page33

Local Government Act 1993 requires every council to adopt a code of conduct that incorporates the provisions of The Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW. Councillors, members of staff of council and delegates of the council must comply with the applicable provisions of council's code of conduct. It is the personal responsibility of council officials to comply with the standards in the code and regularly review their personal circumstances with this in mind. Council contractors and volunteers will also be required to observe the relevant provisions of council's code of conduct. Failure by a councillor to comply with an applicable requirement of council's code of conduct constitutes misbehaviour. Failure by a member of staff to comply with council's code of conduct may give rise to disciplinary action.

So begins the New South Wales Department of Local Government treatise on how councillors and council staff should conduct themselves in the course of their duties. I doubt many Albury councillors have read it. Most of them make it up as they go along. The use of the word model to describe the code suggests the author's sense of irony because as in the case of Albury City Council and one of its councillors, Cr Duncan-Strelec, she simply refuses in any way to comply with the code. This councillor prefers to abide by her own personally exclusive code of conduct which she has nurtured over the years as a councillor. It would probably read like some provincial Machiavellian intrigue if the truth be known.

When she's on the receiving end of a complaint however it's a different matter.

As mentioned in a previous article this issue with there are 11 Code of Conduct complaints currently before Mr Gerry Holmes who has chosen by Albury City Council to adjudicate on such matters. Cr Duncan-Strelec who was found guilty of having breached the Code of Conduct against an Albury resident Mr Graeme Richardson. This time the boot was well and truly on the other foot. In the past Cr Duncan-Strelec has used the Code of Conduct complaint as an integral part of her political strategem. When she led the attack against Cr Paul Whareham in 2007 which went on for the better part of a year she did so with all the malevolence she was capable of. It goes without saying that in the malevolence department Cr Duncan-Strelec comes amply provisioned.

Cr Duncan-Strelec was found guilty of a Code of Conduct violation against an Albury resident Mr Graeme Richardson, (refer to story in August/September 2011 archives)) and was asked to apologise to him. She refused. No way. It wasn't much of a penalty in the first place considering her behaviour which Mr Richardson indicates it involves some criminality on her behalf. Mr Richardson believes that either ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) or the New South Wales police should investigate the matter. Certainly Mr Holmes should not investigate it. Mr Holmes however did investigate the matter. While he found Duncan-Strelec guilty he nevertheless failed to address adequately Mr Richardson's complaint. It was another Holmes whitewash. Mr Richardson in his quest for Justice has been continually thwarted at first by Mr Les Tomich, who is presently on sick leave and now the acting general manager, Mr Michael Keys, whose willingness to pursue the matter has seemed at times haphazard and unprofessional. Borderline in the public interest has obtained a copy of Mr Richardson's correspondence to Mr Michael Keys and councillors. We publish the e-mail he sent (right) in the hope that those who think Cr Duncan-Strelec's behaviour was trivial and as she explained to the mayor 'tongue in cheek' might think again.

It is obvious that this year, with the local government elections looming Cr Duncan-Strelec seems determined that if she is going to go down she'll try and take as many of her fellow councillors down with her as well. It is long been apparent that Cr Duncan-Strelec performances in the Council chamber mostly go unnoticed. The councillor asserts herself with all the aggression and self-righteousness she can muster. That's because Cr Duncan-Strelec is a bully. That's why most of the councillors are intimidated by her. Her public persona on the other hand is one of a councillor as victim a victim of malicious voices of darkness who will stop at nothing in their attempts to destroy her. This is exactly how she likes it. Into the mix in equal measure go becalming public utterances and warnings to her fellow councillors about there conduct. A voice of moderation and wisdom against a tide of hostility, mediocrity and cynicism.

Cr Duncan-Strelec has said apparently that she will not be standing for council this year. We don't believe it. How of course she will negotiate her way through a lot of public negativity she has amassed over the years is anyone's guess.

We'll have a stab at it anyway.

In the last Local Government election in 2008 Cr Duncan-Strelec just managed to be re-elected. How she manages re-election this time might go something like this. Plan A. Amanda as Victim. Even at this very time the councillor is collating a list (some provided from the pages of Borderline) to present a case not only to Mr Holmes and but also anyone else who is prepared to listen. This no doubt weighty tome will support the councillor's case that she is entirely misunderstood by those who would send her to the wilderness. This Amanda as Victim campaign will include lashings of self-pity. Such a campaign has its inherent dangers.

