Breaking Bad(ge)

And no, they’re not made of solid gold and the engraved names are almost impossible to read at a glance.

Cr Gen Campbell claimed a previously approved counsellor expense report was ‘misleading’ and ‘expenditure was authorised by council and... allocated to councillors who had no knowledge of, or benefit from the expenditure’ during council’s October meeting.

The alleged unknown expenditure related to the purchase of name badges first raised at MRC’s August meeting.

But Cr Campbell wasn’t satisfied with explanations given then, or now, wanting the matter referred to the Office of Local Government for determination and an independent audit of all councillor expenses.

Cr Campbell’s proposed October recession motion was seconded by Cr Dennis Gleeson, who asked for an explanation of “what actually did go on” regarding the unexpected uniform expense.

“Badges were purchased for councillors at a cost of $6000,” Cr Harvie reiterated.

“But it’s not just badges for councillors sitting around this table, you have to buy these things in bulk to make it worthwhile in terms of the actual cost.

“There are badges sitting in the safe ready for the next council and possibly a couple of councillors after that.”

Chief executive Stacy Williams explained because the expenses were made in the 2025/26 financial year, the total cost had to be reflected in that year’s councillor expenses report and was divided evenly between them.

Cr Harvie said there was no misinformation in the original report and everything was correctly reported, but he understood the way the situation was frustrating and also wanted to see the expense amount amended too.

“There should have been $300 allocated to each councillor because they received a badge, I think there was $636 actually added to them,” he said.

“I’ve asked the CEO for an explanation, and it’d be safe to say she has said this is how it has to be recorded.

“I also disagree with how it’s recorded.

“I offered a way out for the CEO... if we have to allocate (the cost of badges for future councillors) to some person, allocate the $300 to each councillor, and allocate the rest to the mayor’s account because I’m not worried too much.

“I know what was purchased, and I know it’s still in council’s care.”

Cr Harvie said any councillor who didn’t want their badge could hand it back and have the expense shifted to his account.

“If I had to come to councillors with every decision I have to make as mayor, you guys would have to be sitting at this table every day of the week,” he said.

“I act in the best interest of the ratepayers, I act in the best interest of the counsellors and I do the best job I can.”

Both he and deputy mayor Neil Gorey cautioned Cr Campbell, defending the integrity of their staff and saying she was throwing around some hefty accusations, risking bringing the council into disrepute.

Cr Campbell’s recession motion was defeated.

“I find it totally offensive personally, but I’ll let the ratepayers be the judge,” she said.

The Riv asked MRC how many badges were purchased, at what cost, if there was a tender process and if there were further expected expenses to customise the badges purchased for future councillors.

MRC declined to answer, offering a statement from Ms Williams: “The name badges were purchased within budget and allocated according to the councillor expenses and facilities policy.”

“Additional badges were purchased and will be allocated to future councillors should they wish to receive one.“