Snowy Monaro’s PIO Scandal: What the Council and the Minister Don’t Want You to Know - By Chris Chan
The Snowy Monaro Regional Council finds itself at a critical juncture with an extraordinary meeting being called for 23 December 2024 to address a Performance Improvement Order (PIO) notice issued by the Minister for Local Government. A PIO is a formal directive under the Local Government Act that requires a council to address specific governance, financial, or operational issues deemed critical by the Minister. It is a tool designed to restore proper function and compliance in councils facing significant challenges.
At the core of this PIO notice lies a series of allegations relating to breaches of the Code of Conduct by certain councillors, most prominently Cr Andrew Thaler. Among these are claims of bullying, harassment, and inappropriate conduct toward council staff and fellow councillors. Specific examples cited include intimidating interactions, public disclosures of confidential information, and the use of offensive language in social media posts.
The allegations also include claims of behavior that purportedly undermines council efficiency, such as disruptive meeting tactics and unsubstantiated accusations of corruption. The Minister’s report frames these actions as contributing to a toxic workplace culture, reputational damage, and resource misallocation. However, closer scrutiny reveals significant grounds to question the validity of the claims and underlying motivations.
While the PIO ostensibly seeks to address dysfunction within the council, its heavy reliance on contentious allegations against Cr Thaler and other independent councillors raises concerns about whether it truly targets the root causes of the council’s problems—or whether it serves as a means to suppress critical robust debate in council meetings, questions, disagreement and dissent and shield deeper leadership failings from public scrutiny.
Documented Conspiracies and Legal Deceptions
Among the most troubling revelations during this period has been the actual and documented conspiracy involving incumbent councillors and senior council staff to deprive Cr Thaler of his natural rights as an elected representative. This is not speculation; amongst other sources, the evidence lies in legal advice provided to council leadership, advice which was deliberately concealed from Cr Thaler and other independent councillors until recently.
The legal advice in question, obtained with ratepayer funds, provides to council leadership in outline, processes and actions designed to exclude the newly-elected Cr Thaler from critical decision-making discussions. This tactic effectively denied him the ability to fulfill his responsibilities to the public. Without the persistent efforts of the independent councillors, this betrayal of public trust would have remained hidden. The fact that such a strategy was pursued raises grave concerns about the incumbent leadership’s commitment to transparency, fairness and democracy itself.
This behavior underscores a pattern of governance that prioritizes self-preservation over accountability, honesty and the best interests of the community. Instead of working collaboratively with all councillors to address systemic issues, the leadership appears to have resorted to undermining those who ask questions in order to bring transparency and accountability to council proceedings, and to challenge the leadership’s authority to act in the dark.
Rebutting the Allegations
While the allegations appear damning on the surface, closer scrutiny reveals significant grounds to question their validity and underlying motivations:
Partisan Arguments and Political Pressure:
Many of the complaints seem to originate from councillors and staff aligned with particular factions, raising concerns about the impartiality of these accusations. Councillors asking difficult but necessary questions about governance and transparency often find themselves at odds with the status quo, which may lead to politically motivated attempts to silence dissent.
Vexatious and Meritless Claims:
Some complaints rely on subjective interpretations of behavior, such as tone in emails or perceived "intimidation," rather than demonstrable breaches of conduct. These claims may lack substantive evidence and appear designed to escalate minor disagreements into formal allegations.
Undemocratic Implications:
The attempt to curtail robust questions and critical inquiry undermines the democratic role of elected councillors. Holding the administration accountable and challenging decisions are essential components of good governance, not grounds for censure.
Presumption of Innocence:
It is crucial to uphold the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Councillors accused of misconduct deserve a fair and impartial investigation process, free from bias or pre-judgment. Publicizing allegations without resolution risks the unjust damage and defamation of reputations.
Potential Coercion of Complainants:
The possibility that some complainants may have been pressured into making statements against councillors cannot be ignored. Workplace dynamics, fear of reprisal, or alignment with internal factions may influence the submission of claims, casting doubt on their authenticity.
The Role of Tough Questions:
The cited "disruptive behavior" includes actions like demanding financial transparency and scrutinizing governance decisions—activities that are not only permissible but expected of councillors committed to public service. Labeling such actions as misconduct risks discouraging legitimate and essential oversight.
A Broader Perspective
The documented conspiracy against Cr Thaler and the ongoing dysfunction within the Snowy Monaro Regional Council highlight systemic governance failures. The leadership’s actions, from concealing legal advice to scapegoating dissenting councillors, reflect a broader culture of secrecy and resistance to accountability and transparency. These behaviors by the leadership have left the council unable to address pressing financial and operational challenges effectively.
