Hume City Council’s huge code of conduct bill revealed: Cr Trevor Dance costs thousands

A Melbourne council has racked up hundreds of thousands in legal bills, with thousands spent dealing with one councillor. See the figures here.

Trevor Dance has been involved in a VCAT hearing recently after he appealed a Code of Conduct Panel finding.

A Melbourne council has been billed more than $200,000 in legal bills over a two-year period with thousands spent dealing with a councillor found guilty of “serious misconduct”.

Hume City Council released a report showing that since the start of the council’s term in 2020 to September 30 2022, the council was slugged $216,478 in fees relating to councillor conduct.

The council’s courtroom spending bonanza included the council’s code of conduct application against Cr Trevor Dance where a panel found him guilty of “serious misconduct” after failing to appear at two directions hearings. That cost the council $76,080 in total costs since June 2021 to September 30 2022.

Cr Dance has appealed the matter to VCAT with his three-month suspension stayed until the tribunal releases a decision after two days of deliberation.

The ongoing matter has seen $52,037 incurred by the council.

The report comes after the council showed they had $142,898 until May 31 2022 earlier this year with the new report showing they have spent $73,580 between June 1 2022 to September 30 2022.

Cr Jack Medcraft described the spending as ‘wasted’ money and criticised some of the issues the money had been spent on.

“The time that has been wasted on these frivolous and vexatious reports, it just means we’ve lost a lot of money that we could have used elsewhere,” he said.

“I think it basically gives people an idea of what is happening.”

Another matter involving Cr Dance’s application to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission cost the council $22,688 in total.

While Cr Jodi Jackson voted against the notice of motion to form a code of conduct panel against Cr Dance, she believed the council should have foreseen the cost to ratepayers.

“We knew or should reasonably have known that the decision we made may come at significant expense to Hume rate payers,” she said.

“And I think that as my colleagues have articulated so well, the cost is high, its ugly, and its attributable to us, the decision makers of Hume Council.”

The Municipal Association of Victoria declined to comment on the issue.