Mayor’s Complaint Fails as Councillor Cleared Over Public Governance Claims

An internal arbitration process has dismissed a formal misconduct complaint lodged by Cr Mia Shaw against fellow Wyndham councillor Robert Szatkowski, ruling that his public release of a letter raising governance concerns did not violate the Local Government Act or the Model Councillor Code of Conduct.

The complaint centred on a letter emailed by Cr Szatkowski on 6 April 2025 to Minister for Local Government Steve Staikos. The letter stated that he had written to the Chief Municipal Inspector about “serious and ongoing governance concerns” at Wyndham City Council. He noted these related to “decision-making processes, financial oversight, councillor conduct, and adherence to the principles of transparency and good governance.”

Cr Szatkowski urged the Inspector to give the concerns urgent attention and consider whether a Municipal Monitor should be appointed.

While the initial letter was sent directly to the Minister and Council’s CEO, Cr Szatkowski forwarded the same message the following morning to Council Watch, a watchdog group led by Dean Hurlston. Council Watch then published the letter on its Facebook page, presenting it as a public call by “Labor Councillor Robert Szatkowski” for monitors to be appointed at Wyndham due to “poor decision-making processes and governance concerns.”

The post also referenced a previous controversy involving $36 million in developer contributions from Point Cook, linking to a story published on WyndhamTV.

Cr Mia Shaw filed the complaint under section 143 of the Local Government Act 2020, alleging that by forwarding the letter to Council Watch, Cr Szatkowski had acted in a way that diminished the public’s trust in Wyndham City Council and brought the council into disrepute—breaching clause 4(1)(a) of the Model Councillor Code of Conduct.

But Arbiter J Silver dismissed the application, finding that although Cr Szatkowski’s actions may have been politically charged and publicly critical of his colleagues, they did not meet the legal threshold for misconduct.

“While Cr Szatkowski did not act ideally, I am not satisfied that he engaged in misconduct,” the arbiter stated.

The arbiter acknowledged that forwarding the letter to a public-facing advocacy group could be seen as self-interested, and said he understood how Cr Shaw and other councillors might interpret it as an attempt to portray Cr Szatkowski as the sole defender of good governance.

“I struggle to see how Cr Szatkowski’s distribution of his letter was not a self-interested exercise, designed to raise his public standing… at the expense of his fellow Councillors,” Silver noted.

Nonetheless, the key finding was that the letter lacked specific detail about the alleged governance failings, making it too vague to constitute discredit or diminish public trust in Council.

“The letter is not very specific… it does not disclose those ‘concerns,’ a word which I read as being a synonym for ‘allegations,’” the arbiter found. “You cannot bring discredit on Council without saying what the reason for the discredit is.”

He went on to say that the phrase “serious and ongoing governance concerns” was “completely opaque” and did not allow readers to evaluate the substance of the claims. “The Boy Who Cried Wolf, of Aesop’s Fables fame, springs to mind.”

While not condoning Cr Szatkowski’s approach, the arbiter concluded that the letter merely informed the public that a complaint had been made and would be reviewed by the appropriate oversight body.

“Parliament has determined that governance and integrity concerns must be raised with these agencies, not in the court of public opinion,” the ruling stated.

The matter was heard “on the papers” through document submissions. The final decision was handed down on 23 June 2025. The application was formally dismissed, and no sanctions or findings of misconduct were made.