Cr Gillian Boyd: A Quiet Force for Commonsense in Shoalhaven Council
Disclosure: I am a former member of the Labor party and did volunteer on the campaign of Cr Boyd at the last election, not because she was Labor, but because of her qualities.In an age of grandstanding politics and weaponised outrage (i.e. Cr Kemp, Proudfoot, White and Wilkins), Cr Gillian Boyd offers something radically uncommon: calm, competent stewardship. She doesn’t need to shout to be heard—because when she speaks, it’s clear she’s done her homework. This approach is shareds in how Cr Tribe, Johnston and Dun approach the work of council.
Cr Boyd’s entrance to Shoalhaven City Council came not via a campaign trail, but by countback in July 2023. And yet in two terms, she has built a reputation for sharp judgement, policy fluency, and, perhaps most importantly, a deep understanding of what local government is for.
What’s remarkable is not just her resume—which includes decades of work in education, public service, and community development—but her attitude. She brings a Labor-informed sense of fairness and equity but is no party automaton. Her decisions are guided by evidence, balance, and a working knowledge of how public systems function. In other words, she reads the fine print while others are performing for monkey gallery claps.
When the SIG bloc pushed for sweeping staff cuts to the Council workforce, Cr Boyd didn’t just oppose the plan. She exposed its economic recklessness. Where others waved the flag of “efficiency” like a get-out-of-jail-free card, Boyd pointed out the real risks: disrupted services, legal exposure, and long-term financial instability. It was one of the clearest examples of why governance and management are not the same thing—and why councillors like Boyd, who understand the distinction, are essential.
She is often described—accurately—as part of the progressive bloc, working closely with councillors like Jemma Tribe, Matthew Norris, and Natalee Johnston. But her style is less factional warfare and more collaborative architecture. She is not interested in scoring points; she’s interested in building policy that works.
And she knows that local government is not about slogans. It’s about potholes, childcare, bus stops, and making sure vulnerable people don’t fall through the cracks. It’s not glamorous, but it matters. That’s why Boyd’s background in human services and education has been such an asset. She doesn’t treat policy as abstraction—she treats it as impact.
This is not to say Cr Boyd is without criticism. For those who favour slash-and-burn economics or who think council should run like a business, she can appear overly cautious. But in truth, her caution is a form of wisdom. She knows that in public service, a rushed decision made to look “decisive” is often just expensive regret in disguise.
Boyd also understands a subtle truth that too many councillors miss (White, Proudfoot, Wilkins, Clancy and Kemp): you don’t need to be the loudest person in the room to have the biggest influence. In meetings, her contributions are not flashy (we are yet to hear her repeat words three times and talk about “great comfort”) —but they are often the ones that shift the conversation back to reality, back to data, and back to the people the council is meant to serve.
In behavioural terms, she’s practicing “signal clarity.” Not in the sense of noise—but in relevance. Her brand is not performative politics. It’s the authority of competence.
And that’s rare.
Councillor Gillian Boyd's Voting Bloc:
Councillor Boyd is a prominent member of a voting bloc that typically includes:
Cr Jemma Tribe
Cr Matthew Norris
Cr Natalee Johnston
Cr Ben Krikstolaitis
Cr Karlee Dunn often votes with this bloc when it is in opposition.
This group generally votes together on various matters, often forming a clear counter-bloc to the mayor’s group.
The Opposing Voting Bloc:
The voting bloc that typically opposes Cr Boyd and her allies on contentious issues includes:
Mayor Patricia White
Cr Selena Clancy (elected on the Tribe ticket, but switched allegiance to SIG)
Cr Denise Kemp
Cr Luciano Casmiri
Cr Jason Cox
Cr Peter Wilkins
Cr Bob Proudfoot
This group represents the majority on many votes that oppose Cr Boyd's stance.
Cr Gillian Boyd's Stance on Issues:
Cr Boyd's voting record indicates her active engagement in contentious discussions, often advocating for positions that align with her knowledge:
Development Control Plan (DCP) - 45 Degree Rule: Cr Boyd voted AGAINST reverting the DCP to the 45-degree rule exemption for tree and vegetation management, indicating a preference for stricter controls. She later voted AGAINST the adoption of an amendment to the DCP that included this rule, after her own amendment to that motion was lost.
Moratorium on Development: She voted AGAINST rescinding a moratorium on development not supported by contemporary studies, supporting the continuation of development pauses until proper studies are available.
Community Groups & Organisations Policy: Cr Boyd co-moved an amendment to develop a policy facilitating collaboration with community and sporting groups for infrastructure on Council land, which was successfully carried despite opposition from the mayor’s bloc. She then voted AGAINST a rescission motion aimed at overturning this policy, ensuring it remained in effect.
Finance Review Panel: Cr Boyd actively influenced the formation of the Finance Review Panel. While her initial amendment to have the committee establish its own Terms of Reference and seek external members via EOI was lost, her subsequent "further amendment" (which became the main motion) to allow the mayor to appoint community members in consultation with the CEO & CFO and to appoint specific councillors was carried unanimously. This shows her strategic influence in shaping this important financial oversight body.
