Uphill battle

A SOUTH Gippsland Shire councillor found to have breached council’s code of conduct has labelled the complaints as “trivial” and will appeal the decision.

In a week after the City of Greater Geelong Council was sacked by the State Government in the wake of internal turmoil, South Gippsland Shire Council is facing its own challenges.

A Councillor Conduct Panel Report found Cr Don Hill breached the Councillor Code of Conduct last year in relation to matters of honesty and respect towards fellow councillors and council staff, and deceiving the community with incorrect information.

Cr Hill’s punishment will stop at the panel report stating that it “reprimands Cr Hill”.

The panel directed Cr Hill to attend training for six months towards his understanding of council procedures and practice, improving his communication skills with councillors and council officers, and monitoring him in his role as a councillor with an appropriate mentor.

The panel also ordered council to review its Code of Conduct and that people who chair meetings be trained in meeting procedures.

Council will consider a report about the matter at the April 27 council meeting.

Cr Hill said, “Notwithstanding the fact the panel imposed the most lenient sanction open to it, I intend to appeal the panel decision.

“I have been advised there are legal grounds for appealing, including the fact the panel considered matters that were no longer the subject of a complaint.”

The panel application was lodged by councillors Jim Fawcett, Mohya Davies and Lorraine Brunt last year, and is the latest in a run of longstanding disputes between Cr Hill and some other councillors.

It was the first such panel the council has been involved with.

A second Councillor Conduct Panel Report is to be received by council at a later date in relation to claims made by Cr Hill against Cr Fawcett.

Cr Hill said the matter would never had been presented to the panel had Cr Fawcett “never pursued an agenda against me”.

Cr Fawcett said, “I would refer concerned residents to the panel report excerpts contained in our agenda for the council meeting of 27 April 2016 for a full explanation of the findings and outcomes.”

Cr Brunt said she was an applicant to the panel hearing, after mediation was unsuccessful in resolving issues.

“Cr Hill should have avoided the costs that have occurred to ratepayers. We do have a duty to address troublesome councillors,” she said.
“The panel hearing could have been avoided with a public apology for misleading and deceiving ratepayers with incorrect information, treating staff and fellow councillors with respect, and acting honestly. These are the fundamental principles of being a councillor.
“I am of the opinion the sole purpose has been to cause angst within the community and to other honest like minded councillors.

“It is now up to Cr Hill to be gracious in accepting the panel findings and working with the appointed mentor and understanding his role of being a councillor.”

Cr Nigel Hutchinson-Brooks said, “The findings speak for themselves.”

The panel found Cr Hill breached council’s Councillor Code of Conduct through comments he made in relation to the Rating Differential Strategy on June 3, 2015.

The panel stated, “While Cr Hills’ motivation for his comments may have been to critically analyse the report and provide another view, his words went too far. They reflected inappropriately on other councillors and council officers. The email from him to (council CEO) Tim Tamlin and Ian (sic) Martin (should read Jan Martin, council’s director of corporate and community services) dated September 22, 2015 is evidence of this.

“A minority view or report is of benefit to the council if it addresses the facts and issues in question and does not resort to judgements of persons holding a different view or their motivations.

“Any pressure or aggression Cr Hill may have felt for Cr Fawcett does not justify inappropriate language.”

The details of these matters remain confidential.

The panel found Cr Hill had breached clauses of the code requiring a councillor to act honestly and avoid statements that misled or deceive a person, and treat fellow councillors with respect.

The panel also found he was dishonest and made deceiving statements in letters to the editor of local newspapers on June 2 and 3, 2015 relating to the prospect of proposed new council offices.

The panel reported stated, “Cr Hill stated that he wanted to facilitate a proper debate as to the future location of the council offices and he felt that this issue was predetermined. There may well have been a preference for its location by some councillors and council officers, but that is not the same as alleging that the location decision had been made and the money spent on it was wasted.

“There is a difference between advocating an alternative outcome and questioning the motives and propriety of those with a different view.”

The report found Cr Hill’s subsequent letter to the editor constituted an appropriate apology for his initial letters.

The panel also concluded Cr Hill had made derogatory comments about the council and councillors at the March 25, 2015 meeting about the 2015-16 budget.

“Cr Hill stated he was referring to the quality of the information and its analysis, rather than the competence or integrity of the officers,” the panel report stated.

“He stated he believed his factual analysis was correct and he had an obligation to speak out. The terminology used by Cr Hill enables the panel to conclude that his words and actions constituted a breach of 2.2(c) and 3.1(e) of the code.

“It is noted that Cr Hill felt frustrated in not being able to fully expound his views at council, but this did not provide an excuse for his comments.”

The panel report recommend council review its Councillor Code of Conduct and Meeting Procedures Local Law to simplify it and ensure greater clarity in the application of these policies.

The report also called for annual training for the mayor and chairs of meetings in meeting procedure.

A report to council estimates the panel cost council at least $23,000, “with an anticipated further $5000 to $8000 expenditure expected”.

Cr Hill said in the meantime, he intended to continue to represent the ratepayers in his ward to the best of his ability and to hold council accountable for its decisions.

“In that regard I note that last year I advocated a rate rise of two percent that was said by some councillors to have been impossible to achieve. The current draft budget is an acknowledgement that my proposal was realistic and proper,” he said.

Short URL: /?p=18187

Posted by Tayla Kershaw on Apr 19 2016. Filed under Featured, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry