Acting Chief Executive, Office of Local Government v Passas (No 2) [2017] NSWCATOD 12

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Acting Chief Executive, Office of Local Government v Passas (No 2) [2017] NSWCATOD 12 Hearing dates: On the papers (last submissions 22 November 2016) Date of orders: 20 January 2017 Decision date: 20 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Dr J Renwick SC, Senior Member Decision: The respondent, Julie Passas, is disqualified from holding civic office until 20 April 2017. Catchwords: CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Local Government Act –misconduct of Local Government Councillor – Disruption to Council meetings – Unauthorised interaction with Council staff – disqualification ordered Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chief Executive, Office of Local Government (Applicant) Julie Passas (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: B Tronson (Applicant)

Solicitors: Otto Stichter & Associates (Respondent) File Number(s): 1520195

Reasons for decision

Introduction 1. On 18 October 2016, in a decision reported at [2016] NSWCATOD 132, I found a number, but not all, of the allegations made by the applicant against the respondent to be established, and set a timetable for the receipt of submissions. These reasons should be read with that decision so that I do not here repeat all of the reasons and grounds in the earlier decision. 2. In summary, the findings established that the respondent: 1. Was disruptive or refused to abide by the Mayor's procedural rulings, or refused to accept she needed to leave the Council chamber when lawfully directed after the requisite three warnings on a number of occasions (Grounds 1-4); 2. Had an inappropriate and direct interaction with a Council employee / staff member, Mr Albaba (Ground 5); 3. Refused to give an apology as formally resolved by the Council (Ground 7); and 4. Refused to undertake training on the Code in accordance with the Council resolution (Ground 8). 1. The respondent's response to the findings made by the Tribunal is accurately summarised in the submissions filed on behalf of the applicant, namely: 1. She accepts the findings in relation to her behaviour at council meetings, although she submits that she was frequently "baited" and had been "unfairly victimised by the media"; 2. She accepts that she was "sometimes disruptive" and at times refused to accept the need to leave the Council chamber when so directed, or to follow the Mayor's directions; 3. She accepts that she refused to apologise or undertake training, but now says she has sufficient knowledge of the Code to make further training unnecessary; 4. She is now willing to undertake a course of training; 5. She believed an apology (as required by resolution) would serve little purpose given the Council had been abolished and she had commenced and attended the Toast Masters' course conducted at Ashfield "in order to moderate [her] delivery" 6. She continues to deny that there was misconduct in relation to Mr Albaba; and she says "she will not admit the allegation as a means of improving her situation when she knows that did not happen". 1. The applicant submits, in summary, that although originally it sought an order for suspension, the amended application filed at the hearing by leave, sought a disqualification order because, by reason of the abolition of the Council of which the respondent was a councillor, suspension would have no effect, but rather, disqualification pursuant to s 482A(2)(c1) was appropriate.