Sanctuary Point Library Project: Cr Boyd demonstrated a complex stance on the Sanctuary Point Library project. She initially voted AGAINST the recommendation to continue with the proposed library location and funding approach. Later, her motion to receive an update report and delegate authority for negotiations and a development application for the current proposed location was lost. When a foreshadowed motion was presented to abandon the current project and investigate alternative sites, Cr Boyd voted AGAINST this abandonment. This indicates she preferred to revisit or re-scope the existing project rather than abandoning it outright for new investigations, although she did vote FOR an amendment to simply investigate alternative sites (without abandoning the current one first) which was also lost.
Budgeting Strategies and Financial Targets: She consistently pushed for more detailed financial accountability. She voted FOR amendments proposing specific financial targets for the 2025/26 budget review that were ultimately lost. She then voted AGAINST the adopted budgeting strategies that passed without her preferred amendments, indicating her dissent on the final financial direction.
Shoalhaven Family Day Care Administrative Function Transfer: Cr Boyd co-moved an amendment to transition the service to suitable not-for-profit organisations and include educators in the selection process, but this was lost. She then voted AGAINST the successful main motion to transition the administration to a suitable independent organization. She also voted AGAINST a rescission motion in February 2025 that aimed to overturn a previous decision to reaffirm the SFDC policy. The rescission motion passed, which means her vote aligned with the minority in that specific procedural outcome. Her position clearly favors a not-for-profit model with greater community involvement.
Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy: While she voted FOR exhibiting the draft policy, she voted AGAINST two amendments proposed by her bloc that aimed to introduce stricter accountability measures regarding expenses and media conduct. Notably, when an amendment to remove "Meetings with ratepayers and residents" from the definition of "official business" was put forward, she voted AGAINST its removal, implying she believes such meetings should be considered official business. Later, she voted FOR rescinding the motion to adopt the policy, and then AGAINST the motion to adopt the policy itself, suggesting fundamental disagreements with its final form.
Shoalhaven War Memorials: Cr Boyd voted AGAINST establishing a War Memorials Register and Advisory Committee. The motion passed on the Chairperson's casting vote, placing her in opposition to its creation, given the existence of a community managed register.
Planning & Development Committee: Cr Boyd voted FOR an amendment to schedule a workshop for councillors to develop the Terms of Reference for a new Planning and Development Committee, but this was lost. She subsequently voted AGAINST the main motion to direct the CEO to draft the terms, which was carried, indicating her preference for more direct councillor input in drafting such documents.
Controversial Matters and Public Statements:
Statement on CEO Resignation: During a meeting on January 21, 2025, the Mayor raised a point of order against Cr Boyd, requesting her to clarify that her comments regarding councillors not being consulted on the CEO's resignation were "only her opinion." Cr Boyd confirmed this was her opinion. This highlights a direct challenge to the factual basis of her statements and her public clarification.
Overall, Cr Boyd is a strong voice within her voting bloc, consistently advocating for specific policy directions, particularly in planning and financial governance, and is willing to challenge the prevailing view or the mayor’s bloc on these matters.
In an environment increasingly fractured by ideology, tribalism and clickbait governance, Cr Gillian Boyd remains a case study in quiet impact. She is not trying to be a star. She’s trying to be useful. And that, oddly enough, is what makes her so valuable.
Breaking the Gridlock: How Minority Councillors and Citizens Can Reclaim Local Democracy
By Stephen W Prothero | Eye on Shoalhaven Council
In councils across Australia—including Shoalhaven—progressive councillors and active citizens often find themselves outnumbered, outvoted, and outmanoeuvred by a conservative majority more interested in control than community.
Here in Shoalhaven, the Shoalhaven Independent Group (SIG) holds power as a voting bloc. Rather than fostering robust debate or seeking reform, SIG wields its numbers to block transparency, suppress innovation, and protect the status quo. Their grip on power isn’t merit-based—it’s inertia-based.
But around the country, examples are emerging of how this cycle can be broken.
1. Stop Mistaking Defeat for Service
Let’s be blunt: sitting in the chamber and consistently losing votes is not strategy—it’s stagnation. Constituents didn’t elect councillors to perform noble defeat. They elected them to deliver results.
If you’re being outvoted on every issue, it’s time to stop playing their game—and start changing the rules.
2. The Fear of “Divisiveness” Is a Political Trap
Local Government law in NSW doesn’t prohibit challenge, disagreement or advocacy. Quite the opposite—it requireselected officials to act in the public interest. That includes calling out rorts, secrecy, and mismanagement.
Those who fear being labelled “disruptive” are falling into the trap designed by those who benefit from silence. Progress is always disruptive—to those who profit from delay.
3. The Real Work Happens Outside the Chamber
The most effective councillors across the country know that the community is where power is built.
Cr Sarah Mansfield (Geelong): Before entering state politics, Mansfield worked as a councillor known for grassroots engagement—hosting street forums and directly consulting renters, cyclists, and young people left out of traditional engagement models.
Cr Jonathan Sri (Brisbane, formerly Gabba Ward): Sri used his role as a platform to organise public forums, creative protests, and participatory budgeting sessions. He didn’t wait for council permission to act—he mobilised residents to imagine and demand better.
