Requirement for Annual Report................................................................................ 10

SCHEDULE 1 - Complaints dealt with by the Local Government Standards Panel under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 during the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 ................................................................. 11

SCHEDULE 2 - Details of any Local Government Standards Panel order made on or before 30 June 2010 that was not complied with, and the outcome (or the state of progress of any proceedings at the date of signing of this report) in relation to the non-compliance.................................................................................................. 20

Local Government Standards Panel Annual Report 2010 – 2011 p4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL

ANNUAL REPORT 2010 – 2011

OVERVIEW

The Local Government Standards Panel (the Standards Panel) was established in 2007 following the commencement of the Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Act 2007 (the Official Conduct Act) and the introduction of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations). The purpose of the Official Conduct Act is to provide a disciplinary framework to deal with individual misconduct by local government council members.

COMPOSITION OF THE STANDARDS PANEL The Standards Panel is comprised of three members and three deputy members, all of whom are appointed by the Minister for Local Government. The Standards Panel’s Presiding Member is a designated office holder appointment (ie the person who is the holder of a designated office in the Department of Local Government), as is the Presiding Member’s deputy member.1 The Standards Panel’s Presiding Member (and Department of Local Government’s Member) was Mr Brad Jolly who is Executive Director Governance and Legislation with the Department. The Presiding Member’s deputy member was Ms Wendy Murray, Executive Director Strategic Policy and Local Government Reform with the Department. The other members of the Standards Panel are:

(1) The Local Government Member, Councillor Carol Adams, the Mayor and a current elected member of the Town of Kwinana. Her deputy member is

1 Section 53 of the Interpretation Act 1984 relates to certain appointments that may be made by name or office, and reads:

“Where a written law confers a power or imposes a duty upon a person to appoint or designate a person to — (a) perform any function; (b) be a member of any board, tribunal, commission, committee, council, or other similar body,

whether corporate or unincorporate; or (c) be or do any other thing,

that person may make the appointment or designation either by appointing or designating a person by name or by appointing or designating the holder of an office by the term designating his office; and any such appointment or designation of the holder of an office shall be construed as the appointment or designation of the person from time to time holding, acting in, or lawfully performing the functions of the office.”


Councillor Peter Best, a current elected member of the City of South Perth.

(2) The Legal Member, Mr John Lyon, a former Deputy State Solicitor. His deputy member is Mr Graham Castledine, a legal practitioner.

DISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK The Official Conduct Act provides a complaints system whereby the conduct of an individual council member can be reviewed. Its enabling sections came into operation on 21 October 2007. The Act provides for the establishment of a Standards Panel by the Minister for Local Government (the Minister). The Standards Panel’s function is to receive and deal with complaints, made by any person, of alleged minor breaches – that is, alleged breaches by a council member of: (a) any rule of conduct in the Local Government (Rules of Conduct)

Regulations 2007 (the Regulations); or (b) a provision of a local government’s local law relating to conduct of people at

council or committee meetings. If the Standards Panel finds that a council member has committed a minor breach, the Standards Panel is required to deal with the breach under section 5.110(6) of the Act.2 If the State Administrative Tribunal (the SAT) reviews such a decision and makes a finding that a minor breach occurred, the options available to the SAT are the same as those available to the Standards Panel. Where a council member has previously been found to have committed two or more minor breaches, and the breach alleged in a complaint, if it were found to have been committed, would be a third or recurrent breach, the Panel may send the complaint to the Director General of the Department of Local Government (the Director General), who in turn may use it as the basis of an allegation to the SAT to deal with. If the Director General makes such an allegation and the SAT finds that a person committed a recurrent breach, in addition to the range of sanctions available to the Standards Panel after it makes a finding that a minor breach

2 Section 5.110(6) of the Act reads: “The breach is to be dealt with by — (a) dismissing the complaint; (b) ordering that —

(i) the person against whom the complaint was made be publicly censured as specified in the order;

(ii) the person against whom the complaint was made apologise publicly as specified in the order; or

(iii) the person against whom the complaint was made undertake training as specified in the order;

or (c) ordering 2 or more of the sanctions described in paragraph (b).”

occurred, the SAT can order a member be suspended or disqualified from holding office. If a Council member fails to comply with a Standards Panel order made under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) of the Act, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the relevant local government is required to refer the failure to the SAT. Where the SAT finds that a Council member has failed to comply with a Standards Panel order made under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) of the Act, in addition to the range of sanctions available to the Standards Panel after it makes a finding that a minor breach occurred, the SAT can also order a member be suspended or disqualified from holding office.

ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES During 2010 – 2011 the Standards Panel’s administration and support services were provided by two Officers from the Department of Local Government.

NUMBER OF STANDARDS PANELS ESTABLISHED Although the Act allows for the establishment of more than one standards panel, to date the Minister has established the primary standards panel only. It is this panel which is known as the Local Government Standards Panel (the Standards Panel).

COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT MEMBER In the period 2010 – 2011, 57 complaints of minor breach were received and 36 complaints were finalised. These complaints included some with multiple allegations about the same council member, some with one or more allegations about two council members, and some with an allegation or allegations in common with another complaint or other complaints about the same council member. Below is a table documenting the number of received complaints by the Standards Panel in regards to the number of complaints finalised in this financial year:

Table 1: Standards Panel Ongoing Tally of Complaints


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011

Years

Nu

mb

er o

f co

mp

lain

ts

Received

Finalised

`

The previous table indicates the number of complaints received have steadily increased, resulting in the Standards Panel meeting more often to deal with the increasing workload. The higher number of finalised complaints in the 2009 – 2010 year is primarily attributable to a higher proportion of complaints that resulted in ‘no breach’ findings (including 14 complaints in regard to Councillors from one Local Government on the basis that in most of them the Councillor complained about had “no case to answer”).

The table below indicates the source of complaints.

Table 2: Source of Complaints, Standards Panel 2010 – 2011

45%

19%

10%

8%

14%2% 2% Councillor 45%

Member of the Public 19%

Employee 10%

Chief Executive Officer 8%

Mayor 14%

Deputy Mayor 2%

Deputy President 2%

NUMBER OF STANDARDS PANEL MEETINGS HELD During 2010 – 2011 the Standards Panel held 14 meetings (compared to 2009 – 2010 when it held nine meetings).

FINDINGS OF MINOR BREACH OR OTHERWISE During 2010 – 2011 the Standards Panel finalised 36 complaints, in relation to which the Panel: (a) made findings that:

no breach occurred in relation to 21 complaints; at least one minor breach had occurred, in relation to 12 complaints;

and breaches occurred in relation to 2 complaints but were dismissed; and

(b) did not make any finding in relation to one complaint due to the council

member complained about ceasing to be a council member after the complaint was made.


TYPES OF ALLEGATIONS There were a total of 94 allegations in the 36 complaints that the Standards Panel finalised in the period 2010 – 2011. The following table shows a break down of the outcomes for those allegations.

Regulation

reg 3 reg 4 reg 6 reg 7 reg 8 reg 9 reg 10 reg 11

For Minor Official Conduct Projects

Breach of M

eeting Procedures Local

Law (S

tanding Orders)

General P

rincipals Governing elected

mem

ber behaviour

Improper use of inform

ation

Miscellaneous

Misuse of local governm

ent resources

Non-disclosure of interest adverse to

impartiality

Prohibition against involvem

ent in adm

inistration

Relations w

ith local government

employees

Securing personal advantage or

disadvantaging others

To

tal

No Breach 14 3 3 2 2 5 7 12 25 73

Public Apology 2 5 2 9

Training 5 5

Public Censure 1 2 3

Complaint Dismissed 1 1 2

No Jurisdiction 1 1

Censure and Public Apology 1 1

Total 21 3 4 2 3 5 7 18 31 94

COMPLAINTS DEALT WITH UNDER SECTION 5.110(6)(b) OR (c) In 2010 – 2011 the Standards Panel dealt with 12 complaints under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) of the Act, as indicated in the attached Schedule 1. This schedule also indicates for those complaints, any Standards Panel order or SAT order that was not complied with, or is yet to be complied with, and the outcome (or the state of progress of any proceedings at the date of signing of this report) in relation to the non-compliance.

SAT REVIEWS The attached Schedule 1 also indicates, in regard to the 12 complaints dealt with under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) of the Act in 2010 – 2011: (a) the complaints that have been or are the subject of an application made to

the SAT, during the period 1 July 2010 to the date of signing of this report, for a SAT review of the Standards Panel’s decision; and

(b) the outcome of the application or review, or the current situation of the application or review at the date of signing of this report, as the case requires.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH A STANDARDS PANEL ORDER OR A SAT ORDER The attached Schedule 2 sets out the details of any Standards Panel order made on or before 30 June 2010 that was not complied with, and the outcome (or the state of progress of any proceedings at the date of signing of this report) in relation to the non-compliance.

REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL AND ITS SUPPORTING LEGISLATION In late 2010, an independent Standards Panel Review Committee (the Review Committee) was established by the Minister for Local Government, Hon John Castrilli MLA, to conduct a review of the disciplinary framework created by the Official Conduct Act and the Regulations. The terms of reference for the Review Committee required the review process to include an examination of the operation of the Standards Panel and its supporting legislation. During the course of this review the Standards Panel met on two occasions to contribute information and views to the Review Committee on the operations of the Official Conduct Act and the disciplinary framework.


REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REPORT Clause 11 of Schedule 5.1 of the Act requires that: “(1) By 31 August in each year, the primary standards panel is to prepare and

provide to the Minister a report on the complaints dealt with by all standards panels during the previous financial year.

(2) The annual report must not include information that identifies or enables

the identification of a council member against whom a complaint was made if the complaint was not dealt with under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c).”

This report covers the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.

Brad Jolly Presiding Member Local Government Standards Panel 24 August 2011


http://www.dlg.wa.gov.au

SCHEDULE 1

Complaints dealt with by the Local Government Standards Panel under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 during the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.

MATTER DETAILS Description of minor breach(es) the Standards Panel found had occurred

Details of action taken under section 5.110(6)(b) or (c) of the Act

SAT Review Details SAT Order after SAT Review

Details of SAT proceedings where non-compliance with a Standards Panel order or a SAT Order

SP 10 of 2009

Council member complained about:

Cr Brett Milton

TREBY (City of Wanneroo)

(Deputy Mayor)

Complainant:

Cr M.F. Grierson

That on 19 April 2009 Cr Treby made improper use of his office as a Council member for the purpose of causing detriment to Cr Grierson, a breach of regulation 7(1)(b), by sending to the other City Councillors a copy of an email from him to Cr Grierson containing improper and derogatory remarks about her.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(c) for two sanctions under 5.110(6)(b): (i) that Cr Treby be publicly censured; and (ii) that he apologise publicly to Cr Grierson. THE CITY’S CEO PUBLISHED THE REQUIRED PUBLIC CENSURE. CR TREBY MADE THE REQUIRED APOLOGY IN THE TWO SPECIFIED NEWSPAPERS.

Not applicable, as no SAT review of the Standards Panel’s decision was applied for.

Not applicable, as no SAT review of the Standards Panel’s decision was held.

Not applicable, as the Standards Panel’s orders were complied with.


SCHEDULE 1 continued.





SP 14 of 2010


Cr Richard Maxwell

(Max) Collier HIPKINS

(City of Nedlands) (Deputy Mayor)

Complainant:

Cr I. Tan

That on 25 March 2010 Cr Hipkins made improper use of his office of Council member to gain directly or indirectly an advantage for another person (the applicant), a breach of regulation 7(1)(a), by voluntarily giving evidence for the applicant in an application to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision by the City of Nedlands to refuse development approval for the use of premises in the Nedlands Village shopping centre.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(i) that Cr Hipkins be publicly censured. THE CITY’S CEO PUBLISHED THE REQUIRED PUBLIC CENSURE.



Not applicable, as the Standards Panel’s order was complied with.


MATTER DETAILS Description of minor breach/es the Standards Panel found had occurred




SP 15 of 2010


Cr Elizabeth RE (City of Stirling)

Complainant:

Cr S. Proud

That on or about 5 February 2010 Cr Re made improper use of her office, and committed a breach of regulation 7(1)(b), by publishing and circulating her electronic newsletter with an article in it headed ‘Martino service station – Ampol – Scarborough Beach Road Innaloo’ with the intent to cause detriment to each of Cr Giovanni Italiano JP and Cr Stephanie Proud, such detriment being that: that at least some of the people in the City’s district would think less favourably of each of them; denigration for having voted for the redevelopment; and adverse treatment from those readers of the newsletter who took up Cr Re’s invitation in the article to contact either of them.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(ii) that Cr Re apologise publicly on specified terms to each of Cr Italiano and Cr Proud.

Cr Re applied to SAT for a SAT review, which was heard on 21 April 2011. On 13 July 2011 the SAT decision in Re and Local Government Standards Panel [2011] WASAT 108 was delivered.

THE OUTCOME OF THE SAT REVIEW WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE STANDARDS PANEL THAT CR RE COMMITTED A BREACH OF REGULATION 7(1)(b); AND THAT CR RE MAKE THE REQUIRED PUBLIC APOLOGY, IN THE TERMS SET OUT BY THE STANDARDS PANEL, AT THE NEXT MEETING OF COUNCIL.

CR RE MADE THE REQUIRED PUBLIC APOLOGY AT THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON 2 AUGUST 2011.

