A LEGAL stoush between two Frankston councillors has cost ratepayers more than $30,000.
The costs were incurred during a recent councillor conduct panel hearing. Frankston councillor Steven Hughes initiated the panel, alleging that former mayor Kris Bolam had bullied him. The panel dismissed every allegation.
Frankston Council has since revealed that the conduct panel cost ratepayers $30,500, inclusive of panel sitting fees. That figure also includes $4300 in legal fees incurred by Bolam during the process, which councillors have agreed to reimburse.
Bolam said that Frankston ratepayers are owed an apology for the situation. “Although I regret Frankston ratepayers potentially having to repay the legal expenses in question, I also consider this exercise an object lesson for all present and future councillors that may wish to lodge bogus and without merit complaints against others,” he said. “Moving forward, it is vitally important that councillors not put ratepayers at risk of unnecessary exposure to obligational and civil restitution.”
Frankston Council CEO Phil Cantillon said that council had reimbursed Bolam because he “incurred legal fees in the sum of $4300 in the course of responding to the allegations, which arose in relation to the activities undertaken in good faith in connection with the performance of his official duties and functions as the mayor.”
“The application made by Cr Steven Hughes seeking a finding of serious misconduct against Cr Kris Bolam was wholly dismissed by the councillor conduct panel and none of the exclusions set out in council’s legal advice protocol preclude the reimbursement of these costs.”
Steven Hughes has been the subject of two arbitration applications since being elected to council. He was suspended for a month last year after the completion of one arbitration process, and is currently in the midst of a second one. Frankston Council began the process of applying for arbitration again in June after seven councillors signed a written dispute statement alleging Hughes had engaged in misconduct.
Last year’s arbitration was initiated after Hughes made a Facebook post saying council’s social media policy would “make Kim Jon-Un nod in approval” (“Rebel councillor suspended over Facebook posts” The Times 31/8/21). The process cost ratepayers $11,549 inclusive of the reimbursement of the arbiter’s sitting fees.
Hughes told The Times that he believes last year’s arbitration was a “disgrace”. “I fought against illegal laws that council has implemented that suppress free speech and told the truth about Frankston’s exorbitant rates, and yet I was suspended for a month. Any costs associated should be attributed to the seven councillors who voted to send me to arbitration and brought less accountability and transparency to council,” he said.
“The cost associated with the [councillor conduct] panel is the cost of seeking justice. Although the verdict didn’t go entirely my way, I believe that actions against me lead to Frankston residents having their voices in council not heard, and that is something that should not be tolerated.
“Any attempt to paint me as the financial bad guy is just playing politics and an attempt by other councillors to hide the guilt associated with their own wasteful spending – spending that causes Frankston rates to increase year upon year.”
1 Comment
Bolam should be sanctioned & told to pay his own fees . He tried to dictate a young new Councilllor in Hughes