Cr Elaine Abery (Wingecarribee): In a rural NSW shire plagued by dysfunction, Abery has built alliances with local groups, issued public briefings, and challenged poor governance head-on—positioning herself as a trusted, independent voice for reform.
Each of these councillors recognised that when the chamber fails, the community must become the council.
4. Build Parallel Power and Prepare for Change
Start local. Hold community-led consultations. Run your own housing forums. Invite experts to town halls. Launch a climate action panel. Bring renters, ratepayers, and businesses into the policy-making process.
These efforts do two things: they demonstrate the leadership missing from council—and they lay the groundwork for electing new representatives who will serve the public, not political cliques.
5. Expose the Cost of Delay
Councils like Shoalhaven aren’t conservative because they save money—they’re conservative because they waste opportunity. Every delayed reform, every blocked development that could improve affordability, every refusal to modernise services, costs ratepayers real dollars and future wellbeing.
Don’t just argue for change—quantify the cost of inaction. Name names. Track votes. Make the invisible visible.
6. Create Political Incentives for Better Representation
People don’t vote for what they don’t understand. That’s why obstructive councillors often skate by—because their actions go unreported and unchallenged.
Turn every vote into a story. Turn every “no” into a headline. Make council behaviour part of the public conversation. Because once residents understand what they’re getting from their elected representatives, they’ll start demanding better—or voting differently.
7. Shift the Culture from Council-Centric to Community-Led
The goal isn’t just better motions in the chamber—it’s a better council altogether. One that listens, responds, and plans for the future.
You don’t win that by playing nice. You win that by building coalitions, fostering leadership, and creating public pressure so powerful that even the dead hands of SIG can’t ignore it.
The Model Exists—We Just Have to Apply It
From Brisbane to Bega, Geelong to Goulburn, councillors and community groups are proving that change doesn’t start with a motion—it starts with momentum.
The dead hand of obstruction only rules when we give it the space to.
So to minority councillors in Shoalhaven: stop playing the losing game in the chamber, and start building the winning game in the streets, schools, markets, sports clubs, and online. The future isn’t decided in the vote tally—it’s built by those who engage the public, empower new voices, and refuse to be silenced.
You’re not being divisive. You’re doing your job.
Cr Jemma Tribe: A Steady Hand in a Stormy Chamber
This is what the Shoalhaven needs from its councillors
In a time when local politics is too often defined by division, defensiveness and delay, Cr Jemma Tribe has emerged as one of the most consistent and community-focused voices on Shoalhaven City Council.
Her work reflects a clear commitment to public service, underpinned by values of equity, inclusion and practical progress. It is this foundation—not political theatre—that defines her leadership.
Cr Tribe’s advocacy for early childhood education and care stands out as a defining pillar of her public role. When Council moved to shut down Family Day Care services—a vital network that supports not only children but working families across the region—Tribe stepped up. She spoke not just as a councillor, but as a listener, drawing on conversations with parents, educators, and carers. In the face of bureaucratic cost-cutting, she offered a people-first perspective: that child care is not just a service, but an investment in the community’s future.
This is a consistent thread through her work. Whether on childcare, affordable housing, public transport, or community infrastructure, Cr Tribe has brought an evidence-based, consultative approach to decision-making. She takes the time to understand the implications of proposals—not only through policy documents and staff reports, but through the lived experience of her constituents. Her questions in council are thoughtful, not performative; her motions are practical, not populist.
Yet this thoughtful leadership has not come without resistance. Since stepping away from the Liberal Party in 2023—citing a culture of sexism and exclusion—Cr Tribe has become a target of frequent attacks from the Mayor and members of the Shoalhaven Independent Group (SIG). She has been publicly criticised for her views, particularly around Council staffing and the need for transparency and engagement. The tone of these attacks has often been personal and pointed.
What’s telling, however, is how Cr Tribe responds: not with retaliation, but with quiet strength. She continues to advocate, to consult, and to serve. Her independence—both in name and in mindset—has allowed her to focus on issues over ideology. In a chamber increasingly divided by political blocs, her refusal to vote as part of a team and instead judge each issue on its own merits has earned respect beyond party lines.
Councillor Jemma Tribe exhibits a distinct voting pattern, frequently aligning with a core group of councillors. This group, often referred to as her voting bloc, typically includes Cr Matthew Norris, Cr Gillian Boyd, Cr Natalee Johnston, and Cr Ben Krikstolaitis, and frequently Cr Karlee Dunn joins them. This bloc often votes in opposition to another group of councillors, generally consisting of Mayor Patricia White, Cr Selena Clancy, Cr Denise Kemp, Cr Luciano Casmiri, Cr Jason Cox, Cr Peter Wilkins, and Cr Bob Proudfoot.
Here's a summary of her voting patterns, her voting bloc, and instances where other councillors have requested an unreserved apology from her:
Key Instances of Bloc Voting:
Opposition to Budgeting Strategies and Economic Parameters: Cr Tribe, alongside Cr Dunn, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis, voted AGAINST the adopted budgeting strategies and guiding economic parameters for the 2025/26 budget preparation.
