Comment | Hawkesbury Gazette
An elected councillor asked council staff how to claim for a phone and computer. Staff explained the process and the spending limits. The councillor submitted a claim. Council recorded its doubts about that claim, authorised the $4,109 payment anyway, and later took the matter to police.
That sequence ended with Cr Eddie Dogramaci facing a criminal proceeding, being suspended from office and defending himself in court. On August 25, Parramatta Local Court dismissed the charge. The NSW Online Registry records the result as “Dismissed - Not Guilty after hearing.”
The case should concern every elected representative, whatever they think of Cr Dogramaci or his criticism of Hawkesbury City Council’s management.
The above sequence is based on council documents and police statements reviewed by the Gazette, and link to the detailed underlying report published on 25 September 2026 "Council paid the $4,109 claim, then took it to the police."
The problem
Councillors depend on staff for advice about policies, payments and procedures. If an administrative disagreement can escalate into a criminal investigation after council has itself authorised payment, councillors need confidence that the decisions leading to that escalation will be open to scrutiny.
Council's General Manager has a duty to report suspected corruption where the law required it. A report of suspicion is not a finding of wrongdoing. Nor does Cr Dogramaci’s acquittal establish that council officers acted improperly or set out why they made each decision. The court’s published order gives no reasons and makes no findings about Council, its staff or police.
But the unanswered questions matter. Why did Council pay a claim it had questioned? Why did it then take the paid claim to police?
The Gazette has seen no record that Council first put its concerns to Cr Dogramaci or asked him to repay the money. Council has been invited to explain its decisions.
The outcome
The consequences were substantial. Cr Dogramaci was suspended after proceedings began and says he spent about $80,000 defending himself. He says the accusation harmed his business, reputation and health. Those are his accounts of the impact; they deserve to be heard alongside any response from Council and the other agencies involved.
Cr Dogramaci has questioned whether the case was connected to his persistent criticism of council management. That is a serious concern, but no court has found that the prosecution was brought for that reason.
The warning to other elected representatives performing their duties
The warning from this case does not depend on proving such a motive. It lies in the power imbalance: an elected representative can lose time in office, incur heavy costs and suffer lasting reputational damage while decisions made inside the organisation by senior executives remain unexplained.
Councillors are elected to question spending, policy and management. Council staff are entitled to raise genuine concerns and report suspected wrongdoing. Both responsibilities can coexist only when the steps taken are fair, documented, transparent and capable of independent examination.
Cr Dogramaci has been found not guilty. The public deserves an account of how a claim Council chose to pay became a criminal case. Until those decisions are explained, this remains a warning to anyone elected to hold a bureaucracy to account.