Naturally for the Amanda as Victim campaign to succeed it will require turning over a new leaf. This however will require a great deal of diligence because the quest the journey if you like will be long and arduous. Turning over a new leaf is never an easy thing to do. Temptation will prowl consistently like a wolf in the night.

The question is Will Mr Holmes in his final reports gives credence to the Amanda as Victim campaign. After all she figures predominantly in most of the 11 complaints he has or will arbitrate on. No doubt if he did it would help her cause no end. Mr Holmes might even publicly admit that he got the impression all things considered that Cr Duncan-Strelec was indeed the victim of systemic persecution. This outcome would then allow the Amanda as Victim campaign to blossom into Amanda as Underdog. Plan A with a B appendix. Everyone likes to be an underdog, people love underdogs. A word of caution. You can sometimes equate an underdog with a loser. This is entirely a different matter when you present your credentials to the voters as an underdog and instead are admonished and ridiculed for being a loser.

How so? you might well ask.

There's a fine line between an underdog and the loser and make no mistake about it. Remember Liberal opposition leader, John Hewson at his 1993 election campaign launch of Fightback at the Sydney Opera House. Enter stage left about four or five people with various parts of their bodies in plaster and bandages. They mumbled and blamed the Australian Labour Part for just about every aspect of what ailed them it was as Jed Clampett was fond of saying pitiful. The trouble was a lot of people who saw this bizarre performance didn't show much sympathy for their plight at all. They didn't blame the Labour Party either. What happened was that people in this instance subconsciously saw the Liberal party not as a party that associated itself with the underdog but as the party who best represented the aspirations of a loser. Hewson lost. Loser.

There's always plan C.

Then again there is the eventuality that everything will go pear shaped and the Amanda as Victim/Underdog will completely run off the rails. Plan C would entail reverting back to old habits this strategy can have its rewards. For a start you don't have to pretend. Our guess is that with all these code of conduct complaints still yet to be resolved Cr Duncan- Strelec will spit the dummy regardless of what Mr Holmes thinks. No doubt she has conveyed to Mr Holmes by now any number of scenarios in which she has suffered. Suffering is an integral part of the Victim/Underdog thing. The trouble is has she suffered enough. Maybe he will find that she suffered only a little bit. This could inspire heroic notions of complete betrayal. Plan D. Being betrayed. Presenting yourself as the betrayed has its advantages. You have do it properly though. You also have to appear extraordinary sincere. Even the slightest sense of insincerity can lead to criticism - The slippery path from which there is return. We are, of course referring to one being referred to as a charlatan. Look at Rudd. Who amongst us would doubt his sincerity. Hardly anyone. Everyone knows he was betrayed and everyone knows who was his chief betrayer Julia Gillard. Being betrayed is good position to be in when, in the next few months he makes his move. The good thing about Amanda as Betrayed you allow yourself the luxury of contemplating recriminations against your betrayers. Betrayal if handled with a positive and sincere view can enhance your prospects no end. Another thing about being betrayed is that it doesn't carry half as much baggage as being an underdog because both an underdog and being betrayed have a number of crossover points. Sometimes in a moment of desperation you might find yourself presenting yourself to prospective electors as a betrayed underdog. It is a course of action we would strongly recommend Cr Duncan-Strelec should, under no circumstances, contemplate.

When you think of it with September looming most of the councillors will be thinking of a plan that will give them an advantage over their fellow councillors. These plans are usually nothing more than snippets of delusional introspection they will present their lists of good deeds, their tireless diligence to make Albury a better place. In the back of some of their minds however, some of them will doubt their chances of re-election. Most of them won't admit it publicly but it'll be there niggling away. This is not Cr Duncan-Strelec's style. She is already on record this past year as saying that councillors haven't made much of a contribution it's the Council staff that should be thanked. Is this an indication of things to come? Cr Duncan-Strelec might have doubts about her prospects and throw plan A...B...C...whatever to the wind. When you have nothing to lose you can be very dangerous.

The General Manager (Acting)
AlburyCity

Mr Michael Keys

Your short letter 13 January and your offerings forces me to raise the following

1.        Under what section of the Local Government Act has the Cr Duncan-Strelec issue been taken to the Department of Local Government?