1. The decision of the Standards Panel made on 22 December 2010 that Cr Re had committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening regulation 7(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA) is affirmed. 2. The Orders of the Local Government Standards Panel made on 22 December 2010 in relation to the sanction to be imposed on Cr Re for the minor breach she committed are affirmed, save that the time for compliance with Order 2 is the next City of Stirling Ordinary Council Meeting immediately following the date of delivery of these Reasons for Decision and the time for compliance with Order 3, if applicable, is a date within 14 days of the date of that Meeting.

Not applicable.







SP 18 & 19 of 2010


Cr Michelle Tracey

STECK (City of Bunbury)

Complainants:

Mr G.V. Klem (SP 18 of 2010)

Cr D. Spencer

(SP 19 of 2010)

That on 18 February 2010 Cr Steck made improper use of her office of Council member to cause detriment to Mr Geoffrey Vincent Klem, in contravention of regulation 7(1)(b), in that: she sent to the City’s CEO her written notice of intention to move a motion at the City’s Council meeting on 2 March 2010; and she so gave that notice with the intent and purpose that its contents would made publicly available in the agenda for the City’s Council (Standing) Committee held on 23 February 2010.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(ii) that Cr Steck apologise publicly on specified terms to Mr Klem.

Cr Steck applied to the SAT for a SAT review, which was heard on 22 June 2011. On 9 August 2011 the SAT decision in Steck and Local Government Standards Panel [2011] WASAT 117 was delivered. THE OUTCOME OF THE SAT REVIEW WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD CR STECK’S APPLICATION AND SET ASIDE THE STANDARDS PANEL’S DECISION, IN EFFECT ON THE BASIS THAT WHILE IT WAS SATISFIED THAT CR STECK HAD MADE IMPROPER USE OF HER OFFICE AS A COUNCILLOR IN LODGING THE SUBJECT NOTICE OF INTENTION WITH THE CEO, SHE DID NOT DO SO TO CAUSE DETRIMENT TO MR KLEM.

The application for review is upheld.

Not applicable






SP 23 & 27 of 2010


Cr Daphne Mae

SIMMONS (Shire of

Coolgardie)

Complainants:

Cr M.J. Donkin (SP 23 of 2010)

Cr N. Karafilis

(SP 27 of 2010)

That at the Shire’s Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 May 2010 Cr Simmons committed 3 minor breaches – namely, that: (a) she used an offensive or objectionable expression in reference to Cr Margaret Jean Donkin, in contravention of standing order 8.3(2) of the Shire of Coolgardie Standing Orders Local Law 2000; (b) she made a statement orally and in writing, when a member of the public was present, that implied that the Shire’s Manager Regulatory and Development Services, Mr Geoffrey Benson, was dishonest, in contravention of regulation 10(3)(a); and (c) she made an oral statement, when a member of the public was present, that implied that the Shire’s employees, generally, or some of them were dishonest, in contravention of regulation 10(3)(a).

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(ii) that Cr Simmons apologise publicly on specified terms to each of Cr Donkin, Mr Benson, and to the Shire’s employees generally. CR SIMMONS MADE THE REQUIRED APOLOGY AT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING.










SP 25 of 2010


Cr Gerard

DORNFORD (City of Belmont)

Complainant:

Mayor G. Godfrey

That, at each of the City of Belmont’s Ordinary Council Meetings held on 27 October 2009, 24 November 2009, 15 December 2009, 23 February 2010 and 23 March 2010, Cr Dornford contravened standing order 4.5(1) of the City of Belmont Standing Orders Local Law 2006 in that when the minutes of a previous meeting or previous meetings were submitted for confirmation, he was dissatisfied with the accuracy of such minutes, but refused or failed to state the item or items with which he was dissatisfied and propose a motion clearly outlining alternative wording to amend such minutes, and thus committed five minor breaches by virtue of regulation 4 of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(iii) that Cr Dornford undertake a one day training course in the Unit of Competency, in the Diploma in Local Government (Elected Member), described as “Councillor Roles & Responsibilities”, offered by the Western Australian Local Government Association. CR DORNFORD UNDERTOOK THE ORDERED TRAINING ON 24 JULY 2011.

Not applicable, as no SAT review was applied for.

Not applicable, as no SAT review held.







SP 29 of 2010


Cr Brian CORR

(City of Joondalup)

Complainant:

Mayor T. Pickard

That, on 6 July 2010 Cr Corr committed a breach of regulation 6(2)(a) during the discussion on item JSC06-07/10 at the City of Joondalup’s Special Meeting of Council when the meeting was open to members of the public, when he disclosed confidential information concerning particular litigation involving the City. That information was derived from a document marked by the City’s CEO to clearly show that the information in it was not to be disclosed.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(i) that Cr Corr be publicly censured on specified terms.

