Preference for CASA to initially investigate this allegation.
1. Introduction/The allegation
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
3. First Element-Holder of Public Office
4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office
5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.
6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.
7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element
8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?
9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?
10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.
11. Damages
12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers
13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers
14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims
15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.
17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.
18. Summary/conclusion
. Preference for CASA to initially investigate this allegation.
I do have trust and confidence in your professionalism. My very strong preference is that the starting point for this allegation, must be within CASA, and I believe that would be the starting point of any well-intentioned process. The reason that I make this request is.
The Ombudsman has advised that the CASA ICC is the more appropriate body to receive a complaint of “misfeasance in public office”.
As part of this allegation is regarding Mr Aleck providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s investigation and the effectiveness of that disinformation, the ICC is the better forum. Understandably, the Ombudsman’s Office lacks the industry expertise, to be able to identify disinformation as readily as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. That is evidenced by the stark contrast between the determinations by the ICC that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for a significant amount of time prior to October 2018, whilst the preliminary findings of the Ombudsman state that CASA became aware of the specific nature just prior to October 2018 when Mr Aleck falsely asserts that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my organisation.
It seems only reasonable that the investigation initially be completed by the Employer. Whilst that does not mean other options are not available, it seems reasonable that the Employer should have the first option to investigate the conduct of the employee.
My allegation of misfeasance in public office is against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. Mr Aleck is also the single point of contact with the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. The Ombudsman Office advice that they engage with the single representative of the “Agency” being a sole point of contact, and in this case that is Mr Aleck. I have raised this matter previously, and at the highest levels. By submitting this complaint through the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, unlike the Ombudsman’s Office you will b e able to access multiple sources of information to fact check
You have significant background information on this topic and could be considered a Subject Matter Expert (SME).
You can work in a timelier manner. The 30-day response times between the Ombudsman Office and CASA make this matter unnecessarily protracted. You will have the opportunity to dramatically reduce those lead times due to your ready access to multiple sources of information, unlike the Ombudsman’s Office. This matter has dragged on unnecessarily for four years because of the disinformation supplied by Mr Aleck. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck is perverting the course of justice by delaying and misleading the Ombudsman’s investigation, so as to put me under constant long term stress as both a reprisal and to deny me procedural fairness.