In a significant ruling from Western Australia's State Administrative Tribunal, former Town of Cambridge mayor Keri Shannon has been directed to issue a formal public apology and cover partial costs, yet she has managed to avoid the more severe penalty of official censure.
The Tribunal's Decision and Sanctions
The SAT handed down its decision on Friday, concluding a lengthy investigation into Shannon's conduct. The tribunal found that the former mayor had breached local government standards by failing to treat others with respect and by not acting in a way that would not adversely affect the reputation of her office.
The key outcome is that Keri Shannon must publish a written apology, approved by the SAT, in a local Perth newspaper. This apology must be prominently displayed. Additionally, she has been ordered to pay $1,500 towards the costs incurred by the Standards Panel that brought the matter forward.
However, in a notable part of the ruling, the tribunal decided against imposing a formal censure. It also rejected the panel's request for Shannon to undertake mandatory training, deeming it unnecessary in this instance.
Background of the Case
The complaints against Shannon stem from her time as mayor, specifically focusing on her interactions with Town of Cambridge employees and the handling of a confidential report. The SAT heard evidence that Shannon's behaviour created a difficult working environment for staff.
One central issue involved a confidential report prepared by the then-CEO. The tribunal found that Shannon had improperly attempted to access this report outside of formal council channels, applying undue pressure on staff in the process. This conduct was found to have fallen short of the standards expected of a person in her elected position.
The legal proceedings have been ongoing, with the SAT's latest ruling finalising the matter of sanctions after earlier findings of breaches were made.
Reactions and Implications
The decision brings a close to a chapter that has drawn public attention to the standards of conduct within local government in Western Australia. While escaping the most serious disciplinary mark of censure, the requirement for a public apology is seen as a significant reputational blow.
The ruling underscores the accountability mechanisms in place for elected officials and serves as a reminder of the behavioural codes governing local council members. The case is likely to be referenced in future discussions about ethical standards and the enforcement powers of oversight bodies like the Standards Panel and the SAT.
For the Town of Cambridge, the matter is now concluded, allowing the current council and administration to move forward. The outcome balances a finding of misconduct with a sanction aimed at public accountability without imposing the most severe career-limiting penalty available to the tribunal.
