Success!!! The Councillors Got the Resignation Letter!
And More Legal Information to Come! - By Chris Chan
A Summary of the Snowy Monaro Regional Council – Extraordinary Meeting Report
Welcome to the Monaro Zone, where we bring you the facts behind the latest developments in the Snowy Monaro Regional Council. Today, we’ll be focusing on the recent extraordinary council meeting of 24th of October, called by Councillors Reuben Rose and Luke Williamson to address critical governance and transparency issues facing the council. While the meeting aimed to resolve key challenges, it ultimately raised even more questions about transparency, governance, and leadership within the council.
Part One: The Motion of Dissent – Validity of Councillors’ Swearing-In
The meeting began with a crucial issue raised by Councillor Thaler: the validity of some councillors’ swearing-in. Thaler attempted to table legal advice he had obtained on this matter. However, this was over-ruled by the Mayor.
Councillor Rose responded to the ruling with a Motion of Dissent, expressing concerns that the legal advice provided to Councillor Thaler indicated that certain councillors may not have been properly sworn in according to legal requirements. This wasn’t a minor technicality, but rather something with potentially serious implications for the legality of the council, and therefore of the decisions made by the council.
Councillor Rose explained:
“The laws regarding the swearing-in of councillors are clear. This is not a grey area. If councillors have not been properly sworn in, we are open to the risk that decisions made by this council could be invalidated, which could open the door to legal challenges down the line.”
Rose referenced the 2013 Barnaby Joyce incident, where issues of nationality with Joyce and several other parliamentarians created significant legal complications for them to lawfully sit in parliament. They were required to resign from parliament, sort out the legal matters and then re-contest their seats. His point was clear: ensuring councillors are lawfully sworn in is not just a matter of procedure, but one of protecting the integrity of the council and of the council’s decisions. Despite this, and despite the availability of a straightforward solution—re-swearing-in the affected councillors—the motion was voted down 3 to 8, with the majority unwilling to act.
Part Two: The Mayoral Minute – Transparency and Access to Information
The second key item to be raised was the Mayoral Minute (an item that can be added to the agenda independently and at short notice by the mayor), which according to the Business Papers for the meeting was to be conducted in a confidential session at the conclusion of other business. Although the specifics were withheld from the public, it likely pertained to the recruitment of a new CEO. This ongoing reliance on closed sessions has become a point of contention for Councillors Rose and Williamson, who have repeatedly called for more transparency in council processes.
Therefore, in order to be in alignment with what appear to be the council’s own policies, Councillor Rose asked that the Mayoral Minute be moved to the top of the agenda for the meeting. Councillor Rose then preceded to request that the item be postponed to be in compliance with council’s own policy, due to the absence in the Mayoral Minute of specific information regarding identified funding sources for the matter. (The identification of the funding source in a Mayoral Minute is a legal requirement for a matter to be put on the agenda and discussed when the matter requires financial outlay). The issue of the Mayoral Minute being required to be put first on the agenda (Which, according to Councillor Rose, is what the plain text of ‘9.7 in SMRC’s Code Of Meeting Conduct’ appears to say), was overruled by the acting CEO, Rawlings, on the basis of his definition of the word ‘put’ in the text. The legal requirement for a Mayoral Minute to identify funding sources in order to be discussed by the council (9.10 in SMRC’s Code of Meeting Conduct’) was over-ruled by Mayor Hanna, and the Mayoral Minute remained on the agenda to be dealt with in a closed meeting at the end.
Councillor Rose had addressed the issue head-on at the beginning of the meeting:
“Councillor Williamson and I called this meeting because we are dissatisfied with the lack of transparency of this council. Closed council briefing sessions are being used to make decisions behind closed doors. That’s not how a council should operate.”
Part Three: UCC Policy – Independent Audit and Financial Accountability
One of the most heated discussions of the meeting centered on the council’s Unreasonable Complainant Conduct (UCC) Policy. The UUC Policy is one that restricts a ratepayers communication with council staff or leadership, on the grounds that council deems their communications to be unreasonable. Councillor Rose argued that the policy, last reviewed in 2021, was outdated and heavily skewed in favor of protecting staff, with little consideration for the rights of complainants - that’s you, the public, the rate payer.
