May 2016: Kangaroo Island Council – Investigation of complaint The Ombudsman investigated a complaint as to whether a complaint to Council had been investigated under the Council`s Code of Conduct for Employees and whether it was lawful for Council to issue confidentiality orders under subsection 90(2) of the Local Government Act with respect to the complaint. The Ombudsman noted that the Council had acted incorrectly with regard to the authorisation of an order under Article 90(3)(a) of the Location Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council report to him on its system of confidential meetings. August 2016: Adelaide City Council – Tree removal The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about council`s decision to remove a tree and a subsequent review of section 270 by council. In reviewing section 270, Council noted that the purpose of the review was solely to address procedural issues related to the decision to remove the tree. It was found that the Council had acted in a manner which was not in accordance with the meaning of Article 25(1) of the Law on the Ombudsman by failing to take into account the merits of the decision to remove the tree. June 2016: City of Victor Harbor – Violation of Council`s Development Evaluation Committee Code of Conduct The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that a member of council, in his capacity as a member of council`s Development Evaluation Committee, had violated the Code of Conduct issued by the Minister under section 21A of the Development Act of 1993. The Ombudsman found that the Council member had infringed Articles 2.4, 2.6, 2.8(c) and 2.10(a) of the Code of Conduct and had acted contrary to the law within the meaning of Article 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council member participate in training on conflicts of interest and the code of conduct. February 2014: Yorke Peninsula District Council – Board Members Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct This investigation is the result of a complaint by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board members that they were shareholders of a corporation that was the subject of certain Council resolutions.
The Ombudsman found that the members of the council had not violated the Local Government Act 1999. Irrespective of this, the Ombudsman concluded that the Council had not committed any maladministration in the circumstances […].