13/09/2026
Things are very skewed when you can end up suspended for uttering a few words on social media but filling your home pantry and fridge on the ratepayer tab isn't a breach of local government laws. It's a seriously messed up situation but, in fairness, stealing is a Criminal Code matter.
Soon after learning how management had handled Councillor Sherlock's shopping trips at Town Hall, I urged the Council to develop an Elected Member Misconduct Policy. Disturbingly but unsurprisingly, this was voted down, with Councillor Sherlock's own father, Councillor Dutta, participting in the debate. This whole saga has been a textbook case of how badly governance can fail when some people around the table can't bring themselves to think objectively because of tribalism and protectionism. They can push down their values and sense of right and wrong to protect one of their own.
I have been vindicated; from the moment I saw the tip of this iceberg, it was obvious that things had been handled improperly. I saw a serious governance issue and took action to address it and, as I knew at the time, the approach I was pushing was the right one.
Councillor Sherlock owes big thanks to previous management who ensured her conduct didn't see the light of day for a couple of years. This bought her time so the window for accountability under the Code of Conduct was closed. Would we have seen a suspension for the stealing that all reasonable people see? Perhaps they would have referred the matter to the police or Integrity Commission, we will never know.
Essentially, the Director has spelt out what is obvious to most people: don't steal and if you come across potential misconduct and you're conflicted, refer it.
The Director states that the situation management were confronted with when discovering Councillor Sherlock and her associate were responsible for removing products, including alcohol, for a number of years was 'complex' and 'without precendent'. What Councillor Sherlock and her associate did has never happened before, but there is nothing complex about it - taking things without consent, with intention to permanently deprive when the place is closed and under the cover of darkness is pretty cut and dry.
The Director has essentially described keeping potential elected member misconduct 'inhouse' as 'problematic' given the conflict with the CEO being the employed by the Council. This is what I said from the very start.
It's also concerning that the current CEO maintains the previous response was appropriate. I said from day one that the CEO has no authority to investigate potential elected member misconduct and questioned why it wasn't referred - I have been proven right, again
Unfortunately I have little faith in accountability from a criminal perspective, either. I imagine Tasmania Police would want the Council to proactively seek to have charges laid for stealing before they were to act, and that hasn't happened, BUT...... it's something a new Council could do. And that wouldn't have to be limited to Cr Sherlock, but also her associate on her late night and weekend escapades.