Rose highlighted the imbalance:
“Our council’s UCC policy is dangerously outdated and one-sided. The focus is almost entirely on protecting staff, with scant regard for the rights of the public. This isn’t just a procedural oversight—it’s a question of accountability.”
The debate intensified when the Acting CEO estimated that an audit of the UCC policy—allegedly affecting fewer than 10 individuals—would cost the council over $5000 and take several months. This estimate raises serious concerns about both performance and financial management within the council.
Councillor Rose called out the inefficiency, saying to the effect of: “This is exactly why we shouldn’t be ‘marking our own homework.” Auditing a list of people shouldn’t cost $5000, nor should it take months. It’s an example of the inefficiencies within this council, which is why we need an independent audit.
Despite these arguments, the motion for an independent external audit was narrowly defeated, with six councillors voting against it. The decision to continue with internal auditing—using the same processes that have led to current widespread community concerns —reflected the council’s broader struggle with transparency and accountability.
Councillor Stewart expressed his frustration:
“Councillor Rose has made it simple: we shouldn’t be marking our own homework. We need someone independent. Yet six councillors are voting against more transparency. We’re just continuing on the same old tangents. So be it! Happy days!”
An alternative, watered-down motion was passed, allowing the council to review its own policies internally, essentially keeping the status quo.
Part Four: The CEO’s Resignation – Access to Legal Advice and Associated Correspondence And Documents
The final, and perhaps most contentious issue was a closer examination of the handling of CEO David Hogan’s resignation. Rose was alarmed that the local state member for Monaro, who had given an interview on ABC radio on the 14th of October, knew more about the circumstances and the legal implications of the CEO’s resignation than any of the councillors, who have the statutory governance responsibilities to oversee the CEO.
Councillor Thaler emphasized the public’s right to know:
“The resignation of the CEO is not a private matter. It’s a contract between the public and the CEO. There’s no reason why councillors shouldn’t have access to all the relevant documents.”
Despite multiple requests for transparency, some councillors argued that the resignation letter and related legal advice should remain confidential, even though some councillors had already seen the documents.
Councillor Stewart pointed out the double standard:
“Some councillors wanted to see the letter, and they were denied. If this council is serious about transparency, every councillor should have access to the same information. That’s what Councillor Rose is advocating for—basic accountability.”
Councillor Davis resisted, claiming, “The letter was confidential. We were told it was confidential. It’s a personal matter and was treated as such.”
But Bob Stewart pushed back, issuing a point of order:
“I just want transparency. Councillor Davis, your point was that councillors don’t need to see the letter. I don’t care—but there were councillors who did want to see it, and they should have been allowed to. The advice we received was wrong, and that’s what Councillor Rose is bringing to the meeting.”
Ultimately, Councillor Rose’s persistence paid off. During the debate, by conceeding some amendments, he was, in a positive turn, able to secure enough support from other councillors to pass a motion granting access to at least the legal advice regarding Hogan’s resignation within a three-week window. Rose could not get the request for other relevant correspondence and documents across the line. However, this vote, which passed 7 to 4, represents at least a small step forward for transparency.
In Conclusion: A Step Towards Transparency
This extraordinary meeting exposed deep divisions within the Snowy Monaro Regional Council, particularly on matters of transparency and governance. Councillors Rose, Thaler, Williamson, and Stewart continue to advocate for accountability, open decision-making and adherence to the governing legislation, while the majority, led by Mayor Hanna, appear resistant to these efforts. However, there was a notable victory: the council’s decision to allow access to at least the legal advice regarding the CEO’s resignation was a positive outcome in the ongoing battle for transparency.
Thank you for tuning in to the Monaro Zone. We will continue to report on the key issues affecting our local council, providing you with the facts and the context you need to stay informed. Until next time, keep watching, keep listening, and demand transparency.
Share this post