CR CORR HAS APPLIED TO THE SAT FOR A SAT REVIEW. THE HEARING IN THE SAT REVIEW HAS BEEN LISTED TO BE HEARD ON 1 NOVEMBER 2011.

Not applicable, at this time.








SP 31 & 40 of 2010


Cr Donald YATES

(Town of Bassendean)

Complainants:

Mr I.C. McDowell (SP 31 of 2010)

Ms M. Stubbs

(SP 40 of 2010)

That, on 13 July 2010 Cr Yates committed a breach of regulation 10(3)(a) during the debate on item 10.9 at the Town’s Ordinary Council Meeting when members of the public were present, in that he orally made statements implying that Mr Ian Craig McDowell (a Town employee at that date and the author of the officer report that was before Council on such item) was dishonest by deliberately including in that report: (a) unnecessary items of expenditure to improperly inflate the total budget for the project concerned to such an extent that Council would not approve the carrying out of the project; and (b) pricings that were dishonest in that they were deliberately ‘exaggerated’.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(ii) that Cr Yates apologise publicly on specified terms to Mr McDowell.

CR YATES HAS APPLIED TO THE SAT FOR A SAT REVIEW. THE HEARING IN THE SAT REVIEW HAS BEEN LISTED TO BE HEARD ON 25 OCTOBER 2011.









SP 35 of 2010


Cr Donald YATES

(Town of Bassendean)

Complainant:

Ms M. Stubbs

That, on 9 March 2010 Cr Yates committed a breach of regulation 7(1)(a) in that he made improper use of his office as a Council member to gain directly or indirectly an advantage for an immediate next-door neighbour, when he sent an email to his fellow Town Councillors giving wrong advice to them, and inappropriately lobbying or attempting to influence and putting pressure on them, in relation to a request by the neighbour to the Town of Bassendean to have the R coding of the neighbour’s property increased from residential R25 to R40 (the matter), knowing that he had a proximity interest in the matter, and knowing that he was precluded from participating in the discussions and the decision making procedure relating to the matter when it was before the Town’s Council later on that date.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(b)(i) that Cr Yates be publicly censured on specified terms.

CR YATES HAS APPLIED TO THE SAT FOR A SAT REVIEW. THE HEARING IN THE SAT REVIEW HAS BEEN LISTED TO BE HEARD ON 25 OCTOBER 2011.



SCHEDULE 2

Details of any Local Government Standards Panel order made on or before 30 June 2010 that was not complied with, and the outcome (or the state of progress of any proceedings at the date of signing of this report) in relation to the non-compliance.




SP 37 of 2008 Council member complained about: Cr Timothy Wynn HARGREAVES (Shire of Shark Bay) Complainant: Mr Kelvin John Matthews

That on or about

21 September 2008

Cr Hargreaves made improper use of his office of Council member for the purpose of causing detriment to Mr Matthews, and thus committed a breach of regulation 7(1)(b), by sending to some unnamed persons of his local community copies of his email of 21 September 2008 that he had sent to two named Officers of the [then] Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

The Standards Panel made an order under 5.110(6)(c) for two sanctions under 5.110(6)(b): that

Cr Hargreaves be publicly censured on specified terms; and that he apologise publicly to the complainant Mr Matthews on specified terms. The Shire’s CEO published the public censure, as required. Cr Hargreaves failed to comply with the Panel’s order for him to apologise publicly to the complainant Mr Matthews.

The Shire of Shark Bay’s CEO, Mr P J Tiggemann, referred to the SAT Cr Hargreaves’ failure to comply with the Standards Panel’s order that he apologise publicly to Mr Matthews, as specified in the order. The proceedings in the SAT (file # DR: 234/2010) were heard on 17 December 2010 by the SAT’s President, Justice J A Chaney. On 17 December 2010 Justice Chaney delivered oral reasons for his decision before making an order pursuant to section 117(1)(a)(iv) of the Local Government Act 1995 that Cr Hargreaves is suspended from holding the office of a member of Council for a period of six months commencing on 17 December 2010.


- NOTES -

If you would like more information please contact us.

Department of Local Government 140 William StreetPerth WA 6000

Tel: (08) 6552 1500Fax: (08) 6558 1555Freecall: 1800 620 511 (Country Only)Email: [email protected]: www.dlg.wa.gov.au

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dlg.wa.gov.au

annual report 2010 – 2011 · 2019. 12. 6. · local government standards panel . annual report...

Documents