Support for Specific Planning Proposals: Cr Tribe, with Cr Dunn, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis, voted FOR the rescission motion related to the "Post-Exhibition and Finalisation - Planning Proposal - Local Character (PP073)" on January 21, 2025. They were also united in voting FOR the lost motion regarding the "Report Back - Planning Proposal: Local Character (PP073) - Finalisation Options" on June 10, 2025, and AGAINST the foreshadowed motion on the same matter.
Opposition to Senior Staff Appointments/Committees: Cr Tribe, aligning with Cr Dunn, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis, voted AGAINSTthe Mayoral Minute concerning the "Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee - Appointment of a CEO" on February 25, 2025. They also voted FOR the expansion of this committee on March 11, 2025, which was AGAINST the majority vote.
Opposition to Certain Cost Controls/Efficiency Measures:
She, along with Cr Dunn, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis, voted AGAINSTadopting the winter schedule (closed on Sundays) for the Ulladulla Leisure Centre on November 26, 2024, despite it being aimed at financial sustainability. However, on April 15, 2025, she voted FOR reinstating the seasonal hours for the indoor pool, while Cr Norris and Cr Krikstolaitis voted against it, showing a slight split within her usual bloc on this specific issue.
On a notice of motion concerning "Community Service Clubs Contact Board", Cr Tribe, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST the motion, while Cr Norris was with the opposing group.
Support for Grant Policy Update: Cr Tribe's bloc (Cr Clancy, Cr Dunn, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis) voted FOR the motion that Council staff cannot refuse a grant awarded to Council without a Council resolution.
Differences on Specific Planning/Development Issues: While often voting with her bloc, there are instances of deviation. For example, on the "DCP 2014 Chapter G4 Tree and Vegetation Management" she voted FOR the adopted amendment, whereas Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST it, indicating a split from her typical voting partners.
Common Ground with Majority: On many procedural matters, confirmations of minutes, and reports that are typically noted for information, Cr Tribe votes with the unanimous or overwhelming majority of the Council Instances of Requests for Unreserved Apologies from Cr Tribe:
Councillor Tribe has been asked to provide an unreserved apology on three distinct occasions for specific reasons:
Allegations of Bias (January 21, 2025): During the discussion of the "Call In" DA23/1825 relating to 1 Wharf Rd, Shoalhaven Heads, Cr Wilkins raised a point of order against Cr Tribe. The reason for the request was that Cr Tribe had alleged that Cr Wilkins was friends with the applicant. The Mayor ruled this as a point of order and directed Cr Tribe to unreservedly withdraw her comments, which she did.
Improper Characterization of Council Decision (February 25, 2025): While discussing the "Community Lease Policy Consideration", the Mayor raised a point of order against Cr Tribe for comments she made "relating to the vote and ... her statement about Councillors making a shameful decision." The Mayor asked Cr Tribe to retract her statement and unreservedly apologise, which Cr Tribe complied with.
Comments on Job Cuts Target (June 10 and 17, 2025): On two separate occasions, relating to the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal's determination of Councillor and Mayoral Fees, Cr White raised a point of order against Cr Tribe regarding her comments on the reported job cuts target by 2026/2027. On both occasions, the Chairperson asked Cr Tribe to withdraw her comments and apologise unreservedly. After repeated attempts on the second occasion, Cr Tribe eventually withdrew her comments and apologised.
At its best, local government is meant to be the closest level of government to the people. It should reflect not just the demands of the loudest lobby, but the needs of those whose voices often go unheard. Cr Jemma Tribe has consistently shown that she understands this. She stands for the kind of politics that values listening over shouting, service over slogans, and community over conflict.
In short: Cr Tribe is exactly the kind of councillor most communities hope to have. The Shoalhaven is fortunate that she calls it home.
When “Good Faith” Becomes a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
One of the cleverest tricks in modern bureaucracy isn’t to lie. It’s to redefine the rules so that asking a hard question becomes, by design, the wrong question. In local government, there exists a quiet, persistent magic act: transforming legitimate public concern into bureaucratic dust. No bang, no headlines—just the soft thud of a file marked “No Further Action.”
Take the Code of Conduct in NSW local councils. It was created to hold councillors to ethical standards. In theory, it exists to protect the public. But in practice, the Code has been so hedged by procedures and caveats that it can now be used to neutralise scrutiny rather than enable it.
For example, if a councillor makes misleading or factually wrong claims in the chamber—but does so under the banner of “personal opinion” or “good faith”—it is likely to be declared outside the scope of the Code. No investigation. No clarification. No correction. Just a polite letter explaining that the issue didn’t meet the “threshold of seriousness.”
In other words, if you’re wrong, but wrong with confidence, you’re safe. If you’re misleading, but not maliciously so (or at least can’t be proven to be), that’s acceptable. This is governance by vibes.
And here’s where it gets darker: if a member of the public makes a complaint and dares to speak about it publicly, they risk being cut off. Under the current framework, a council can deny a complainant any future information—not because the complaint was baseless, but because they broke the rule: don’t talk about the complaint process.
