As many regular Lismore App readers are aware, we have been questioning the Code of Conduct process that Lismore City Council officials are subject to in the past few months.

Tuesday night's council meeting provided more proof that the process is ineffective, a waste of council funds and something for the Office of Local Government to look into.

Cone of silence

In a confidential session that excludes the public, councillors discussed two Code of Conduct (CoC) cases against the same councillor.

The councillor involved, cannot take part in the discussion and vote so it was clear from Tuesday night's meeting that both codes were against Councillor (Cr) Nancy Casson.

The reason to name Cr Casson is to show that both cases were against the one councillor and were for separate incidents.

The results of the CoC vote is where the questions start.

Votes and results

As part of the closed sessions during a Lismore City Council meeting, the vote and the result need to be given.

The following result is from Tuesday night:

Code of Conduct Investigation Report - Matter 1

"That Council do not accept the recommendation of the conduct reviewer because Council does not agree with the findings."

Voting for: Councillors Ekins, Guise, Lloyd and Moorhouse

Voting against: Councillors Bird, Cook and Marks

Code of Conduct Investigation Report - Matter 2

"That Council do not accept the recommendation of the conduct reviewer because Council does not agree with the findings."

Voting for: Councillors Ekins, Guise, Lloyd and Moorhouse

Voting against: Councillors Bird, Cook and Marks

Investigation

The Lismore App knows that both investigations were undertaken by a Senior Barrister, so someone with a high standing within the community who offers an independent recommendation following the investigation.

Another logical assumption, given the wording above, is that the recommendation in both cases was to censure Cr Casson due to a breach of certain rules outlined in LCC's Code of Conduct document. The reports are sent to the Office of Local Government to be checked before being sent to council for determination.

How can four councillors "not agree with the findings" of an independent investigator?

Isn't that like watching an NRL game where the referee awards a try, goes to the video ref who comes back with a 'no try' verdict and the on-field referee says, "I don't agree with your findings", then awards the try anyway?

Normally the video ref's decision is accepted.

As is the case with CoC reviews, no explanation needs to be given due to Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act (1993). However, once again, this raises more questions than it gives answers.

Cone of silence

Unfortunately, we, the community will never know because no one is allowed to talk about a CoC case. It is in the cone of silence.

This cone of silence exists for costs as well.

LCC said it cannot comment on any CoC case.

Cash strapped council

This review, however, costs our cash strapped council money.

To get a ballpark figure of costs, we need to determine some variables - like an hourly rate and how many hours are needed to complete the review.

Senior Lawyers charge $500 per hour, so let's use that as a base rate.

It would be safe to assume a minimum of 20 hours for a relatively simple CoC, one that does not need to rely on a lot of face to face interviews but phone calls and emails.

Each case could conservatively cost $10,000 making the total $20,000 for two cases.

Ignored

In summary, two Code of Conduct cases brought against the one councillor with a recommendation to censure that councillor at an estimated cost to council of $20,000 was ignored.

The only conclusion one can make is that Code of Conduct investigations are a complete waste of time and money.