The recent Supreme Court ruling in favour of Councillor Karen Renkema-Lang against Kiama Municipal Council has prompted a pressing question: Is our current council structure fit for purpose? Given the council's decision to engage in costly litigation despite severe financial constraints, one must wonder if the time if well overdue to replace our councillors with an administrator. The case, which centred around an invalid censure motion, has exposed significant procedural flaws and resulted in adding a further $400,000 ( and rising ) in legal costs which have already exceeded $4.7 million this financial year, a burden that falls heavily on the ratepayers.

On 27 May 2024, the Supreme Court of NSW, through consent orders, declared the council's resolution to censure Councillor Renkema-Lang invalid due to reasonable apprehension of bias in the independent report by Michael Symons. This report, which had been crucial in the council's decision, was found to have significant redactions that concealed previous involvement of the conduct reviewer in a complaint brought by Renkema-Lang against the Mayor. The court also ordered the council to pay all legal costs, further exacerbating its financial woes.

The financial implications of this litigation are staggering. Legal costs have already surpassed $4.7 million this financial year. This comes at a time when the council's financial situation is already precarious, as highlighted by the NSW Auditor General’s reports and the Office of Local Government’s extension of the Performance Improvement Order.

One cannot help but question the council's wisdom in increasing the financial burden on the municipality's ratepayers, who are now left to shoulder the costs of what many would consider avoidable litigation.

The case has also shed light on significant procedural and transparency issues within the council. Councillor Renkema-Lang’s vindication by the court underscores the lack of transparency in the council’s processes. The redactions in Symons' report, which withheld critical information from the councillors, reflect a troubling disregard for procedural fairness. The fact that these redactions concealed a prior involvement that could have informed the councillors' decisions is particularly concerning.

Renkema-Lang’s press release statement highlights her deep disappointment in the council's handling of the matter, pointing out that the council had ample opportunities to reconsider its approach but chose not to. This lack of reconsideration not only led to unnecessary expenditure but also called into question the council’s commitment to fair and transparent governance.

At the heart of the matter is the principle of freedom of expression for elected officials. Renkema-Lang's comments during a June 2023 radio interview, which led to the censure motion, were based on publicly available information and her opposition to the reclassification of Bonaira land. Her right to express her opinion on council matters without fear of censure is fundamental to democratic governance.

The ruling serves as a reminder that elected officials must be allowed to voice their opinions openly and honestly. It also underscores the need for the council to provide timely, relevant, complete, and accurate information to its councillors, enabling them to make informed decisions.

The Kiama Municipal Council’s decision to engage in costly litigation against Councillor Renkema-Lang, raises serious questions about its financial stewardship and commitment to procedural fairness. This case serves as a cautionary tale for other councils about the importance of transparency, fair process, and prudent financial management. It is imperative that Kiama Council reassesses its approach to governance to prevent similar situations in the future and to restore public trust in its decision-making processes.

Lynne Strong