This is the kind of behavioural deterrence that doesn’t need to be enforced with a gavel. It works because it creates doubt. You can complain, sure. But you might be ignored, blacklisted, or dismissed as a nuisance. The signal is subtle but unmistakable: if you speak up, you’re the problem.
It’s classic reputation management. A system designed to shield councillors from scrutiny under the guise of procedural integrity. And it’s maddeningly effective. The average person, confronted with legalese and vague rulings about “thresholds” and “good faith,” will retreat. They’ll assume they misunderstood. That they went too far. That the system knows best.
But what if the system is being used exactly as intended—not to expose misconduct, but to contain it?
In marketing, perception is everything. A brand can claim to be ethical while outsourcing to a sweatshop, so long as the supply chain is obscure enough. Councils can claim to be transparent while burying key decisions under layers of internal policy. Both rely on the same principle: controlling the frame. Create just enough ambiguity, and you no longer have to answer the question. You can simply claim it’s not the right question to ask.
This matters. Because local councils don’t just fill potholes—they shape neighbourhoods, allocate millions, and make decisions that ripple for generations. If the systems meant to keep them honest are engineered for plausible deniability, we’re not protecting democracy. We’re suffocating it with paperwork.
The public should not have to prove malice or bad intent just to hold elected officials accountable. It should not be this easy to hide behind “process.” It should not be normal that complaints can be dismissed because the bar was arbitrarily set higher than truth can jump.
What we are witnessing is not just administrative caution. It is a cultural posture—one that values reputation above accountability, and silence above truth. It is risk management masquerading as integrity.
And so I return to the original behavioural insight: if a process makes you feel like a troublemaker just for asking a valid question, that process is broken. Or worse—it’s working exactly as those in power intended.
The public doesn’t expect perfection. But it has every right to expect honesty—and the mechanisms to test for it. Strip those away, and what’s left isn’t government. It’s PR.
And the real harm? It’s not the bad behaviour that gets through—it’s the good people who give up trying to challenge it.
Sub-stack - free articles
If you are interested, I will be positing free articles on sub-stack - here is the link if you want to sign up.
The Most Unusual Politician in Shoalhaven: Why Cr Karlee Dunn Breaks the Rules - she is good
You know what I admire about Councillor Karlee Dunn? Yes, she is a SIG councillor - but she has a mind of her own.
She’s not playing politics as usual.
She’s not chasing headlines, parroting groupthink, or voting with the herd for comfort.
She is not blindly following Patricia White, party official Lou Casmiri or the third amigo, Peter Wilkins - she has little time for the play acting of Kemp or Clancy and the blusterings of Bob Proudfoot.
No—she’s doing something far more valuable and, dare I say, more human.
She’s being principled. But not in a performative way. In a quietly strategic, fiercely consistent way.
Let me explain.
First: When Councillor Dunn had the chance to back a motion that would make it easier for community and sporting groups to collaborate with Council—she didn’t blink. She backed it.
That’s not just a tick-box vote. That’s behavioural evidence of someone who believes real power should be shared, not hoarded.
Second: She stood up for broader representation on the Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. Now, to most people, that sounds dull. It’s not. It’s about oversight, fairness, and stopping the kind of backroom decision-making that erodes trust in public institutions.
And she gets it.
Third: Development applications. Oh yes, the good old DA. While others might wave them through like rubber stamps at a sausage factory, Councillor Dunn said: “Hang on—shouldn’t we hear what the community thinks?” Huskisson Hotel. Shoalhaven Heads. She voted to call them in. Why? Because when it comes to planning decisions, locals matter more than developers.
Fourth: She voted to make sure grant funding decisions couldn’t just be quietly shut down by staff. She asked for transparency. She asked for oversight. Because your rates, your taxes, your trust—deserve more than vague internal memos and shrug emojis.
Even when it meant voting in the minority—or being the lone voice against a feel-good Trish Minute, or Lou's "develop, develop, develop", or even Bob's shakespearian meddling in operation matters —she stood her ground.
Not out of spite, but because principled opposition is a form of leadership.
Let’s not romanticise rebellion for rebellion’s sake.
Let’s understand it: Councillor Dunn’s voting pattern tells a story. A story of a councillor who chooses what’s right, not what’s easy. Someone who aligns herself with reformers and transparency advocates—not because it’s fashionable, but because it’s necessary.
In the world of politics, where virtue is often marketing and compromise is currency, Councillor Dunn reminds us that consistency, courage, and community focus are still possible. She has all the makings of a great leader, we need to clear out the SIG of the 1980's and their tired politics,spin and lies.
And that’s rare. And valuable - SIG could turn around if they gave up the bluster, the lies and the deception - and just did what was RIGHT for the citizens of the City - we need more Karlee Dunn's.
Still Ignored: The 2009 Warning Shoalhaven Council Failed to Learn From
In 2009, Shoalhaven City Council was the subject of a major review under the NSW Government's Promoting Better Practice Program. The report identified areas of excellence—corporate planning, internal controls, procurement, and project management—but it also sounded the alarm on deeper, more corrosive issues.
