Crime and Corruption Commission probes Logan Council CEO Sharon Kelsey’s sacking

SUSPENDED Logan Mayor Luke Smith is under investigation by anti-corruption officials over allegations he directed the sacking of a whistleblower, court documents reveal.

SUSPENDED Logan Mayor Luke Smith is under investigation by anti-corruption officials over allegations he directed the sacking of a whistleblower, court documents reveal.

The Crime and Corruption Commission has written to Smith’s lawyers confirming it was probing allegations “he directed or otherwise influenced seven other councillors” to terminate council chief executive Sharon Kelsey in retaliation for her turning whistleblower.

Suspended Logan Mayor Luke Smith is under investigation by anti-corruption officials. Picture: Mark Cranitch

Sharon Kelsey was sacked after a 7-5 council vote in February, four months after going to the CCC. Picture: AAP Image/Josh Woning

The letter, provided to Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, states Ms Kelsey notified the CCC of suspected corruption by Smith as required under the Crime and Corruption Act. Ms Kesley was sacked after a 7-5 council vote in February, four months after going to the CCC, and has alleged in the QIRC that the termination was an act of reprisal for assisting the CCC.

The QIRC is examining whether the mayor, who was under a court order not to take part in the vote, and Councillors Cherie Dalley, Russell ­Lutton, Steve Swenson, Laurie Smith, Phil Pidgeon, Trevina Schwarz and Jennie Breene were aligned.

All deny an alliance.

The Courier-Mail can reveal Smith and the same councillors, excluding Cr Lutton, were part of a messaging app Whatsapp group named “The Fab 7”. Ms Kelsey has applied for copies of any communications obtained by the CCC “evidencing communication and collaboration” between councillors.

The CCC in July handed the QIRC phone intercept ­recordings.

The CCC states in its July letter that the material “increases the chances of parties being able to appropriately test the veracity of evidence and decreases the chances of the QIRC having false evidence placed before it which is uncontested” as it examines whether a voting “bloc” existed. Reprisal action against a whistleblower “would constitute corrupt conduct”, it says.