The NSW Office of Local Government (OLG) last year released a discussion paper on a new framework for councillor conduct and meeting practices.
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
The discussion paper highlighted concerns about the running of council meetings and the process for addressing misconduct among councillors.
A key aspect of the paper was the recommendation to ban closed council briefing sessions for improved transparency.
The OLG believes that the sessions allowed councils to make decisions away from public view.
However, according to Murray River Council’s acting chief executive Sarah Ryan the briefing sessions are necessary.
“Council fully supports transparency and making decisions in open council meetings. However, banning councillor briefing sessions is not practical,” she said.
“The time needed to ask questions and explore these complexities cannot be accommodated within the constraints of a formal council meeting.
“Briefing sessions and workshops allow councillors to engage with subject matter experts and council staff on topics that may be outside their areas of expertise.
“The sessions help explore potential solutions, strategic opportunities and directions, providing valuable insights that inform decision-making in the public chamber.”
The OLG also put forth a recommendation on how to approach the matter of councillor misconduct.
Under the current framework, the OLG says the process for resolving code of conduct complaints is costly, overly legal, prone to political sparring and inefficient, with average time-frames exceeding 12 months.
According to the OLG, the influx of ‘frivolous’ complaints is hindering their capacity to effectively address more serious cases of councillors misconduct.
Between 2020 to 2023, 4289 complaints were made in total but less than a quarter were substantiated.
Of the thousands of complaints received from 2020 to 2021, the OLG only took action against 14 councillors, referred four councillors to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for misconduct and dismissed one councillor.
Communities and councils also voiced dissatisfaction with the escalation of councillor misconduct issues to the state government instead of handling them at the local government level.
As a solution, the OLG suggested that concerns about councillor behaviour should be referred to a ‘Privileges Committee’, a statewide panel of experienced councillors who can judge their peers.
Although there is a general consensus that the process needs to change, the reactions to the OLG’s suggestions have been mixed.
Ms Ryan said the suggestion of a statewide panel did not seem like an efficient solution.
“It is unclear how establishing a Privileges Committee would expedite the complaints process,” she said.
“Bringing together a group of busy individuals from across the state on a regular basis to address behavioural issues poses significant logistical challenges.”
Over the coming year, the OLG will continue to consult local governments as they finalise draft legislations, regulations and materials for implementation of the revised framework.