Charles Sturt Council pays $4000 for investigation into complaint against Deputy Mayor Tom Scheffler
Charles Sturt ratepayers have coughed up more than $4000 in legal fees after a resident made an unfounded code of conduct complaint against Deputy Mayor Tom Scheffler. Councillors have hit back at the process.
West & Beaches
Don't miss out on the headlines from West & Beaches. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Serial complainant to Charles Sturt Council given chance of ban lifting
- How to get the most out of your Advertiser subscription
Charles Sturt Council has been forced to spend $4000 investigating a spurious claim of “collusion” against a councillor, leaving his colleagues angry.
The code of conduct complaint was made by an aggrieved neighbour against Deputy Mayor Tom Scheffler, after Cr Scheffler supported a non-complaint development on a resident’s land.
Cr Scheffler’s supposed conflict of interest was based on the fact the neighbour believed Cr Scheffler and the resident had been police colleagues.
Cr Scheffler was cleared of any wrongdoing in an independent investigation conducted by EMA Legal – for which ratepayers were billed $4106.52.
According to the investigation, by EMA Legal director Kaye Smith, there was no evidence of any conflict of interest.
“I consider that knowledge of the fact that (the resident) worked at the same (police) station for a short period, on a different shift, in a different team such a long time ago (in 1991/1992) would lead a fair minded impartial person to the view that there was no perceived conflict of interest,” Ms Smith wrote.
She also found there was no basis to the accusation of collusion.
Cr Tolley Wasylenko criticised the fact the complaint had to be investigated and described the legal fees as “outrageous”.
“This is over $4000 of ratepayers funds to defend an action that shouldn’t have even got to the point where $4000 was expended,” Cr Wasylenko said.
“There is no accountability for those people making the accusations.”
Cr Gerard Ferrao said he was concerned about the “reputation loss” caused by unfounded complaints.
“There seems to be very little that’s done, at the end of the day, when there’s found to be no substantiation to the claim,” Cr Ferrao said.
“If you throw enough dirt at someone, some of it is going to stick”
He said councillors should be “safeguarded from mental harm arising from these perpetual and consistent complaints”.
Changes to the code of conduct are being considered as part of significant local government reforms by the State Government.
Cr Scheffler has been contacted for comment.