2.        Does section 440I get mentioned in the brief to the DLG?

3.        Do you agree that Section 440I comes under Chapter 14; Part 1; Division 3 - Misbehaviour provisions of the Local Government Act 1993?

4.         Would you consider it is reasonable to assume that to be charged with misbehavior it could have resulted from an act of indiscipline?

5.        Do you believe Cr Duncan-Strelec's misbehavior could constitute corrupt conduct?

6.        Are you aware of Section 471of the Criminal Code Act 1995 as it relates to Postal Offences?

7.        Have you sighted the letter I received from Cr Duncan-Strelec on 1 June 2011?

8.        Assuming that you have, have you any opinion on whether it comes under sec 471.12, contained in the schedule, to the Criminal Code Act 1995?

Where sec 471.12 reads - Using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence
                   A person is guilty of an offence if:
                     (a) the person uses a postal or similar service; and
                     (b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

9.        Are you aware the letter was found to be offensive by Gerry Holmes, Council's own Sole Conduct Reviewer?

10.        Are you aware the letter I received comprised of notations made on a submission addendum that Cr Duncan-Strelec had access to as a Councillor?

11.        Are you of the opinion that a submission that is received prior to official closure for submissions should be deemed to be a late submission?

12.        Are you aware of sec 62 of The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998?

62 Corrupt disclosure and use of personal information http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/s4a.html#personal_information by public sector officials http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/s3.html#public_sector_official

(1) A public sector official http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/s3.html#public_sector_official must not, otherwise than in connection with the lawful exercise http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/s3.html#exercise of his or her official functions <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/s3.html#function>, intentionally disclose or use any personal information http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/s4a.html#personal_information about another person to which the official has or had access in the exercise http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/s3.html#exercise of his or her official functions.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

13        Have you any understanding of Sec 11 ICAC Act 1988, particularly the obligation it places on the General Manager?

Duty to notify the Commision of possible corrupt conduct

Sec 11(1)(c) the principal officer of a public authority

Sec 11(5) defines principal officer to be

The regulations may prescribe who is the principal officer of a public authority but in the absence of regulations applying in relation to a particular public authority the principal officer is the person who is the head of the authority, its most senior officer or the person normally entitled to preside at its meetings.

At the end of the day your CV could show the Principal Officer to be you at this point of time.

"To thine own self be true" - look at your answers to 4 & 5 and note that Section 9 of the ICAC Act 1988 states (1) Despite section 8, conduct does not amount to corrupt conduct unless it could constitute or involve:

(a) A criminal offence, or
(b) A disciplinary offence.

It is more a question of "has" rather than "could".

Onto your - "Council has not suggested any tacit approval of the behavior to which you refer".

In my 9 January 2012 Email I stated

"If we are to accept Cr Duncan-Strellec's defence that I, and others who question Council's decisions, are serial pests then the link can be made that the non-reporting of Cr Duncan-Strellec's misbehaviour and corrupt conduct is evidence of tacit approval of her conduct by Council."

I will stand by that comment. Cr Duncan-Strelec publicly made the comments about others and myself.

Did Council rebuke her? No! In fact the contrary, and for evidence of that, look to the 27 June 2011 Council Meeting.

Now to comment on "I do not accept your implication that Council "always knew it was Cr Duncan-Strelec.

I hold an audio copy of the ABC interview in which her comments were made

By that statement of denial are you actually implying that Cr Duncan-Strelec is a pathological Liar, as definite as you are that her statement is not true in her statement she was definite that it was the case. It was made by way of tautology.

Not only that but listeners were told that I write 20 to 30 emails a day to Council.

Your denial, in face of her accusations is of interest and lead me to look up how to recognize a Pathological liar. That is interesting reading!

However Cr Duncan-Strelec was unequivocal in making that statement and perhaps with good reason as the following discloses.

Mr Tomich email to councillors.

Mon, Jun 6, 2011, 2:14 PM

Good afternoon Councillors

On Monday 30 May 2011 Council considered its 2011/12 budget and as part of its consideration received and noted a late submission by a ratepayer, Mr Graeme Richardson. After due consideration, Council resolved to adopt the 2011/12 budget without alteration.

