Kangroo Court Says Guilty!

At 10.17am Cr Di Forsyth was asked to leave council chambers as her fate was decided, well actually that’s not entirely true, it seems her fate had already been decided by Far North Investigations by an unsigned "report". Despite the name Far North INVESTIGATIONS which could lead you to believe they investigate, it appears in this case they simply relied on a previous report by Col McDowall (a quick Google search fails to reveal what qualifications Col McDowall had to carry out any report in the first place, just as a further Google search reveals that FNI’s only claim to fame is that they have a linkin membership (something my 12 year old niece has)

As stated in their first sentence of the badly designed report “We refer to the above matter and your instructions to review an investigation previously carried out by Col McDowall”. So we have a report on a report and now have two people with questionable credentials in investigating or reporting for council.

The report opens by cautioning against releasing a full copy of the report to Councillor Forsyth, suggesting that a letter from the Mayor or CEO detailing the investigation findings would be sufficient to convey the outcome to Cr Forsyth. What??? Doesn’t that go against basic Administrative law concepts, that theory that you should know what the accusations against you are and what they consist of?

The document uses terms such as “In the course of this investigation” interesting given by FNI Investigation Diary the only interview was with Di Forsyth herself, it constantly refers to “Mr McDowall in his report” but no actual investigation by FNI themselves.

It goes onto foot note PADYC as a reference which is a nice touch, but being a member of PADYC I was aware there isn’t a website, there are many associated websites such as Yacht Club Cairns or Save the CYC but no PADYC website, so what exactly are they referencing? A made up quote from a made up site perhaps?

In the full report (which although Noel Briggs CEO ensured me it was on the website, it does not appear to be) Dianne is charged under the Code of Conduct 1.324 which interestingly enough refers to as pointed out by Councillor Julia Leu belongs to Cairns City Council which were superseded when the Cairns Regional Council imported its own Code of Conduct based on the Queensland Governments recommended Code of Conduct. When asked about this point Noel Briggs admitted that the previous code was quoted in the report and that he had contacted FNI “who had advised that although they had reported on the wrong section it would not have made a difference in the outcome”. Again what????

One of my favourite parts of the report is when it goes on to impose a penalty, although the report states “we could find no prescribed penalty for the subject offence, rather the Model Code of Conduct states that Council may decide to;
Take no further action or impose a penalty”, oh goodie at least council still get to decide something. Despite imposing a penalty the final wrap up suggests that Anton Constructions deal with Cr Forsyth directly regarding any compensation, which would suggest that Di wasn’t acting as a Councillor otherwise wouldn’t any liability for compensation lay with council?

The report goes on to talk about “public perception of the event which was well covered by local media” a point echoed in chambers by Councillor Cochrine “there is an expectation regarding councillor behaviour by the community” interesting points, however if we take these into account well A LOT of councillors are now in trouble. Recent examples are Cr Paul Gregory & Cr Alan Blake standing up at a Banana Rally and talking out about the importation of Banana’s now while I agree with their view point on this topic, is it now fair for me to assume that is all of Council’s view? Was it an official stance? They were introduced to the Rally as Councillors so I should be right to assume that they were there as councillors, if I was an importer I might find that stance offensive are councils even allowed to legislate on imports? There has long been tales of Shoulder barging in Rustys, to threats of all kinds at the Beaches, to just plain yelling and screaming at constituents on the south side. So is it now councils official stand point to bully its constituents?

The report which was on letterhead consisting of a Microsoft word header that even the most incompetent computer user could likely master and would likely have the presence of mind to add an ABN unlike the author, ends unsigned and in my opinion insignificant.

But sadly it wasn’t insignificant, this literary toilet paper was given weight and decisions were based on it.

Our usual Super Heroes of Common Sense Councillors Leu & Pyne were this time joined by Cr Lesina and voted against the breach, but that wasn’t enough, with Councillors Cochrane, Cooper, Bonneau, Gregory, Lanskey & Schier voting that Cr Forsyth had Committed a minor breach and that her behaviour did breach the ethical and behavioural obligations of a councillor, however under which code of conduct she was being tried it was never made clear as apparently that is “irrelevant”.

Councillor Forsyth has been awarded the opportunity to put a submission in her defence (sounds fair) which she exercised her right to do a written submission instead of a verbal (sounds sensible) however a new motion that a breach be recorded on council records and no further action be taken was then raised and carried so it appears the “sentence” has been passed without the right of reply and any submission would now have no effect or weight.