Burnside councillor Lance Bagster, accused of bullying, offers to resign if council drops complaints

BURNSIDE Council has spent more than $250,000 dealing with bullying allegations against a councillor — and he’s now offered to resign if the council drops all complaints against him.

• How acrimony spread throughout Burnside Council
• Burnside councillor poses a ‘safety risk’ to others
• Bagster reported to police for allegedly making threats
• Council cancels special meeting to discuss CEO’s future
• Restraining order against councillor to keep him from mayor

A BURNSIDE councillor accused of bullying staff and elected members has offered to resign if the council drops all its complaints against him.

The council has spent $258,000 in the past five months dealing with allegations against Lance Bagster, including that he harassed and stalked colleagues.

Councillor Bagster made the “unconditional offer” in an email to the council’s lawyers this month. In his email, he said he wanted “nothing more to do with council” because he was tired of “having to fight” the “great number of prosecutions” against him.

Burnside councillor Lance Bagster.

“The toll on my family’s health and wellbeing, and the drain on my full-time work, has become too great,” he said.

“This proposal also means that the ratepayers of Burnside will be spared the many more hundreds of thousands of dollars it will take to continue prosecuting me.”

Mr Bagster said it would also give Burnside “the opportunity to get back to the business of running (the) council”.

Burnside lodged complaints against Mr Bagster with various authorities, including the Fair Work Commission, following the release in August of an independent mediator’s report which alleged he had “bullied, harassed and stalked” some of his colleagues.

Mr Bagster has repeatedly denied those claims.

Adelaide Magistrates Court granted the council interim intervention orders against Mr Bagster, which have banned him from attending meetings since September.

It is understood the court will consider the intervention orders again this week.

A Burnside spokesman said it would be inappropriate to consider Mr Bagster’s offer because the matter was “currently part of a court process”.

It comes as a State Ombudsman’s investigation, released this month, found Mr Bagster committed “misconduct in public administration” when he chose to remain in the council chamber during debates on items in which he had a “material conflict of interest”.

Those items included a debate on May 23 about the appointment of an independent mediator to manage a feud between himself and Burnside chief executive Paul Deb.

Ombudsman Wayne Lines recommended Cr Bagster be forced to make a public apology for his actions, and noted the council had the power to refer his conduct to the District Court.

In his concluding remarks, Mr Lines said Cr Bagster had, in his view, demonstrated a “wilful and contumacious disregard for his obligations as an elected member”.

“Cr Bagster has consistently refused to heed the advice of his colleagues … to desist from inappropriately involving himself in matters in which he has had a direct personal interest,” Mr Lines said in the report.

“In responding to my report … he has demonstrated a concerning lack of insight into his behaviour and I am not satisfied that Cr Bagster is likely to refrain from further similar conduct.”

Mr Bagster said he could no longer carry out his role because of the intervention orders.