Sunday, October 17, 2021

The freedom of the press still furnishes that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide – Chicago Tribune.

HomeIssue 28Ratepayers footing Mayor's legal bill latest election row

Ratepayers footing Mayor’s legal bill latest election row

By OSCAR PERRI

New Mayor Matt Paterson says he is “entitled” to having his legal bills covered by council in the case being brought against him by election runner-up Cr Jimmy Cocking.

And he takes shots at Cr Cocking about vote counts and the absence of scrutineers.

Meanwhile Cr Cocking is taking the matter to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT) in order to have a full recount, rather than a “partial recheck”, that has resulted in Mr Paterson sworn in as Mayor of the 14th Council, and has the support of NTEC commissioner Ian Loganathan in his decision.

When asked whether he approached council, or was approached by them in regards to paying his legal costs, Mayor Paterson says he does not know of any examples of this happening in the past or elsewhere and “can’t recall the correct details.

“I’m just a bystander in all this really.”

“Jimmy is contesting it as an unsuccessful mayoral candidate.

“He’s not contesting it as a councillor, he’s contesting because he didn’t win the election,” Mayor Paterson says.

“What NTCAT are hearing is Jimmy contesting the end result of the election, and that end result is that I’m the Mayor.

“That’s why my name is on there, it’s not Matt Paterson the citizen, it’s Mayor Matt Paterson who’s having legal action against him.”

The reason Mayor Paterson is being financially supported by council falls under section 57 of the NT Local Government Act 2019, which, in its entirety, reads:

Protection from liability:

1. A person is not civilly or criminally liable for an act done or omitted to be done by the person in good faith in the exercise of a power or performance of a function as a member of a council.

  1. Any civil liability that would, but for this section, attach to a member of a council, attaches instead to the council.

  2. In this section: Exercise of a power includes the purported exercise of the power. Performance of  a  function  includes  the  purported  performance  of  the function.

Support of Mayor Paterson did not need to be approved by elected members, but rather CEO Robert Jennings.

The other newly elected Councillors only found out after being told by Cr Cocking, who saw on the legal documents that the council’s law firm was representing the Mayor.

This morning Cr Cocking told ABC radio that he is “concerned” by council footing the bill for Mayor Paterson.

“I’m feeling pretty mixed about it, between frustrated and upset.”

Cr Cocking has launched a crowdfunding campaign to pay for legal fees and flights which has already reached over $7,600 of his $10,000 goal, and will be reimbursing donors if he wins and is awarded costs.

He said that it is “not a great way to start” the new council.

Mayor Paterson says he does not expect it to have a negative impact on the relationships between elected members, including Cr Cocking.

He says more information will become apparent once the case NTCAT begins on October 20.

“Hear the real story about how many times it has been counted and what’s getting put forward by other candidates about what hasn’t happened,” says the Mayor.

“I think that’s an important part that’s not getting reported on from any media about what the scrutineers did and didn’t do and who attended when they should have been.

“My scrutineers didn’t have any issue with the way the process went, because my scrutineers were there.”

PHOTO scrutineering room in Alice Springs.

13 COMMENTS

  1. So Mr “I won’t contest the results” is mounting yet another legal challenge. It’s just a bit pathetic. Perhaps when he loses this one will he take his bat and ball home, crying that you’re all cheaters?

  2. The scrutineers of Jimmy should be held responsible, it was their jobs.
    Matt did not do anything wrong. But this saga is not a good start for our new elected council.
    Painful and unfair things happen to everyone. Losers brood on it. Winners use it to learn and grow.

  3. Whatever is the outcome, this will remain in the background having divided the councilors, and the ratepayers who were hoping for more unity.

  4. Also pathetic is that Jimmy Cocking is keeping us in the dark.
    His legal appeal puts a cloud over the council and the least he could do is keep us in the loop.
    What is the NTCAT timeline Jimmy?
    Jimmy appears to have adopted the appalling transparency standards of the council.

  5. Exactly what is the act done or omitted to be done by Mayor Paterson?
    I can’t see that there is one.
    The NTLGA does not appear to cover the present circumstances i.e. an election.
    Therefore, CEO Jennings had no authority to authorise payment of legal costs.