While the Minister’s notice and proposed PIO apparently aim to “rectify these issues”, their reliance on unsubstantiated allegations against Cr Thaler risks further entrenching the existing power dynamics rather than fostering meaningful and necessary reform. Behind the PIO is a possible intent that appears to have raised its ugly head on a number of occasions since during the the election campaigns last year - the desire to suspend the council so that Cr Thaler has no voice in council, and instead it be run by an “administrator”.
True improvement and governance requires a commitment to transparency, collaboration, and respect for democratic principles—and respect for the community’s choice in the councillors they have elected - these are values that have been consistently undermined by the council’s incumbent leadership.
Frivolous Arguments Against Accountability
Critics have accused Cr Thaler and other Independent councillors of obstructing the council’s operations. Yet the documented withholding of the resignation of the CEO and critical legal advice, illustrates that the real obstruction comes from within the council’s leadership. By denying the Independent councillors access to information essential for fulfilling their duties, they have actively impeded governance.
The agenda for the extraordinary meeting on 23rd December itself notes, “Council needs to retain its budget discipline to achieve financial sustainability.” However, the failure to do so lies squarely with the incumbent leadership, which has consistently prioritized maintaining control over addressing systemic issues. Efforts to shift blame onto Cr Thaler and other Independents only serve to distract from these failings.
Leadership Failures: The Mayor's Role
The dysfunction within the council can be directly traced to the mayor’s inability to provide effective leadership:
Swearing-In Process:
The mishandled swearing-in process set a chaotic precedent, marked by irregularities that raised questions about the legitimacy of early council decisions.
Concealment of the CEO’s Resignation:
The mayor’s decision to withhold the CEO’s resignation from councillors and the public further eroded trust and highlighted a culture of secrecy.
Exclusion of Independent Councillors:
The deliberate efforts to exclude Independent Councillors from accessing key correspondance and legal advice demonstrate a failure to uphold the principles of inclusivity, transparency and statutory obligation required for effective governance.
Scapegoating to Distract From Failures
The council’s incumbent leadership, particularly the mayor, appears intent on using Cr Thaler as a scapegoat to deflect attention from their own failings. By framing robust debate, dissent and disagreement as disruption and labeling accountability efforts as misconduct, they seek to consolidate their position while avoiding scrutiny. This strategy not only undermines Cr Thaler’s rights and those of the other Independent councillors, as elected representatives but also denies the public the transparency they are entitled to.
Conclusion: SMRC Council at a Crossroads
The allegations against Cr Andrew Thaler must be viewed in the broader context of a council grappling with systemic failures and entrenched divisions. Ratepayers voted for significant change and elected new and independent councillors. The combined vote of Labor and the Hanna group fell by almost 50%. This should be a sign to those in power that there is significant dissatisfaction with the previous council’s performance. However, the council seeks to continue the status quo via the “gang of six”, which wants to avoid accountability and transparency.
The Minister’s PIO seems to indicate a “crisis” via “fake” governance challenges, with the real purpose being to eliminate a council that is becoming a “thorn in the flesh” due to the Independent councillors stand for transparency and accountability. The next possible step, likely already in planning, would be for the Minister to suspend the SMRC. For rather than improving performance, the PIO appears to be written as a tool to suppress dissent, accountability and transparency, rather than as a vehicle for genuine reform.
Cr Thaler’s and other independent councillors’ actions—demanding access to concealed legal advice, challenging poor governance, and advocating for transparency—are not only justified but critically necessary. Rather than stifling these voices, the council should embrace their contributions as a step toward restoring good governance and public trust. The road to meaningful reform lies not in silencing critics but in addressing the structural failures that have brought the Snowy Monaro Regional Council to this point.
The time has come for the Snowy Monaro community to take a stand. The challenges facing our council—mismanagement, secrecy, and the suppression of dissent—are not just political failures; they are a betrayal of the public trust. Bringing the truth to light is not just the responsibility of a few brave individuals—it is a collective duty. Support those who fight for transparency and accountability, who stand firm against corruption and conspiracy, and who put the needs of the community above personal gain or factional interests.
A truly independent Monaro is within our grasp, but it requires the unwavering support of the people. Demand better governance. Insist on transparency. Stand behind those who dare to question, to uncover the truth, and to hold power accountable. Together, we can restore trust, integrity, and a sense of fairness to the Snowy Monaro Regional Council. The future of our region depends on it.
Please share this article with others— and if possible, come and support your Independent Councillors this coming Monday at 10 AM in Cooma. Your presence matters, and your voice can help ensure a brighter, more accountable future for the Monaro.
Share this post