The state government has released a draft model code, on which Orange council’s code is based. 

Public disclosure of code breaches has been limited previously because much of the process, including the exact allegations and findings, was confidential, but updated rules would require  them to be made public. 

Breaches can apply to a number of matters, including using a position for personal gain, bullying and bringing the council into disrepute.

Mayor Reg Kidd said he agreed with pecuniary interest complaints being directed straight to the Office of Local Government, greater involvement of independent personnel and more emphasis on voluntary apologies.

“But I think they should be looking at the role of the general manager because they can’t play a gatekeeper role – it’s hard to do things without being biased,” he said. 

Among the other changes will be requiring councillors to declare all gifts valued more than $50, tougher definitions on bullying and keeping information from councillors on items where they have declared an interest. 

Orange councillors have previously complained about having to vote on sanctions once the conduct reviewer delivered their findings – they will continue to have the responsibility, but they would be able to make penalties softer or harsher with a public explanation.

Cr Kidd agreed with the measure, saying the reviewer could get the recommendation wrong, but councillor Jeff Whitton thought it could still be a problem because councillors who got along well might want to go easier on their colleagues and vice-versa. 

He also said the general manager should be able to disclose matters he dismissed and on what grounds.

“The transparency level isn’t there,” he said. 

Councillor Glenn Taylor has disputed the code since legislation protected the identity of one councillor who made 24 unsubstantiated complaints against staff and other councillors and publicly denied it was him. 

The draft code would allow a conduct reviewer to reject a complainant’s request for anonymity, but Cr Taylor said there should be no discretion when complaints were unfounded.

“The complainant should be publicly named,” he said.