  6. Just suppose, for argument’s sake, that Jimmy Cocking wins his appeal to the NTCAT and that in the subsequent full recount of votes he defeats Matt Paterson to become Mayor of Alice Springs.
    This would mean Cocking should have won in the first place and that Matt Paterson wasn’t a member of the new town council.
    Which then begs the questions – would Matt Paterson be entitled to have his legal fees paid by the Council and / or would the same apply to Jimmy Cocking?
    And if Jimmy Cocking becomes Mayor, what are the implications for the make-up of the new town council? Would this force a recount for the positions of councillor, too?

  7. Hi everyone, just to be clear, there is no new legal challenge.
    The NTCAT hearing is scheduled for October 20. The appeal is part of the electoral process and the NT Electoral Commission (NTEC) Commissioner publicly supported the NTCAT to review it.
    The NTEC has a recount policy that states: If the margin of votes on the initial count is 100 or less, a recount will be undertaken at the commission’s initiative as stated in section 130 (2)(b) of the Electoral Act or on the authorised officer’s own initiative as stated in section 55 (2)(b) of the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations.
    The Commissioner decided to recount only a portion of the votes (~4500 preference flows and informal votes) while the remaining primary votes (~5500 for Matt and I) were not subject to the same rigour.
    The partial recount demonstrated errors that were not previously picked up and saw the margin reduce from 17 to 2 votes only.
    I am seeking that the remaining ~5500 primary votes for Matt and I are recounted as the others were (remembering that the preference votes are primary votes for all the other candidates). This will give certainty to everyone as we all deserve.
    I was previously looking to represent myself with the support of pro bono assistance, but when I realised that other respondents were represented by a nationally leading legal firm, I needed to get my own legal representation, which I am crowdfunding thanks to my supporters.
    I have since learned that the costs for legal representation for Matt is being covered by ratepayers. I did not know this when I initiated the action.
    I am disappointed that this information was provided only when I asked questions about it after finding out by chance through reading material provided to the NTCAT. I am concerned that Elected Members were not consulted or provided an opportunity to input into this decision.
    The NTCAT hearing will consider evidence from all sides and will make a decision based on this and their powers under the Act. The NTEC has determined that Patrick Bedford would be added to Council if the Mayoral votes are found to be in my favour.
    In the meantime, I am committed to working as part of the Council team as an elected Councillor and continue to work for the community.

  8. I can’t see that Mayor Paterson has a claim on council funding for his legal fees.
    The legal protection afforded a council member applies only to the activities of the council. For example, if a council resurfaces a road in a dangerous manner and a road user is injured, the council is protected from litigation, though less clearly so if it was aware of the hazard.
    If a member of the council engages in an activity that is not council business and someone is injured, there is no protection.
    Legal protection hinges on whether or not a council election is an activity of the council?
    I would think not, because it is conducted by the NTEC.
    Nor are elections listed as council activities.
    Legal expenses can be huge, Cocking could take the matter beyond the NTCAT with ratepayers funding very large legal bills for Paterson in the court system.
    Even if he doesn’t it may happen in the future, and this is a bad precedent that encourages legal disputation over election results.
    Ratepayers funding the legal costs is an incentive to go to court.
    Hopefully, CEO Jennings sought a legal opinion before agreeing to this expenditure and ratepayers should be informed of it.

  9. What a joke and who authorised this and what do the ratepayers get out of this?
    Zilch?
    I don’t pay rates for this or can we get a refund?

  10. @ Jimmy Cocking: You have presented a clear and cogent case for a recount.
    I share your concern about the use of ratepayer funds and also have concerns about the legitimacy of using them to bankroll Mayor Paterson’s legal representation.
    This is indeed a potentially costly precedent for our fractious council.
    At the very least, CEO Jennings should have met with councillors to provide them with a rationale for the expenditure.
    He is now obliged to explain himself.

  11. @ Ralph Folds: We will never find out if a legal opinion was sought unless it was, in which case Jennings will tell us. Guaranteed!

  12. @ Surprised: CEO Jennings will use the confidentially provisions of the Act to hush this up.
    Even if our representatives are given a briefing they would face severe penalties by telling us ratepayers.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

error: Content is protected !!