Source : the age
Former Parramatta Council boss Gail Connolly has admitted to lying to the lord mayor and was accused of sending a false report to the corruption watchdog, as her appearance at an anti-corruption inquiry came to an end.
On Connolly’s seventh and final day as a witness at the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the sacked Parramatta chief executive was accused of “historical revisionism” as she explained the reason she sent an anonymous email she wrote purporting to expose fraud and corruption at the council.
Under cross-examination from the council’s barrister, Arthur Moses, SC, Connolly was asked about an email sent to the lord mayor at the time, who asked if she had seen the anonymous email. She told the mayor she had not.
“You lied to the lord mayor,” Moses asked.
“That’s correct.”
Connolly was also accused of lying to the ICAC when she referred concerns to the watchdog about “fraud and corruption” by former staffer turned council candidate Justin Mulder. Moses said she misled the ICAC in several ways, including that she did not identify herself as the author of the anonymous email.
The ICAC’s public inquiry had been slated for four weeks but stretched into week six. It is investigating whether former Parramatta staff members, central among them Connolly, misused public funds by having staff leave through deeds of release (agreements made between staff and the council upon a departure), subverted the council’s recruitment and other processes, disclosed confidential information to third parties, and spied on staff and a councillor.
During an at-times testy cross-examination, Moses invoked Monty Python, to which Connolly replied: “It’s the Spanish Inquisition,” a reference to the famous recurring skit about the long-running tribunals which used anonymous accusations and coerced confessions.
Moses accused Connolly of trying to use the anonymous email to undermine Mulder’s campaign for the council, and to drive a wedge between him and councillor Kellie Darley. Connolly denied this.
Moses asked if the email was designed to undermine his candidacy given his position on the council could have attempted the make-up of votes in the event of a plan to terminate her employment; Connolly denied this.
Moses then asked what Connolly meant on Tuesday when she claimed Darley had been working in “collaboration” with The Sydney Morning Herald (in fact, Connolly said there was “collusion”).
“I knew she was speaking with The Sydney Morning Herald, and I knew she was working with the Herald across a range of matters,” Connolly said. “Councillor Darley had made it clear … that she was working with The Sydney Morning Herald on things like co-ordinating GIPA requests and asking for The Sydney Morning Herald to appear on her behalf and give evidence in NCAT hearings.”
Moses asked: “The reason you decided to copy in the journalists into this email was because you were hoping that you could sell them the pup [of fraud allegations on the eve of a council election]. Do you accept that?”
“No, I don’t,” Connolly said.
Connolly later said she had all City of Parramatta email accounts, including those of councillors and 1200 employees, searched by the council’s IT department in an effort to find if anyone had been leaking information to the Herald. She agreed she did not inform councillors of the search before conducting it.
Under cross-examination from her own barrister, Ryan Coffey, Connolly said she had never refused to provide councillors information without providing an explanation.
“Well, the provision of information to councillors is not judged by the CEO,” she said. “You are bound by various legislation, policies, codes, procedures, legal advice … there’s a whole range of reasons why a CEO has to take a decision on what information can and cannot be provided to councillors.”
She also changed a recounting of when she had last spoken with Roxanne Thornton, a friend and former colleague also under investigation. On Tuesday, she said was “happy to admit” she had done some welfare checks on her via text.
But after having looked at phone and email records, she said, she had “determined that I haven’t had any communications with her since February” and that her February communications were in relation to a worker’s compensation claim she had lodged with the council.
The ICAC sat until late on Wednesday to conclude Connolly’s evidence, which finished at 5.05pm. The hearing has been adjourned until a later date.
Former Parramatta Council boss Gail Connolly has left the commission’s headquarters, moments after her marathon six-day stint in the witness box ended.
Connolly did not answer questions as she left.
Three years after Gail Connolly was appointed chief executive of the City of Parramatta Council and one year after she was sacked, after 24 days, 18 witnesses and more than 100 hours of hearings, the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s public inquiry into Connolly and her two friends has come to a close.
At 5.05pm, Moses sought to be permitted to re-examine Connolly on her evidence. He was allowed to ask one final question. Connolly said she could not recall.
