Mitchell Shire councillor forced to apologise

Mitchell Shire councillor David Lowe has been forced to apologise to Cr Annie Goble and Mayor Fiona Stevens following ‘disrespectful’ behaviour during council’s April 17 meeting.

Cr Goble and Cr Stevens made a joint application on June 21 for international arbitration for Cr Lowe’s alleged misconduct.

The matter was tabled in the October 16 council meeting, with the full report and written apology in the attachments of the agenda.

However, Cr Stevens withdrew her application following Cr Lowe’s sudden illness following the submission.

The alleged misconduct stemmed from a point of order in the April meeting with Cr Lowe stating a conflict of interest existed between Cr Goble and the George Street, Kilmore planning permit being discussed.

Confusion arose following the February 6 council meeting discussing separate planning permit applications for George Street, Kilmore and East Street, Kilmore with Cr Stevens stating ‘we have an apology from Cr Goble tonight. There is a conflict of interest’.

This followed on at the April meeting when Cr Goble was about to speak on the George Street application, Cr Lowe raised a point of order mentioning the previously-declared conflict of interest.

Cr Goble corrected him but Cr Lowe continued telling Cr Stevens that he could play a recording of the February meeting if requested.

Cr Stevens later announced she had made a mistake at the February meeting about the conflict of interest and apologised.

Cr Goble alleged Cr Lowe’s point of order was ‘calculated and premeditated and designed to embarrass, challenge or unsettle her and/or the mayor’ and breached three clauses of the Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020.

Arbitration was conducted via Microsoft Teams on August 31 before arbiter Louise Hall.

Ms Hall said she did not believe Cr Lowe’s actions were preplanned however she said he had other choices at the time including asking for adjournment.

“Curiously, he does not appear to understand that Cr Goble justifiably considered that he was challenging her integrity because he stated that he did not direct any questions to her in the meeting,” she said.

“I find that Cr Lowe’s behaviour was disrespectful to both Cr Goble and the mayor, Cr Stevens, and if Cr Lowe had initially accepted Cr Goble’s explanation that she had a conflict with East Street Kilmore, not George Street Kilmore, that would not be deemed disrespectful.

“However following Cr Goble’s explanation, Cr Lowe kept going, insisting that the mayor had declared a conflict of interest for Cr Goble.”

Ms Hall concluded that Cr Lowe’s intent was to find fault in the mayor’s statement about Cr Goble’s apology at the February 6 meeting.

“At no time during this meeting did the mayor state she was declaring a conflict of interest, only that Cr Goble had a conflict of interest,” she said.

“I do not consider this to be a mistake by the mayor and possibly only unnecessary to explain Cr Goble’s absence.

“Cr Lowe has protested that the mayor did not make an attempt to resolve the matter internally.

“The mayor has provided evidence of an email that she sent to Cr Lowe immediately following the meeting to which he never responded and acknowledged that was a mistake.

“I also find that this constitutes not treating the mayor with respect as she sought an explanation from him.”

Ms Hall said Cr Lowe had asserted that he had treated the councillors with respect in relation to the incident because he was polite and did not raise his voice.

“His behaviour towards these councillors was, in my view, overtly critical, seeking to catch them out or find fault,” she said.

“His written submissions contained several personal jibes about Cr Goble and Cr Stevens, which were unnecessary and seemingly unwarranted.”

Ms Hall also found Cr Lowe only breached one Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020 clause.

Cr Lowe was directed to make a written apology to Crs Goble and Stevens.

He apologised for the point of order raised.

“This caused concern and was considered disrespectful. This was never my intention and I apologise unreservedly for that,” the apology read.

“I recognise that it would have been more constructive to call a suspension of the meeting and deal with this privately.

“In the event of similar circumstances arriving in the future, this is the action I would take.”