Victoria’s peak body for local government professionals is calling for more clarity around unacceptable councillor behaviour, tougher penalties for misconduct and more scope for CEOs to raise issues with the local government watchdog.

LGPro President Liana Thompson, who is also a director at Wyndham City Council, says poor councillor culture is causing brain drain and burnout among staff in the sector.

The current term has seen a 75 per cent CEO turnover, Ms Thompson told Government News.

“People are getting in, they’re staying for a little while, and they are saying I can’t do this,” she said.

“They’re saying, ‘I am not going to be undermined, I’m not going to have my professional integrity called in dispute and I’m not going to have my reputation trashed. I can’t work in this sector like this’.”

Legislative review

LGPro has provided local government minister Melissa Horne with a document proposing a review of the Local Government Act and the frameworks governing councillor conduct.

The submission, obtained by Government News, calls for an increase in the amount of time an errant councillor can be suspended for, as well as potential civil penalties. It also calls for CEOs to be able to raise issues with the Chief Municipal Inspector, a power they currently don’t have.

“The current system is too slow, the penalties are like being hit with a damp lettuce, and there’s a lack of consistency in approaches,” Ms Thompson said.

“We want to give some clarity about what’s acceptable behaviour and what’s not acceptable, and that if you choose the unacceptable there are penalties.”

Lack of clarity about standards

There is no model code of conduct for councillors in Victoria, however the state’s councils are required to have in place their own behaviour codes.

A finding of misconduct can be made after internal arbitration by an arbiter drawn from a state government list, and allegations of serious msiconduct, such as sexual harassment, can be heard  by a ministerial councillor conduct panel.

Gross misconduct can be alleged by the Chief Municipal Inspector and head by the state’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

By Ms Thompson says standards of conduct are too general and lack of specificity, which makes it difficult to determine when a line has been crossed.

“…no breach was found when a councillor called another councillor a ‘bloody moron’, and when a councillor threw a copy of governance rules on floor of chamber describing it as ‘crap’.

For example, the LGPro submission says no breach was found when a councillor called another councillor a ‘bloody moron’, and when one threw a copy of governance rules on floor of chamber describing it as ‘crap’.

“There are some behaviours that aren’t dealt with well under the current Act, which is why we’re seeking legislative reform to enable councillors and councils to be really clear about what’s okay behaviour and what’s not,” Ms Thompson said.

Heftier penalties

LGPro also argues that when sanctions are imposed they are often disproportionately light.

“Anecdotally there is evidence that Councillors have been dissuaded from bringing misconduct applications because they see that there will be no more than a ‘slap over the wrist’ if misconduct is found,” Ms Thompson says.

Arbitiers can currently suspend councillors for up to a month and conduct panels can impose a 12 month suspension.

LGPro says that isn’t enough, and wants to see arbiters empowered to suspend councillors for up to three months and panels for up to three years.

Misunderstanding of CEO powers

Ms Thompson says there’s an assumption that CEOs have more power to intervene when it comes to badly behaving councillors than they do.

In reality staff often have nowhere to turn when a coucillor acts inappropriately towards them, she says.

“There is a misunderstanding that CEOs can somehow tell their councillors to stop it. We don’t have that power,” Ms Thompson says.

We’re saying if there’s a problem with a councillor and they’re behaving poorly – bullying, harassing, demeaning, calling professional officers out publicly – that an officer can actually put in a complaint. There’s not that opportunity right at the moment.

LGPro President Liana Thompson

She says while CEOs aren’t asking for a direct role in the disciplinary process, they should have the power to request that the Chief Municipal Inspector consider a misconduct application.

“We’re saying if there’s a problem with a councillor and they’re behaving poorly – bullying, harassing, demeaning, calling professional officers out publicly – that an officer can actually put in a complaint. There’s not that opportunity right at the moment,” she said.

Similar issues experienced nationally

The LGPro Legislative Review follows the release last year of the local government Insight Report, an initiative of the state government’s Local Government Culture Project.

The Local Government Culture Project was designed to understand the factors influencing culture and conduct in local government and identify areas for improvement, as well as making local government a safer and attractive space for women.

LGPro says while its review is specific to Victorian, similar issues are being felt nationally and being similarly addressed.

In Tasmania, recent amendments to the state’s Local Government Code of Conduct Framework have sought to improve dispute resolution and WA is undertaking what it says is the largest local government reform agenda in 25 years.

In NSW local government minister Wendy Tuckerman is also considering almost 50 recommendations for an improved framework for dealing with councillor misconduct, including a submission from the state’s peak body for local government, LGNSW. 

Ms Thompson says while bad councillor behaviour isn’t widespread, there needs to be a deterant.

“There needs to be a stick for those small number of councillors,” she says. “They can’t just feel like it’s a slap on the wrist so why bother, because that is undermining the whole good governance system.”