Moree Plains Shire Councillor Kelly James has rejected the findings behind her latest censure and questioned aspects of the independent investigation and Council’s decision. File photo.
Cr Kelly James has rejected the findings behind her latest censure and questioned the fairness of conduct connected with the February 5 meeting being included in both the May and July resolutions.
The July resolution was broader than the censure passed on May 21, covering her conduct during and after meetings held on December 18, February 5 and February 19.
Moree Plains Shire Council censured Cr James on July 16 and referred the matter to the NSW Office of Local Government following findings by an independent investigator.
Cr James does not accept the investigator’s characterisation of her actions or Council’s conclusion that they amounted to the breaches recorded in its resolution.
In a detailed response provided to Moree Online News, she said she had submitted about 50 pages of supporting material during the investigation, including information about audiovisual-link difficulties, meeting procedures and what she regarded as the inconsistent treatment of councillors.
Her principal concern about the latest decision is the overlap between the censures passed on May 21 and July 16.
The May resolution censured Cr James over her conduct during the February 5 extraordinary meeting after an independent investigator found breaches of clauses 3.1(a), 3.1(b), 3.21 and 3.22 of Council’s Code of Conduct.
The final July resolution also included her conduct during and after the February 5 meeting and cited the same four provisions. It was broader, extending to conduct during and after the December 18 and February 19 meetings.
The provisions concern conduct likely to bring Council or council officials into disrepute, conduct contrary to statutory or administrative requirements, disruption of meetings and acts of disorder intended to prevent Council functioning properly or effectively.
The July resolution also noted that the investigator found Cr James’ conduct during the relevant period was likely to constitute breaches of sections 232(1)(f) and 660 of the Local Government Act.
“The July resolution is not based on an entirely separate set of events,” Cr James said.
“A significant component of it concerns the same 5 February conduct for which Council had already formally censured me less than two months earlier.”
Cr James acknowledged that the July resolution was broader than the May decision.
She also challenged the description of the July decision simply as her “third censure”.
Cr James acknowledged Council had passed three formal censure resolutions against her, but said the description risked suggesting there had been three entirely separate incidents and independent sets of findings.
Audiovisual attendance
Cr James also disputed findings connected with her attendance at meetings by audiovisual link.
She said she had approval to attend the December 18 meeting remotely because of caring responsibilities and participated from a parked vehicle.
She rejected any suggestion that wearing a seatbelt established that she had been driving.
Cr James said Council had recently introduced a new audiovisual system and that genuine connection problems affected her participation.
She said she provided text messages sent during the meeting to Council’s general manager and an executive assistant as evidence that she was attempting to resolve those problems.
“My statement that I had been muted reflected my genuine understanding of what was occurring at the time,” she said.
Cr James said the investigator disputed parts of her account and suggested an unstable connection may have caused some of the difficulties.
She argued that this uncertainty meant her account should not be characterised as knowingly false.
February meetings
Regarding the February 5 extraordinary meeting, Cr James said she had been attempting to raise concerns about proposed infrastructure expenditure and believed she was repeatedly interrupted.
She said she apologised after a point of order was raised, but Mayor Susannah Pearse rejected the apology as not genuine and directed her to apologise again.
Cr James maintains that she was then unable to respond properly because she had been muted.
She said the circumstances contributed to her belief that she had been prevented from participating fully in the meeting.
At the February 19 meeting, Cr James said she arrived at about 1.55pm believing the meeting began at 2pm, although its commencement time had changed to 1pm.
She said the unresolved dispute from February 5 was raised when she entered and she attempted to explain her position.
“I do not accept that every procedural dispute, interruption or forceful contribution constitutes an intention to obstruct Council,” she said.
Cr James said the decision to adjourn the meeting, and the length of that adjournment, were decisions made by the chair and Council and should not automatically be treated as evidence that she intended to prevent Council from functioning.
She said context, consistency and proportionality were essential when deciding whether robust political disagreement had crossed into misconduct.
Social-media findings
Cr James also rejected findings concerning posts made through her Facebook page.
She said the posts reflected her genuine understanding of events during public meetings and were part of her responsibility to communicate with residents.
She denied deliberately publishing false, misleading or threatening material and said references to possible legal action were intended to reserve her legal rights in response to statements she considered damaging to her reputation.
Cr James also said her posts did not disclose confidential Council information.
“Criticising a Council decision, questioning a meeting process or defending oneself against public allegations does not, by itself, amount to bringing Council into disrepute,” she said.
Office of Local Government referral
Council’s final July resolution formally referred the matter to the NSW Office of Local Government for further action under the misconduct provisions of the Local Government Act.
The resolution noted that the independent investigator found Cr James’ conduct during the relevant period was likely to constitute breaches of sections 232(1)(f) and 660 of the Act.
Cr James said she would cooperate with any consideration or investigation undertaken by the Office.
She stressed that Council’s referral was not a finding by the Office that she had engaged in misconduct and was not a charge or conviction under the Act.
“I welcome the opportunity for an external body to examine the full circumstances, including my submissions, the meeting recordings, the technical issues, the application of meeting procedures and my concerns regarding consistency and procedural fairness,” she said.
Continuing as a councillor
Throughout her response, Cr James maintained that the investigation gave insufficient weight to the broader context of the disputed meetings, including technical difficulties, disagreements over procedure and what she described as the inconsistent application of Council’s rules.
She said she accepted the importance of orderly and respectful meetings but rejected the finding that her conduct was intended to prevent Council from functioning effectively.
“I remain committed to representing the Moree Plains community, asking difficult questions and scrutinising decisions that affect residents,” she wrote.
“I also recognise the importance of orderly and respectful meetings. What I do not accept is that political disagreement, procedural objection and determined community advocacy should be selectively reframed as an intention to prevent Council from functioning.”
