Ombudsman report recommends council take legal action against former Tea Tree Gully mayor Kevin Knight

First he lost his council spot, now an unprecedented report recommends steps that may end with a ban on ex-TTG mayor Kevin Knight for “sustained inappropriate behaviour”.

One of the state’s most controversial local government figures may be banned from running for council for five years, and could have triggered a by-election had he been re-elected at the weekend.

The state’s Ombudsman has delivered an explosive investigation into former Tea Tree Gully Council mayor Kevin Knight and recommended the council take legal action against him.

That legal action, which The Advertiser understands will begin in the coming weeks, will see the council ask the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to instate a ban on Mr Knight.

“My view is that Mayor Knight has engaged in repeated or sustained inappropriate behaviour,” Ombudsman Wayne Lines wrote.

“On the basis of the information before me, I am of the view that Mayor Knight’s inappropriate behaviour, in various forms, has been repeated.

The state‘s Ombudsman delivered an explosive investigation into former Tea Tree Gully mayor Kevin Knight, which recommended the council take legal action against him. Picture: Keryn Stevens

“The first notable incident (occurred) in November 2018 and (it occurred) on at least 16 different occasions thereafter.

“I am also of the view that Mayor Knight’s inappropriate behaviour was sustained over the course of almost two years, with Mayor Knight continuing to engage in inappropriate conduct despite being put on notice throughout the course of 2019 and 2020 through various means including notices of complaint, requests to respond to investigation reports, and motions of no confidence by elected members as a result of alleged inappropriate behaviour.“

The resulting legal action could see Mr Knight barred from running for council for five years, meaning he would also be restricted from contesting the 2026 local government elections and any by-elections.

Former Tea Tree Gully mayor Kevin Knight during a 15-minute tirade on Facebook. Picture: Facebook

Had Mr Knight secured a third term as mayor the deliverance within the report could have triggered a by-election based on the legal action set to be taken by the council.

It is understood the by-election could have cost ratepayers between about $300,000 to $400,000.

It is also understood Mr Knight was aware of the contents of the investigation, and the possible outcomes, prior to nominating for mayor.

But, given his mayoral defeat to Marijka Ryan, the impact of the investigation will have less effect on the hip pocket of Tea Tree Gully residents.

Council spokesman and deputy mayor Lucas Jones said Mr Knight’s conduct had been “unacceptable and inappropriate” and welcomed the findings of Mr Lines’s investigation.

“As a council, we set high expectations of acceptable behaviour for our elected members and staff which must, as a minimum, meet reasonable community expectations and comply with our obligations to provide a safe working environment,” it said.

“Former Mayor Knight’s conduct has been unacceptable and inappropriate and we will now follow the Ombudsman’s direction to begin proceedings in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

“We are committed to delivering positive outcomes for our community and committed to implementing the Ombudsman’s recommendations.”

In a statement issued on Monday evening, Mr Knight rejected the Ombudsman’s findings “in their entirety”, saying he had consistently refuted the allegations – vowing “every dog has his day and I intend to have mine”.

“I deny having engaged in any inappropriate behaviour whatsoever,” he said.

“I look forward to having the opportunity to further pursue these matters before the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.”

The most recent term of Mr Knight’s leadership was plagued by controversy after an investigation into his conduct by independent legal group Norman Waterhouse found he had breached the council’s code of conduct 31 times.

The original investigation found Mr Knight had breached the council’s code of conduct 31 times including by labelling a council employee he patted on the backside with a rolled up document a “$2 tramp”.

Mr Knight was also investigated for, and found to have breached, the council’s code of conduct several other times throughout his reign.

Those investigations left an $80,000 legal bill in his wake which ratepayers demanded he pay.