FRANKSTON councillor Steven Hughes’ suspension is officially underway.
A special meeting of Frankston councillors was called last Wednesday to commence Hughes’ three month suspension. The suspension was handed down by a councillor conduct panel late last month.
This is Hughes’ third suspension from council – he has previously served two separate one month bans. In addition to the active suspension, Hughes is also facing the potential of further punishment. Another councillor conduct panel application made against him earlier this year remains unresolved.
Hughes responded to news of his suspension with a combative Facebook post, which was more than 1200 words long. The post, published on 6 September, read “I believe the allegations against me are politically motivated.”
“Political image is front of mind as council elections draw nearer,” Hughes wrote.
Hughes’ lengthy post targeted Frankston Council’s rates and councillor expenses. He compared Frankston Council to a “Kardashian in a botox clinic”, “Milli Vanilli”, and “an incel on Tinder.” He wrote “by fighting for your rate reduction, council has dragged me through three arbitration processes, with a fourth one imminent.”
“Naturally, I disagree with the verdict. With this decision it will be difficult to advocate for a reduction of your rates or scrutinise councillor expenditure; however irrelevant that spend is to the role of a councillor. This decision gives licence for councillors to spend your rates on their expenses more freely, a terrible outcome for Frankston residents,” Hughes said. “While I don’t seek trouble, I will never bend the knee and accept excessive councillor expenditure and a warped rates ideology.”
The social media activity which contributed to Hughes’ suspension also involved commentary on councillor expenses (“Embattled councillor suspended for three months” The Times 5/9/23).
One of the claims made in Hughes’ 6 September Facebook post was that he is the only Frankston councillor “that chooses not to receive a councillor allowance”. Frankston Council’s most recent annual report, which covered the 2021/2022 financial year, read that although Hughes refused a pay rise he was still paid the previously agreed allowance of $31,444. Frankston Council also confirmed to The Times that Hughes received an allowance of $28,823 in the 2022/2023 financial year.
Hughes reiterated to The Times that “I have not received a councillor allowance this financial year and nor will I”. He also said that the allowance he has been paid previously has been “used for the betterment of Frankston ratepayers” including “donations to charities” and “legal fees fighting councillors [sic] politically driven misconduct allegations”.
Frankston Council has twice voted to apply for a councillor conduct panel against Hughes – the first was in October of 2022 and the second earlier this year after he failed to make an apology ordered by an arbiter (“Suspended councillor faces fresh allegations” The Times 27/2/23). Frankston mayor Nathan Conroy told Wednesday’s meeting that this suspension was the outcome of the October 2022 application.
Frankston Council CEO Phil Cantillon said that council “supports the findings of the panel”.
“Council is committed to promoting good behaviour and good governance and delivering the best outcomes at all times for Frankston City ratepayers, residents and visitors,” he said.
1 Comment
I see the journalists at The Bayside Times are experts at misquoting.
I stated in my post ‘I am currently the only councillor that chooses not to receive a councillor allowance’ a factual truth. By removing the phrase ‘I am currently the only councillor’ they created a misperception to make it appear I was staying I have never received an allowance, an untruth. Surprised, not at all, I would expect nothing less than shoddy ethics from the partisan journalists at The Bayside Times.
In comparison seven councillors receive full allowances (plus pay rises), spend tens of thousands of ratepayers money on councillor expenses and yet vote to cut funding to community groups. Interesting how that story never makes The Bayside Times.