Legal dispute strikes council

YELLING, interruptions, legal argument ... just another a meeting of the Glenorchy City Council.

Glenorchy Mayor Kristie Johnston. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE

A GLENORCHY City Council meeting erupted in interjections from aldermen and yells from the public gallery as a legal dispute marred last night’s meeting.

It began when Mayor Kristie Johnston questioned the legality of a policy change proposed by Glenorchy City Council’s chief legal officer.

General counsel Seva Iskandarli proposed an amendment to extend the minimum time frame for aldermen to submit questions on notice before council meetings to 11 days, up from seven.

This was in response to recent practice by Ald Johnston, and some other aldermen, who have been asking numerous questions on notice before council meetings.

But Ald Johnston read out legal advice from Ogilvie Jennings which stated the amendment was unlawful and recommended she refuse to accept it.

Then Ms Iskandarli distributed external legal advice from Simmons Wolfhagen, which found the amendment was in order.

Ald Johnston refused to accept the amendment, which prompted confusion and yelling across the council table.

Ald Steven King asked Ald Johnston three times if she was disputing the advice from Simmons Wolfhagen. Ald Jenny Branch-Allen asked for Ms Iskandarli’s advice — which was later distributed — with Ald Johnston telling her the item was “not for debate.”

A motion to approve the council’s annual report ahead of next month’s annual general meeting also was defeated.

Ald Branch-Allen said she could not accept the report because the mayor’s message was political, personal, and a “historically selective piece of writing” and moved an amendment that it be removed from the report.

The message mentioned the ongoing board of inquiry report, as well as legal action taken earlier this year by Ald Branch-Allen.

Ald Johnston said the board of inquiry was a significant event which had impacted on the council, and should be referred to in the report.

Aldermen supported the amendment, but after extended discussion surrounding the interpretation of the city’s underlying deficit, the original motion was lost.

Originally published as Legal dispute strikes council