On Wednesday 1 June 2011 anonymous correspondence was received by Mr Richardson. I have attached a copy for your information. The correspondence comprises a photocopy of the original correspondence sent by Mr Richardson with several handwritten notations thereon. The correspondence is unsigned.
Mr Richardson has advised the writer that he finds the correspondence "offensive" and requests Council to identify the writer. He has further indicated that his potential courses of action may include reporting of the matter to ICAC and/or the Police.
Accordingly, I would respectfully request that you advise me whether or not you were the person responsible so that I may advise the complainant in an attempt to limit the damage to Council's reputation that would no doubt occur should the matter proceed by way of a public and/or independent investigation.
I would request your response by 4.00pm Wednesday 8 June 2011.

Cheers

Les Tomich
General Manager
Executive
AlburyCity

"So that I may advise the complainant" The subsequent advice I received from Mr Tomich - "the person was very silly" - "it is my understanding the person won't be standing for reelection" - "what's the point of proceeding - you know the person will only get a month under the Code of Conduct."

"To limit the damage" - Les Tomich certainly failed in his objective - Sitting next to Cr Duncan-Strelec at the 22 August Council Meeting, with the Media present, while the Mayor lost control of the meeting, but then I forget - you were there. It was described by the Media as a farce.

But then, what would a reasonable person take from the response to the Tomich email by Cr Duncan-Strelec, sent a few hours later to Mr Tomich and her fellow councillors.

I find that Mr Richardson's hysterical response to this letter is far worse than the letter itself. If Mr Richardson intends to pursue this matter no doubt a copy of his response will also be included in the complaint for deliberation by whomever he reports it to.

I would also ask that if he pursues this, the previous complaint against me by Mr Richardson, which proved to be groundless, is also included to show whomever he chooses to report it to that Mr Richardson is a recidivist when it comes to complaining about Council and/or Councillors.

Les Tomich received responses from all Councillors - he told me that he had?

As for Cr Duncan-Strelec's "If Mr Richardson intends to pursue this matter" - I had already pursued the matter when I responded, which prompted the email from Les Tomich to Councillors . I wondering who is the dumber, those who couldn't put one and one together let alone two and two or Cr Duncan-Strelec's defence, or was she confident nothing would happen if left with Council?

So who are the liars?

Now Michael, feel free to tell me what was "far worse" in my response - which incidentally was not sent to Cr Duncan-Strelec?

Was it only that my response included her foul and offensive letter- was that it? Perhaps its because I didn't play by her rules, unlike others. Did she know that she wouldn't be reported to ICAC?

Was "far worse" actually that I sent her obscenities to the Media?

Looking back on my response in reference to the anonymous person I used terms such as

        Tosser

        A fear the person would self multilate

        Sloshed

It is on record that Julie Bishop referred to ex PM Kevin Rudd as a Tosser.

To say my response was "far worse" is warped and twisted.

Just don't overlook I put my name to the response.

My meeting with Les Tomich and Alice, well let me give you some guidance, I didn't rely on their advice and perhaps you should be more reticent to do so yourself.

They indicated to me that they didn't know who it was and did not have a clue that what was sent constituted a criminal offence. When I mentioned sec 471.12 of the Criminal Code they asked for a copy of sec 471.12.

Then to go from the sublime to the ridiculous "What if the person who wrote the letter wasn't the one who posted the letter?' That was the sort of rubbish I got from both of them.

Why then did Cr Duncan-Strelec confess 2 or 3 days after the meeting? Who briefed her on the meeting - you have a guess! Could it be that in response to their rubbish hypothesis my response was that under the wording of sec 471.12 both the writer and the person who posted the letter would be in trouble.

Your "I rely on their advice to you at the time", advice that was rubbish and protective of Cr Duncan-Strelec,

It reminded me of the following

On 06/07/2010, at 2:30 PM, Michael Keys wrote:

Graeme

My apologies for not replying earlier to your letter.

I have reviewed your comments and would like to advise that my response to the Department of Local Government was made on the basis of my understanding of the information regarding this matter at the time.

I trust this assists with your enquiries.

Regards

Michael Keys
Director Planning & Environment
AlburyCity

From whom did you get that information? Can I guess?

You would be wise to break from your habit of total reliance on others and I offer you the following

Rene Descartes - arguably the first major philosopher in the modern era

"Cogito ergo sum.
(I think, therefore I am.)"

And

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."

People will tell you what they want you to hear, with some more inclined to do so than others - then it comes back to strength of ones character.

Yours truly,

Graeme Richardson
18 January 2012