SCOTT Greensill is set to address other local government managers about a code of conduct dispute which resulted in Supreme Court action likely to cost Singleton ratepayers at least $700,000.
But what the former Singleton Council general manager has to say will not be open to the public or the media.
He will be a guest speaker at a New South Wales branch conference of the Local Government Managers Australia Association at Lovedale on March 8.
According to the conference program, Mr Greensill will present The Singleton Experience – when a code of conduct matter goes legal.
The program says his speech will give personal and professional insights into the impact of such a situation on general managers, the conduct reviewer, council staff and elected councillors.
It was not expected to touch on how such matters impact on the community, ramifications of the cost or where responsibility lies.
The association’s chief executive officer Annalisa Haskell and Mr Greensill declined an Argus request to comment about Mr Greensill’s address.
The code of conduct case involves anonymous allegations that deputy mayor Paul Nichols acted unethically, dishonestly and illegally by leaking secret information to ratepayers in dispute with Singleton Council over a property access.
A January 2010 confidential briefing note by Mr Greensill (Singleton general manager at the time) advised councillors not to contact the particular ratepayers during legal proceedings between them and the council. The anonymous complaint was lodged with Mr Greensill four months later.
In June 2010 Mr Greensill announced he had delegated “all my responsibilities” on the complaint to assets director Gary Thomson who organised contract reviewer Bernard Smith to investigate and report to the council in November.
Mr Smith’s report found no evidence that anyone disclosed anything to anyone, yet concluded that Cr Nichols “could have” and thus breached the code of conduct.
Cr Nichols denied any wrongdoing and took Supreme Court action to clear his name, overcome procedural fairness and stop the council discussing the report.
The action covered the council itself, Mr Greensill, Mr Thomson and Mr Smith.
Mr Greensill resigned as Singleton’s general manager, 10 days before the Supreme Court hearing began in August last year, to become Clarence Valley Council general manager.
Four months later, Supreme Court judge Monika Schmidt quashed Mr Smith’s report, branding it as “illogical and contradictory”, and banned the council from giving it any consideration.
She said the council’s code of conduct actually encouraged communication, such as Cr Nichols had with the ratepayers, as it urged openness about council decisions and actions.
Judge Schmidt said the code of conduct investigation had many “critical” omissions, such as the failure to interview all witnesses or the council’s solicitor Alan McKelvey, whose suspicions of Cr Nichols were at the heart of the matter.
Judge Schmidt’s findings were also critical of Mr Greensill, pointing out he “certainly acted inconsistently” with the council’s code of conduct by delegating his responsibilities yet continuing to work on the case.
Judge Schmidt’s judgement said she would have had more to say about Mr Greensill but that requirement disappeared with his resignation from Singleton Council.
As the original complaint was not withdrawn after the court case, state government bureaucrats took control of the matter a month ago to assess whether it should be dumped or reignited.
A spokeswoman for the government’s local government division, Natasa Mitic, told The Argus this week that the assessment was still underway.
It was being considered as a potential “misbehaviour” issue and would be determined “as soon as practicable, having regard to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness”, she said.
Also this week, discussions began between council and Cr Nichols’ legal representatives to try and resolve court case costs before Judge Schmidt was asked to make a costs ruling later this month.
Cr Nichols said he was disappointed that bureaucrats were still assessing the original anonymous complaint.
Cr Nichols said the system that allowed such a complaint to escalate into such a costly community affair should be overhauled so as not to be repeated.
A source close to next month’s local government managers’ conference said he did not consider Mr Greensill’s address as a public speech because it would be to a select group of professionals, rather than an open public meeting.
It was likely to be a more general about code of conduct matters than specifically about Singleton, the insider said.
Ms Haskell said she was not prepared to speak to The Argus because what any of the conference speakers had to say to association members was their business.
Email a friend