Councillors back CEO over conflict

CASEY councillors have backed chief executive Mike Tyler’s ongoing tenure after he escaped conviction for failing to properly disclose a conflict of interest to the council and the mayor.
At Dandenong Magistrates’ Court last Tuesday, Mr Tyler was not fined but placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond and ordered to pay $1000 to his partner’s fundraising efforts for National Breast Cancer Foundation.
He was also given a stay of two months to pay $9000 in agreed costs to the prosecuting agency the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate.
Casey mayor Amanda Stapledon said councillors were “unified” in their support for Mr Tyler.
Mr Tyler declined to comment after the hearing.
At the hearing, magistrate Graham Keil agreed to Mr Tyler’s barrister Nicholas De Young’s submission for no conviction – a submission that wasn’t opposed by the inspectorate.
Mr De Young said “there’s a possible outcome that the recording of a conviction could jeopardise (Mr Tyler’s) role.”
He said his client’s breach was at the “very low end” of such offences.
After three previous adjournments, Mr Tyler pleaded guilty to one count of failing to properly disclose a conflict of interest arising from a sexual harassment claim by a former council staff member against him and the council in 2011.
The court was told Mr Tyler notified verbally the then-mayor Shar Balmes that he’d delegated the matter, but should have disclosed the matter in writing.
Mr Tyler was also legally obligated to notify the council at the earliest possible ordinary council meeting – something he didn’t do until six meetings and three months later.
By that time, the sexual harassment claim had already been confidentially settled in a mediated hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Inspectorate lawyer Matt Carrazzo said Mr Tyler ought to have known he had an indirect conflict of interest for being a party in a civil claim against him and the council.
Mr Keil said Mr Tyler would be “suffering some loss of dignity” in erring on the “side of regulation”, turning from “game-keeper” to “poacher”.
– Cameron Lucadou-Wells