An arbiter has concluded Wyndham councillor Josh Gilligan did not breach standards of conduct against mayor Peter Maynard, but said the matter was “possibly fuelled by underlying and interpersonal conflict” between the two councillors.
Sarah Fowler completed an internal arbitration process after Cr Maynard submitted an application in April, alleging Cr Gilligan had breached the Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020.
Cr Maynard alleged Cr Gilligan implied in a notice of motion that an internal investigation was raised against the mayor for changing the date of citizenship ceremonies.
The citizenship ceremony schedule allegations refer to an email sent by Cr Maynard in January 2022, stating that at his request some changes had been made to the citizenship ceremony plan, including some ceremonies being rescheduled to Sunday, in an effort to involve more councillors in the event.
Cr Gilligan submitted a request for information from council staff on the same day, seeking an estimate of the ‘expenditure’ associated with changing the ceremony dates.
A response to the request stated that Cr Maynard did request that ceremonies were not held on Saturdays, to allow him to attend local sporting events as the portfolio holder, and as a large number of clubs in Wyndham play on Saturday.
A notice of motion raised by Cr Gilligan in March noted people reserve Sunday for family and religious gatherings, and called for the council chief executive to reschedule citizenship ceremonies to occur on Saturdays to avoid additional ratepayer expenses.
Cr Maynard alleged Cr Gilligan “deliberately misled” both council and the public by inferring he requested the change of dates on the schedule, when he says he was approached by council staff about his availability for the ceremonies and did not “personally intervene”.
Other examples of alleged misconduct included Cr Gilligan calling Cr Maynard a liar on his Facebook page, and an email which alleged Cr Maynard misused his position and mayoral powers.
Ms Fowler determined that the allegations did not breach the relevant standards of conduct in relation to the citizenship ceremony schedule allegations.
The arbiter concluded the interactions constitute “robust public debate” and the contents of the notice of motion were not “deliberately misleading”.
Cr Maynard also accepted that the changes to the citizenship ceremony incurred an additional cost of $4689.
“My view is that the respondent and applicant have different interpretations of the motivations and communications regarding this matter, possibly fuelled by some underlying and interpersonal conflict,” Ms Fowler said.
“The parties have locked horns on which of them is “lying” and appear to have lost sight of the issue at the core of the dispute.”