The review warned that without urgent reforms to governance, conduct, and councillor behaviour, the long-term sustainability of the council was at risk.
Sixteen years later, many of the very problems called out in that report are still playing out in Council chambers—and in some cases, they've worsened.
What the 2009 Report Warned Us About
The Department made 53 recommendations in total. Among the most important were:
• Councillors must stay out of operational management
• Council meetings must become shorter and more effective
• Urgency motions should be truly urgent—not used as political shortcuts
• Council policies, especially investment rules, must stay updated and followed
• Councillors must show respect—to each other and to staff
• The Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee must stay out of staff performance matters
In 2009, Council acknowledged the report and claimed it would act on these issues. But actions speak louder than words.
Examples From 2024–2025: The Warnings Unheeded
Councillors Still Micromanaging
Despite clear guidance to focus on strategy, recent motions show councillors directing highly operational matters:
• CL24.361 (Nov 2024): Demanded changes to fuel usage tracking.
• CL25.30 (Feb 2025): Ordered a public mowing schedule.
• CL25.10 (Jan 2025): Sought cost breakdowns for traffic control on minor projects.
• CL25.19 (Jan 2025): Demanded a five-year financial report on Men's Shed groups.
Each of these shows councillors diving into areas that should be handled by staff under delegation.
Meetings Still Too Long, "Urgency" Still Abused
In 2009, the Department urged shorter meetings and a crackdown on non-genuine "urgent" business. But in late 2024 and early 2025:
• CL24.359: A DA complaint was declared "urgent."
• CL25.62: Legal advice about a rescission motion took up valuable meeting time
• CL24.365: A restructure plan—clearly a long-term strategic item—was tabled as "urgent."
Recent meetings are still running well over three hours. The culture has not changed.
Investment Policy Still Not Updated
The 2009 report flagged the need for an updated investment policy aligned with current legislation. Yet from October 2024 to June 2025, Council received multiple investment reports—all stating that the "Investment Policy remains unchanged."
Sixteen years on, Council is still using a potentially outdated policy, despite repeated warnings.
Councillor Conduct Still Falling Short
Disrespect in the chamber was a major concern in 2009. In 2025:
• March: A Point of Order was raised for Clr Kemp's inflammatory language about political groups.
• June: Clr Johnston was warned over personal comments; Clr Kemp again raised concerns over colleagues' facial expressions during debate.
The chamber remains a place of tension, disrespect, and political point-scoring—exactly as it was in 2009.
Senior Staff Oversight Still Politicised
The 2009 report recommended removing performance oversight from the Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee. Yet in June 2025, the committee was involved in the CEO recruitment process.
Once again, Council has ignored the advice intended to safeguard proper governance.
What This All Means
The 2009 review was not just a critique—it was a roadmap for reform. It offered Shoalhaven Council a chance to grow into a high-functioning, modern local government.
Instead, many of the same old habits persist:
• Micromanagement
• Disrespect
• Policy neglect
• Political interference in operations
The risks to public trust and effective governance remain as high now as they were then.
It's Time to Demand Better
Sixteen years after the warning bells rang, the question is simple:
Have we learned nothing?
If you care about good governance, transparency, and a council that respects its responsibilities—speak up. Share this. Ask your councillors: why are these problems still happening?
The old SIG spin, rewrite history and distract - a press release from SIG
Let’s talk about what really happened when Shoalhaven’s Acting CEO resigned — and why the press release that followed from SIG says more about politics than performance.
The Shoalhaven Independent Group claimed that under James Ruprai’s leadership, council delivered a $14 million turnaround in just eight months. Sounds impressive. But here’s what they didn’t tell you.
Those savings weren’t the result of a lone CEO’s reforms. They were the product of council-wide work — planned and led through the Financial Sustainability Project, headed by CEO Robyn Stevens, who was driven out of the job.
Savings came from freezing over 60 staff vacancies, reducing fleet and travel budgets, increasing Shoalhaven Water revenue, and postponing projects. Most of these decisions were set in motion before Mr Ruprai became Acting CEO — and involved corporate teams across the organisation.
Claiming credit for that work in a political media release isn’t just misleading — it disrespects the contribution of council staff who did the heavy lifting.
And then there’s the spin.
The release blames “some councillors” — unnamed — for not appreciating the CEO’s efforts. That’s not transparency. That’s targeted messaging designed to smear critics and protect allies. This draws on SIG's long history of creating scape goats.
Let’s be honest: this wasn’t a farewell message. It was a political shield. One that twists a complex resignation into a simplistic blame game — while quietly rewriting history.
So what’s really going on?
The press release appears designed to control the narrative, deflect scrutiny from the Shoalhaven Independent Group, and undermine opposing councillors.
It politicises the CEO’s exit to protect factional power — not to inform the public.
If the Independent Group wants to talk about leadership, it should start by telling the full story — and giving credit where it’s due. It may also want to explain the mass exodus of senior staff, if evrything is going so well - why can they not hold onto staff?