Counsel assisting has tendered evidence.
Chief Commissioner John Hatzistergos says it may be necessary to call witnesses back to provide more evidence – but only after the next inquiry, into the University of Wollongong, is over.
The hearing is adjourned until a later date at 5.15pm.
Connolly is being asked about the Pink Ladies social group – which Connolly describes as a “mentoring group” – made up of Roxanne Thornton, Angela Jones-Blayney and others.
Counsel Assisting asks: “Is it the case that there was no formal mentoring work product produced out of Pink Ladies?”
Davidson puts it to Connolly that there was no formal mentoring structure, program or discussions had.“I suggest to you that it was not a mentoring group.”
“I disagree with that,” Connolly says.
Connolly told Coffey that she had asked two of her staff to stand by a door and listen in on a conversation she had with the lord mayor when she handed him a conflict of interest disclosure relating to her niece.
But Connolly has told Counsel Assisting Joanna Davidson, SC, that she had not told him that they were listening in.
Why not?
“It didn’t cross my mind,” Connolly says. “It was a very hurried meeting and we were determined to get it done quickly and then move on to a council workshop,” she says.
“You’re simply making up your evidence on this subject as you go along,” Davidson says.
After a long break, the commission is sitting on. We’re back with Moses, on behalf of the council, raising an issue about Connolly’s evidence just now under cross-examination by her legal representative, Ryan Coffey.
Connolly says she was provided two pieces of legal advice in relation to the council’s Supreme Court case brought by its own councillor. In fact, Moses says, that second piece of advice was obtained after she was terminated.
Counsel Assisting Joanna Davidson, SC, is now asking a few questions following the cross-examination.
Davidson says every effort is being made to finish the hearing today.
Yesterday, Connolly was asked by Arthur Moses, SC, when she had last spoken with Roxanne Thornton, who is also being investigated by the ICAC.
After some back and forth, she said she had texted her and was “happy to admit” she had done some welfare checks on her.
But now, her barrister Ryan Coffey has asked her what inquiries she made since being asked.
She says she looked at her phone and emails, and “determined that I haven’t had any communications with her since February” and that her February communications were in relation to a worker’s compensation claim she had lodged with the council.
Thornton is in attendance at the commission today.
Coffey has now finished his cross-examination. Counsel Assisting Joanna Davidson is currently talking with colleagues to work out how long they will need to re-examine Connolly. We’re going into a short adjournment as they work that out. Stand by.
Arthur Moses – who has just finished cross-examining Gail Connolly across two days – provided her with advice about information that could not be disclosed to councillors, Connolly says.
She says Moses, in addition to prominent lawyer Stan Kondilios, provided advice on what could be disclosed, “such as information about staff, or ICAC operations, or criminal investigations”.
“There was a broad range of sources of information and … legislation prevented me by law from disclosing information across a range of different subject matters.”
“Where we couldn’t provide the information, at all times, we’d attempt to say why and provide it in another format or information to the best of our ability.”
She says she issued a “WHS” [work health and safety] directive to staff “to only provide certain information and to prioritise other statutory functions of the council” after independent councillor Kellie Darley asked about 90 questions of council staff over several months, resulting in workload complaints from staff.
Coffey is asking Connolly about her approach to providing information to councillors.
She says she disagreed with a claim put by Arthur Moses yesterday that she had “made herself the judge” of information that could be given to councillors because there are a “whole range of reasons” councillors may not be able to access information.
“Well, the provision of information to councillors is not judged by the CEO,” she says. “You are bound by various legislation, policies, codes, procedures, legal advice … there’s a whole range of reasons why a CEO has to take a decision on what information can and cannot be provided to councillors.”
“Did you ever refuse a request for information from a councillor without providing an explanation of why you couldn’t provide the information?” Coffey asks.
She says she did not.
We’ve returned from a lunch adjournment. Ryan Coffey, representing Connolly, is now cross-examining Gail Connolly.
Coffey tells Chief Commissioner John Hatzistergos he expects to take about 1.5 hours – and is “hopeful” to finish today.
