FRANKSTON councillor Steven Hughes is facing an allegation of serious misconduct.
At their most recent public meeting, seven Frankston councillors agreed to apply for a councillor conduct panel to assess the allegation made against Hughes.
Since being elected in 2020, Steven Hughes has been the subject of two arbitration applications and has served a one month suspension. He was suspended following a series of social media posts criticising council spending and policy.
The Times understands that Hughes’ recent public social media activity was once again a trigger for seeking disciplinary action.
Only Steven Hughes and his son, fellow councillor Liam Hughes, voted against applying for a conduct panel.
Steven Hughes defended his actions in a speech at last week’s council meeting. He addressed his remarks towards a packed public gallery.
“I would love to talk to you about this because then you’d see the absurdity of this. What I can do is talk to you about what’s happened in the past,” he said. “I’ve had two arbitrations – one was in February last year, and one is still going on and is currently under investigation. Just wait for my social media post on that one, you’ll love that one.
“I got found guilty of bringing council into disrepute for saying your rates are too high. I got suspended for a month just for saying that. This is a council that won’t tolerate financial scrutiny. (…) They don’t want me here.”
One of Hughes’ closing remarks was an exasperated “peace out”.
Although councillors were instructed by the mayor to not address the nature of the most recent allegation, Hughes said aloud at the meeting that “we aren’t supposed to talk about the social media post I did recently which is the reason why this is happening”.
Councillor Kris Bolam, who has been personally singled out by Steven Hughes in his two most recent Facebook posts, said that the situation had become “quite disheartening”.
“We are seeing a continued systematic disregard for policies, procedures, and standards of conduct. That deserves and demands councillors to go to a councillor conduct panel which is very serious.”
Councillor David Asker told the meeting that the lengthy dispute had been affecting the mental health of his fellow councillors. “The abuse we are receiving on Facebook is without measure and if this was a normal OH&S workplace, I would not have a job if I was posting some of this stuff,” he said. “It’s having a toll on me, and it’s having a toll on my family.”
Hughes’ ward colleague Sue Baker told the meeting that Hughes is welcome on the council, but that “the place for debate is here in the chamber where we have good advice from officers on legal matters, local laws, policies that are in place, [and] feedback from residents.”
Earlier this year Steven Hughes applied for a councillor conduct panel alleging that Kris Bolam had bullied him, but the allegations were dismissed. The published panel decision read that Hughes “showed a lack of awareness of the impact of his actions and a lack of insight into his behaviour and the impact it has on others around him” (“Councillor conflict escalates to conduct panel” The Times 8/8/22). The process cost ratepayers more than $30,000.
If this complaint is upheld, Hughes may be suspended for up to a year. The previous Frankston Council, which was overseen by a state government appointed monitor at ratepayers’ expense, also weathered a councillor conduct panel scandal. Former councillor Steve Toms was suspended for four months after a bullying complaint against him was upheld.
Hughes told The Times that even if he is found not guilty by the panel, he won’t seek to have ratepayers reimburse his legal fees. “If I am successful, by some miracle, in defending against these absurd allegations then I will not seek to be reimbursed for my legal expenses by ratepayers,” he said.