Territory Stories

Documents - ; Slanderous and defamatory allegations made by Mr Stirling against Mr Cleanthous and Deo

Details:

Title

Documents - ; Slanderous and defamatory allegations made by Mr Stirling against Mr Cleanthous and Deo

Other title

Tabled paper 1563

Collection

Tabled Papers for 8th Assembly 1997 - 2001; Tabled Papers; ParliamentNT

Date

1999-10-20

Description

Tabledby Shane Stone

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory under Standing Order 240. Where copyright subsists with a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Language

English

Subject

Tabled papers

File type

application/pdf

Use

Copyright

Copyright owner

See publication

License

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C1968A00063

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/295353

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/395075

Page content

5. I understood the Public Officer to be Ken, but have removed it from the report. 6. I have amended the requirement of monthly reporting to quarterly reporting. However I will still recommend it form part of the special conditions of funding a without such a requirement there would be no guarantee for it to occur nor action that ATSIC may be able to take if it does not occur. 7. We do believe there has been a breach of the procurement process in relation to the training provision and have not changed our opinions on this in the report. We have highlighted in the report that the organisation does not agree with this opinion. However, we have stated the grounds for the breach to be: - the training needs of the organisation may be clearly defined up front; - a clear estimation of the level o f services to be provided may be made up front; - the training was sold as a package; and - other service providers may have been able to provide the same services. We are not stating that you did not receive benefits from the training, but believe that in order to comply with the terms and conditions a waiver or quote process should have been followed. 8. I have not adopted the changes you have recommended for the conclusion. However I have amended the conclusion to read as follows: The organisation's financial compliance and reporting has improved significantly since the last review. We do not believe a marked improvement has yet occurred in the planning process and the demonstration o f the achievement ofproposed outcomes, but do accept that this may have been adversely affected by the proposed merger with Gapuwiyak Council. We still believe that the organisation must show significant improvement in its planning and service delivery to justify the present levels o f funding. However, we also believe that the organisation is making genuine efforts to address this aspect in the last few months and should be given a fa ir opportunity io implement its proposed strategies. I have also incorporated the following comments in the major findings: The organisation believes it has commenced to make real changes in this regard and believes that any lack of progress was significantly affected by the uncertainty created by the proposed merger with Gapuwiyak Council. 9. The figure of $9,680 is compared to the letter of offer. I have clarified this in the report. 10. There is a letter on the project files from the organisation stating it had made the purchases before seeking the amendment in the budget.