Ombudsman findings of misconduct in public administration

Ombudsman findings of misconduct in public administration

Published on 29 October 2018

Council supports and adopts public reprimand recommendation of Ombudsman on findings of misconduct in public administration against former Councillor Lance Bagster.

The City of Burnside has resolved to adopt specific recommendations of the SA Ombudsman delivered in the 13 September 2018 Final Report on the full investigation into the numerous allegations of misconduct in public administration by former Councillor Lance Bagster for the period 1 March 2017 – 25 October 2017 .

The Final Report considered by Council related to several reports made to the Office of Public Integrity regarding former Cr Bagster’s alleged breach of various clauses of Parts 2 and 3 of the Code.

At the 23 October 2018 meeting, Council resolved to note and adopt the recommendation of the Ombudsman in his Final Report by publicly reprimanding former Cr Bagster for each breach of the Code of Conduct (Code) outlined in the Final Report.

This includes the Council publicly reprimanding former Councillor Bagster, through the Council minutes and website, for each breach of the Code.

Council was not required to give effect to certain recommendations as former Cr Bagster has already resigned from Council.

Council also noted and acknowledged the further recommendations of the Ombudsman in his Final Report pertaining to the potential re-election of Mr Bagster and subsequent ramifications and considerations.  A copy of the full resolution can be viewed within the public Council minutes of 23 October 2018.

Furthermore Council affirmed their intention to support the State Government as part of the legislative review process and required reforms discussed in the Final Report which highlighted the inadequacies of the current legislative system governing Elected Member behaviour and the need for change.

The breaches are that:

By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by bullying and harassing Mayor David Parkin. Cr Bagster’s conduct in bullying and harassing Mayor David Parkin was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by bullying and harassing Cr Henry Davis. Cr Bagster’s conduct in bullying and harassing Cr Henry Davis was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by bullying and harassing Cr Mark Osterstock. Cr Bagster’s conduct in bullying and harassing Cr Mark Osterstock was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by bullying and harassing Mr Paul Deb. Cr Bagster’s conduct in bullying and harassing Mr Paul Deb was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by bullying and harassing Mr Martin Cooper. Cr Bagster’s conduct in bullying and harassing Mr Martin Cooper was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by bullying and harassing Mr Barry Cant. Cr Bagster’s conduct in bullying and harassing Mr Barry Cant was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by failing to act in a way that generates community trust and confidence in the council. Cr Bagster’s conduct in failing to act in a way that generates community trust and confidence in the council was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by failing to act reasonably, justly and respectfully when dealing with people. Cr Bagster’s conduct in failing to act reasonably, justly and respectfully when dealing with people was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by failing to show respect for others when making comments publicly. Cr Bagster’s conduct in failing to show respect for others when making comments publicly was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by failing to maintain a respectful relationship with all Council members, regardless of differences of views and opinions. Cr Bagster’s conduct in failing to maintain a respectful relationship with all Council members, regardless of differences of views and opinions was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By way of communications sent between 1 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration by seeking to influence council staff with respect to the way in which they perform their duties. Cr Bagster’s conduct in seeking to influence council staff with respect to the way in which they perform their duties was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. By supplying a copy of a confidential Preliminary Assessment Report to a member of the public, Cr Bagster committed misconduct in public administration.    Cr Bagster’s conduct in supplying a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Report to a member of the public was contrary to section 63(2) of the Local Government Act and, accordingly, contrary to law for the purposes of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. 

The decision of Council attests to the seriousness of the matter and unambiguously shows that the City of Burnside is committed to undertaking and exercising its duties and business in accordance with legislative obligations and with due diligence. 

As part of the findings Council will report back to the Ombudsman on what steps it has taken to implement his recommendations.

The full Final Report can be found at ombudsman.sa.gov.au or by selecting the document under 'Related Information' at the top of this page.