I am yet to hear back from Ms White or Mr Ruprai, I have asked them to comment on inside reports that James actually applied for a position with the Olympic planning body back in Queensland that he won, so how serious was he about the CEO role, also there are the background issues of deep concerns about the selection process, again I am waiting for comment on this from Ms White - not holding my breath.
Shoalhaven deserves integrity, not political theatre.
Follow Eye on Shoalhaven for more. Because real transparency doesn’t come in a press release.
INTEGRITY ISN’T A BUZZWORD. IT’S THE FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC TRUST
Let’s talk about integrity — not the kind politicians mention when they’re caught out, but the kind that shapes public service. Because right now, Shoalhaven Council needs a serious lesson.
The Commonwealth Public Service has a clear message: Integrity is about transparency, accountability, and leading by example. Every agency is expected to operate under a clear framework — open, lawful, and values-driven.
Meanwhile, here in the Shoalhaven — we have councillors pushing big developments, moving subcommittees behind closed doors, and complaining that ‘bureaucracy’ gets in the way of progress.
But when you cut the public out of the process, you’re not fast-tracking progress — you’re fast-tracking mistrust. Shoalhaven residents deserve to know what’s happening and why. Full stop.
Let me read this:
‘Delivery at the expense of integrity undermines confidence in government.’
That’s not my opinion — that’s straight from the Australian Public Service Commission.
And this obsession with ‘develop, develop, develop’ — regardless of whether roads, infrastructure, or community values can handle it — that’s not leadership. That’s recklessness.
We know are roads are a disaster, we know that community voices are being ignored – what happened to planning character – gone, what happened to the petition about the mayors use of allowances – removed by White and Kemp with SIG bloc - this is arogance and contempt for residents. It is clear that the only people that SIG is looking after is the big developers - not child care, not character, nor accountability - just one special interest group.
The Commonwealth -model shows how it’s done:
• Transparency as standard — not as an afterthought
• Clear conflict of interest safeguards
• Proactive culture-building — not personal loyalty and closed-shop decisions
If Shoalhaven councillors want to earn back community trust, here’s a tip: Act more like public servants — and less like developers with voting power.
The people of Shoalhaven are watching. Integrity isn’t optional.
Follow Eye on Shoalhaven for more.
Because democracy doesn’t work in the dark.
Is Shoalhaven Council hiring a Chief Executive Officer or a political ally?
After reviewing the Shoalhaven CEO Information Pack against the legal framework of the NSW Local Government Act 1993, particularly Section 335, there are several areas where the position description and expectations may diverge from or stretch beyond the CEO’s lawful role.
Legal Role of a Council CEO (Section 335 of the Act). The CEO (General Manager) is not a political actor or co-governor. Their core legal responsibilities are:
Efficient day-to-day management of council operations
Implementing council decisions without undue delay
Managing staff and internal organisational matters
Providing professional advice to the council
Ensuring lawful and ethical operation of the organisation
They must not set policy, drive political agendas, or act as a co-strategist with councillors. Their role is administrative and advisory, not political or promotional.
Key Concerns from the Information Pack
“Working in partnership with the Mayor and Councillors”
[Page 4: Position Overview]
“To work in partnership with the Mayor and Councillors in their governing body role…”
Concern: This implies a shared role in policy development, which the Act does not provide for. The CEO advises and implements — they do not govern or co-own strategic direction. This framing risks undermining the proper separation between elected and administrative functions.
“Commercial Focus” and Investor Engagement
[Page 4, 6–8: Candidate Attributes, Opportunities]
“A keen eye for commercial opportunities is expected… discuss investment with investors… help navigate with commercial investors in City projects…”
Concern: While financial acumen is vital, this framing leans toward economic development leadership and external business facilitation, which are not functions granted under Section 335.
The CEO must support economic outcomes within policy set by the council, but direct investor engagement or promotion of deals risks politicising the administrative role.
“Marketing and Promotion” of the City
[Page 6: Opportunities and Challenges]
“Be aware of the opportunities to grow tourism, investment and general economic growth…”
Concern: The CEO can advise on these areas but should not act as a quasi-economic development officer or spokesperson. The Mayor is the public face of council, not the CEO. This could confuse accountability and politicise the administrative role.
“Loyalty to Councillors” and Political Culture
[Page 8: Candidate Attributes]
“You will have a loyalty – not just to councillors, and to staff but also to the City…”
Concern: Loyalty to the office of council is appropriate. But suggesting personal loyalty to councillors invites factional alignment, especially in a council with strong political divisions. This undermines the CEO’s statutory obligation to be impartial and to act in the interests of the whole council and community.
Advocacy and Negotiation on Behalf of Council
[Page 8: Candidate Attributes]“A consummate negotiator – who can represent and advocate for the City with investors, developers, major service providers, government…”
Concern: While advocacy may occur in practice, the Mayor and councillors are the elected representatives and public advocates. The CEO’s role is to advise, implement, and administer — not advocate policy or take political positions.
