Glamorgan Spring Bay mayor Cheryl Arnol found breached the code of conduct

A vote on a much-loved East Coast church has landed a Tasmanian mayor in hot water. Here’s why she’s been sanctioned.

Glamorgan Spring Bay mayor Cheryl Arnol. Picture: Mathew Farrell

A Tasmanian mayor who was reprimanded over a conflict of interest when voting on a much-loved church, says she accepts the decision, but she’s questioned the fairness of the complaint process.

In April last year, the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council voted on the change of use for the Buckland Church, which would allow the historic building to be used for events.

The change was approved, allowing the Friends of Buckland Church (FOBC), which owns the building, to run markets, functions, and larger events.

Buckland Church. PIC: Matthew Thompson

But the Glamorgan Spring Bay mayor, Cheryl Arnol’s links to the group raised the eyebrows of a member of the public, who lodged a code of conduct complaint against her.

Before the vote, Ms Arnol and two other councillors declared an interest in the item, but she remained in the room and voted on the item.

In her declaration, Ms Arnol said she believed any perceived conflict would not affect her decision making.

It was later revealed Ms Arnol was a financial member of the FOBC.

Buckland Church window. PIC: Matthew Thompson

This month, the code of conduct complaint was upheld, and Ms Arnol was sanctioned.

The code of conduct panel said while Ms Arnol had declared an interest, she had not disclosed the nature of her interest.

“She said nothing at all about the basic quality, type or sort of the relevant interest, but merely drew attention to a possible conflict of interest existing,” the panel found.

“The panel is satisfied that, owing to the irreconcilability of her competing roles in the matter, the respondent had an actual conflict of interest.

“Given her active membership of the FOBC as at 18 April 2023, and her inevitable interest in seeing the relevant motion passed, the panel finds that the respondent should have removed herself from the room.”

The panel found a reprimand was the appropriate sanction.

Ms Arnol told the Mercury she would not be challenging the finding.

“I declared the conflict of interest in this matter in the same manner that I have for more than 20 years and at this point I don’t intend to change that,” Ms Arnol said.

“I am seeking clarification from the Office of Local Government as to my understanding of the declaration of conflicts but not in relation to this specific code of conduct determination, rather in the context of the review of the Code of Conduct provisions and clarity moving forward for the local government sector.”

She said she was concerned about the code of conduct process.

“I am not a lawyer, nor am I allowed to have legal representation in any code of conduct panel matter,” she said.

“The panel on the other hand does have a lawyer sit as a member. The whole code of conduct process needs a serious [overhaul] in relation to procedural fairness.