A FACEBOOK post made by a Frankston councillor comparing a proposed social media policy to life in the Soviet Union has been labelled “extremely offensive”.
Cr Steven Hughes made a post last week criticising proposed changes to council’s social media guidelines. The post and accompanying image have been described as “shocking” by the mayor.
Council’s new draft communications policy proposes that councillors on social media must remove content for up to 24 hours if directed to by the mayor. “In instances where there is a breach of [the communications policy] or relevant code, the mayor can direct a councillor to temporarily remove the content in question from their social media channels and website for a period of up to 24 hours to allow investigation into the severity of the alleged breach,” the draft policy reads.
Council has confirmed that a complaint about an alleged breach can be made by anyone.
Council officers have recommended that the draft policy be approved and sent out for public consultation.
Cr Hughes’ lengthy Facebook post read that the proposed changes would “suffocate free speech”. He told The Times that council would have a “censorship committee of the mayor and CEO” if the changes to the communications policy pass. “This is essentially censoring any criticism of council, and I think that’s dangerous. We don’t have that in other areas of politics, you can post the truth,” he said.
The mayor Kris Bolam called Cr Hughes’ claims on Facebook “melodramatic and simply untrue”.
“The right to freedom of expression is important but it is not absolute, and it may be limited when its exercise causes harm to the public interest or the rights of others,” he said.
In his post, Cr Hughes said “proposed changes to the code of conduct and communications policy will greatly limit the accountability of Frankston Council. Any criticism of a council decision will be an offence. Any commentary (even if factual) that brings council into disrepute will be sanctioned. The mayor will have unprecedented power to shut down any councillor’s social media accounts even if an offence has not been proven. Lenin would be proud.”
The proposed policy would not actually allow for a councillor’s social media account to be deactivated at the instruction of the mayor. “Nowhere in the proposed update does it give council the power to deactivate a councillor’s social media account,” Cr Bolam said.
“What the policy does propose is to allow the mayor at his or her discretion, to request that a councillor remove content for a period of up to 24 hours should there be a suspected breach of the relevant code or policy, in order for a proper investigation to be undertaken. If no breach is identified, the councillor is within their rights to reinstate the content.”
Cr Bolam said that punishments for breaching the new communications policy “would depend on the severity of the situation and is assessed on a case by case basis.”
When asked if he thought he was being targeted by changes to the communications policy, Cr Hughes said “I can’t say yes or no to that, it’s to keep all councillors in line I suppose. I have made some posts and they haven’t been popular.” Cr Bolam said “it’s not unusual for policies and strategies to be reviewed and strengthened at the commencement of a new council, and in this case there were changes to several sections that required updating, including the social media portion.”
Cr Hughes’ post criticising the proposed changes was accompanied by a bizarre Photoshop of a dolphin in front of the Soviet Union flag. Cr Hughes said the image was created by him and his son, and that the post had been constructive.
“I had to make it dramatic and big,” he said. “Look at the attention that it has brought. If I hadn’t done a post, then there’s no more posts about the communications policy.”
In a statement, Cr Bolam said “Cr Hughes to put it bluntly, your post is extremely offensive not only to council, but to the members of our community and indeed staff who have personal experience or connections to those who have fled communist regimes. The imagery depicted, which was clearly planned and calculated would be highly concerning by anyone, but the fact that it was disseminated by an elected official is quite frankly shocking – and it’s sad that so many have already been exposed to it.”
“Councillor Steven Hughes, I implore you to concentrate your efforts on working together with your colleagues and council officers, in the interests of the community we have been elected to represent. If you feel you cannot do that, then I suggest you reconsider your position, because as it stands your behaviour is not conducive with what our community expects from their local government representatives.
“As you seem to be unable to take responsibility for your actions, I will – and I would like to sincerely apologise to the people in our community, and officers within our organisation who have in any way felt hurt or offended as a result of his poorly judged post.”