What’s Lawful and Appropriate
✔️ Leading staff and managing council operations
✔️ Advising councillors on strategic and financial decisions
✔️ Ensuring legal compliance and good governance
✔️ Implementing the council’s policies and plans
✔️ Managing risk, performance, and continuous improvement
Conclusion: Mission Creep Risks
The pack suggests a CEO who is:
Politically integrated with the councillor group
Personally loyal to the Mayor and select councillors
Acting as an economic development lead
Engaging with investors and marketing the city
Advocating on behalf of council
These roles stretch or blur the CEO’s legal obligations under the Local Government Act. A clearer separation between governance (elected members) and administration (CEO/staff) is essential to preserve lawful, impartial, and transparent local government.
Another one bites the dust with a press release. The long game came to an end.
Council today announces the resignation of Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr James Ruprai (formerly Davis), who has served in the role for the past eight months, and as director City development for nearly three years, Mr James Ruprai (formerly Davis) has made the decision to step down to pursue new professional opportunities and spend more time with family.
So what is the story behind this? I have a GIPA application that relates to an allegation that a former, very senior counselor had emailed James alleging that he was set for the job. Prior to the departure of Ms. Stevens, the truth to this will only come out once the GIPA has been finalized. So it is only an allegation at this time. I am being stalled by counsel on this and I'm in the process of going to impart to get the information.
Could it be that it was all getting too hot for Trish and SIG to get James into the job?
We witness the maneuvers to remove any opposition on the selection committee. I understand that several residents complained to state agencies about this, including ICAC.
I personally have not been a fan of the acting CEO, only due to the lack of transparency and the deep support he had from Sig allegations had been raised, that he had been keen to see the departure of Ms. Stevens, who had announced that his position would be abolished.
There was also the issue of him changing his name from Davis to Ruprai.
Again, not stated as fact, but his brother had been convicted of a serious offense related to the killing of a man related to a drug ripoff actor. Blake Davis was jailed after fatally striking rapper Jet McKee with a samurai sword.
In 2018, McKee had broken into Davis's Forest Lodge home, assaulted him with knuckle dusters and threatened his girlfriend. After McKee fled with her bag, Davis chased him down and struck him in the head with the sword. The court found Davis guilty of manslaughter, not murder ruling. He used excessive self-defense.
He was sentenced to five years and three months with a minimum of two years and nine months before parole. Mental health issues including PTSD were considered in sentencing. You may remember that the sword that had been in the council chambers had been removed well after the above incident. A strange coincidence. No suggestion that was the weapon. Just a sword.
Question was put by me to James in writing about the above issues, but he did not answer, neither confirmed nor denied it. Of course, James had nothing to do with this incident. He was only related to his brother. Nothing more.
There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by James.
It was rumored that his brother, after his release worked at a prominent licensed premises in the Shoalhaven, and that James may not have declared a conflict of interest related to that business. I know that is with a state agency for consideration. Again, I wrote to him and asked him to provide a response.
Nothing came back, so this is not fact, other than it is being looked at, and that James would provide no response to questions.
I have emailed James to ask, would he take part in an interview or answer some questions in writing about his time at council As yet, no response. Maybe I'm not on his good guy list.
So it is not hard to see the pattern with Trish that she's close to people and then they are dead to her.
Remember Joe Gash and that fallout. I'm only wondering how long it will be before Denise Kemp and Selena Clancy outlast their usefulness or become too toxic doing dirty work.
What comes to my mind is that it is like a stone skimming across a sewer pond.
Using the line, spend more time with family is almost the kiss of death from the don. A similar line was used with Ms. Stevens about returning to Victoria to be with her family, and I know that she never returned to Victoria.
Will we ever find out why we are burning through senior staff at council so much for the SIG transparency promise?
SIG is like a production company setting up soap operas rather than delivering for the community a shambles and a disgrace.
Already, there are rumors of even more drama with the new CEO and their political connections. Let's see what happens. Another scapegoat taken into the home paddock.
Is Shoalhaven Council Abandoning Its Own Planning Vision?
Since the last election, some decisions and public statements by Shoalhaven councillors appear to be steering us away from the very principles the Council adopted in its own strategic plan — the Shoalhaven 2040 Local Strategic Planning Statement.
Councillor Lou Casmiri’s “develop, develop, develop” mantra might sound like action — but it ignores the LSPS’s commitment to sustainable, managed growth. The plan prioritises infill development and protecting the unique character of our towns, not unchecked expansion at any cost.
Meanwhile, Councillor Peter Wilkins’ push to shut down urban greening efforts flies in the face of Shoalhaven 2040’s goals to protect biodiversity, cool our neighbourhoods, and create livable spaces. Green space isn’t decoration — it’s vital infrastructure in a warming climate.
Council has also passed a more aggressive “45-degree rule,” which risks undermining neighbourhood character by allowing bulkier developments that block light and privacy. This directly contradicts the LSPS’s call for context-sensitive design in existing suburbs.
And then there’s Mayor Patricia White, who wants to strip away so-called “red tape” for new homes — including bushfire protections, condensation controls, and insulation standards. But the LSPS clearly states that climate resilience and energy efficiency are essential to safe, affordable, and liveable housing.
If this is the direction Council is heading, it raises a serious question: Why adopt a 20-year vision if you’re going to ignore it within the first year? The community deserves leadership that plans for the future — not just the next approval cycle.