When asked what would happen as a result of Cr Allen’s refusal to apologise, Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC) general manager Leanne Barnes and Mayor Michael Britten confirmed the matter would be referred back to the Office of Local Government.

In the circumstances, while the elected council might be content to leave the matter in the hands of the Office of Local Government, councillors should not need to be reminded that it was they who resolved to accept the recommendations of the independent reviewer dealing with Cr Allen’s conduct and it was they who resolved that Cr Allen should apologise to Ms Campbell.

While Ms Campbell is clearly entitled to feel aggrieved by Cr Allen’s refusal to apologise for his behaviour, this matter has now taken on new proportions.

Regardless of whether Cr Allen believes that he is in the right, he has nevertheless chosen to defy the authority of the very institution that he has served for many years.

It is my view that this places Cr Allen in an untenable position and that if he continues to defy the resolution of council and the direction of the Office of Local Government, then he should resign from council.

At the very least I believe the elected council should make it absolutely clear to Cr Allen that it is not acceptable for any councillor to defy a resolution of council by adopting a vote of no confidence in him at the next ordinary meeting of council.

Failing to take direct action in the circumstances would, in my view, constitute a serious failure of governance and act to seriously undermine the confidence of residents/ratepayers in the standing of council and local government at large.

John Richardson

Wallagoot

I was deeply troubled after listening to Cr Tony Allen’s statement to the Bega Valley Shire Council meeting where he refused to publically apologise for improper conduct, lack of respect, care and diligence and harassment in his treatment of Muriel Campbell back in 2006.

It was Cr Allen who initiated defamation action against Sr Laurel Lloyd-Jones who wrote a letter on our behalf complaining about Cr Allen’s “overpowering and bullying attitude” in that incident. 

The initial findings by Judge Colefax did support Cr Allen, but those findings were subject to an appeal in the Supreme Court and sent back to the District Court to re-hear two of the imputations.

The judgement in that final hearing found that Cr Allen did in fact “conduct himself inappropriately as Mayor in that he bullied a woman” and “intimidated a woman by acting in a bullying and overpowering manner…” and these judged facts were the bases I used for my Code of Conduct complaint against him.

Cr Allen’s claim in his statement that “Judge Colefax’s findings were challenged in the High Court of Australia and that appeal was dismissed, literally in a matter of minutes” is totally wrong. 

Leave was not granted for the appeal – the appeal certainly wasn’t dismissed.

The claim by Cr Allen in his statement that the report of the independent reviewer into my Code of Conduct complaint is flawed due to her “refusal to interview the two witnesses who were present when the phone call was made” is actually ludicrous. 

Those witnesses were extensively cross examined in Cr Allen’s defamation hearings and a final judgement was given by Judge Gibson so it wasn’t the role of the reviewer to re-examine those witnesses or question the judgements of the NSW District Court.

The subsequent claim by Cr Allen that “the integrity of those two people has now been challenged by this flawed report” is even crazier.  

The report made no mention of “those two people” let alone challenged their integrity.  

It was actually the evidence of “those two people” to the courts in Cr Allen’s defamation action that could possibly be seen as challenging their integrity.

And I reiterate to your readers my response to Cr Allen’s statement – Shame! Shame!

Seán Burke

Central Tilba

The former mayor’s refusal to apologise to Muriel Campbell (BDN, 20/3) begs the question as to why a motion of no confidence wasn’t moved in council immediately, since the refusal was justified by statements that would appear to demonstrate a lack of credibility. 

It is now a matter of public record that the first court hearing was found to be flawed, and that subsequent judgement clearly supported the original comment made by Sister Laurel Lloyd-Jones almost 10 years ago concerning inappropriate behaviour. 

And of course it is this subsequent judgement that forms the basis for an apology. 

Sadly, it would now seem that many years of intensely tangled legal argument, incurring unnecessary emotional and financial suffering for everyone involved, including the Elm Grove Sanctuary Trust whose charitable good works have been impoverished, have left an otherwise robust rural community damaged by confusion, ill-feeling and very little else. 

And – in a truly tragic irony, which appears to have been overlooked – Sister Laurel Lloyd-Jones herself, who was unfairly maligned in public as a result of supposed free speech and simple charity, also deserves a public apology. 

In my opinion, it now seems obvious that our defamation laws require urgent remedial examination.

Ian McFarlane

Wallaga Lake