Councillor White’s Majority Rule: Efficient, Unchallenged, Unaccountable
Shoalhaven’s Silent Majority: The Bloc That Votes Before You Speak
Cr Patricia White and the SIG Bloc: When Independence Becomes a Brand, Not a Principle
In local government, words are cheap—but their consequences are not.
Promises are plentiful, but delivery is scarce. And nowhere in the Shoalhaven has this been more evident than in the conduct of Cr Patricia White and her Shoalhaven Independents Group (SIG). Elected on a platform of independence, accountability, and community-first governance, they now preside over one of the most politically coordinated and top-down councils in recent memory.
At first glance, SIG’s pitch was clever—position themselves not as a party, but as a group of like-minded independents, supposedly free from factional loyalties or ideological baggage. “We vote independently,” they said. “We’re not like the others.” This framing tapped into a deep public distrust of party politics and played well with a community fatigued by division.
The problem, however, is that reality has not followed this narrative. Since gaining control of council in 2022, the SIG bloc—bolstered by Cr Clancy—has voted with near-total consistency, routinely silencing dissent and pushing through controversial changes under the guise of financial responsibility or streamlined governance. The exception has been SIG Cr Dunn.
Cr White regularly appears on friendly media, and non is more friendly than the Chance and Bec Show. In marketing, perception is everything. Politicians know this instinctively — few better than those in local government, where the line between “friendly neighbour” and “civic leader” is blurred by birthday cakes, radio chats, and shared gripes about the weather. But while Mayor Patricia White’s— when stripped of charming anecdotes — reveals a council skating on the thin ice of instability, ad-hoc governance, and unsustainable decision-making.
When a CEO and multiple directors depart in rapid succession, it’s not coincidence. It’s a canary in the coal mine. Yet the Mayor dismissed the losses with a breezy “people move on” while promising the recruitment process is underway. But leadership churn at this level doesn’t just cost time — it costs trust. Trust in strategy. Trust in continuity. Trust in the ability to deliver major projects that don’t drift off into the development abyss.
And let’s not forget: Cr White has been a councillor since 2012 — a fixture in the chamber for over a decade. This isn’t a new problem. The organisation’s culture, its HR stability, and its executive dysfunction have all happened on her watch.
Shoalhaven has not updated its asset management plan since 2014. That’s not just bureaucratic laziness — it’s a dereliction of governance. Asset management is the foundation of financial sustainability. Without it, Council is flying blind through a storm of ageing infrastructure and rising community expectations.
Again, we must ask: what has Cr White delivered on this in 12 years? If she knew the plan was out of date, why didn’t she push for an update? If she didn’t know, what does that say about her grasp of council’s strategic responsibilities?
Now, in 2025, she tells us, “We’ve got to start delivering.” But after 12 years in office, this isn’t a rallying cry — it’s a confession.
Nowhere has this contradiction between rhetoric and reality been more apparent than in two areas: council staffing cuts and planning policy rollbacks.
Perhaps most concerning was White’s involvement, alongside the Bob Proudfoot and Peter Wilkins, in an informal push to have CEO Robyn Stevens resign—reportedly ambushing her in her office. It was a political manoeuvre dressed as personnel management, and it unsettled more than just the staff.
In politics, what isn’t said often matters more than what is. In fact, it’s one of the oldest tricks in the behavioural economist’s book: say enough to raise concern, but not so much that you’re nailed to the wall of defamation. It’s the linguistic version of turning on the smoke alarm—without lighting the match yourself.
Ms Robyn Stevens, the former CEO of Shoalhaven Council. This wasn’t your everyday bureaucratic reshuffle. It was a local government shake-up so unsettling that it echoed all the way to Macquarie Street. So, when South Coast MP Liza Butler rose in the New South Wales Parliament to speak on the matter, ears were pricked not just for what she said—but for what she might subtly imply.
She didn’t disappoint.
Butler laid out, unequivocally, that Stevens was “set up to fail.”
That the council’s demands for large-scale staff cuts were unrealistic, unworkable, and, crucially, politically driven. She called for intervention from the Office of Local Government to get to the bottom of what she painted as a growing crisis. These are not the kinds of words politicians throw around lightly—particularly when directed at another level of government.
But here’s the real twist: she didn’t name names.
Not a word about Patricia, Bob Proudfoot. No mention of Cr Wilkins. So why the restraint?
Because in modern politics, omission is often the most strategic form of signal. Butler didn’t need to name White. The implication hung heavy in the air. After all, anyone paying attention to recent council events—particularly the now-infamous office ambush where Stevens was reportedly urged to resign—could fill in the gaps. White’s involvement in that incident was no secret. It had already been ventilated in independent media and whispered across civic networks.
By choosing not to mention her directly, Butler achieved three things at once:
She protected herself legally—a wise move in an environment where the litigious are often louder than the guilty.
She created a stronger narrative—because when audiences connect the dots themselves, the conclusions feel earned, not imposed.
She invited scrutiny—not just of Stevens’ departure, but of those behind it.
And this, I would argue, is theatre at its finest. Because nothing drives public curiosity like a gap in the script.
Let’s start with staffing. In early 2024, Cr White stood with a crowd of angry residents protesting against a proposed 44% rate rise. She was the voice of the people—asserting that council must “tighten its belt” rather than squeeze ratepayers. The rate rise was defeated. Victory, or so it seemed. But within months, SIG-led Council moved in a new direction—one that would have far more profound consequences for the community.
In mid-2025, under Cr White’s mayoralty, Council passed a plan to cut up to 110 staff—nearly one in five positions. These weren’t bureaucratic excesses at head office; they included experienced engineers, frontline staff, and community-facing roles. Council’s own documents showed the restructure was driven less by poor performance than by budget optics. Union representatives were blindsided. Some staff reportedly left in tears. And when Cr Tribe raised the alarm, Cr White’s response was not empathy or reflection—it was to accuse her of “fearmongering.”
This wasn’t belt-tightening. It was surgery without anaesthetic.
The second issue—planning reform—has received less mainstream attention, but its impact on the community may be even more profound. One of SIG’s early acts in 2023 was to remove “character” considerations from the Council’s planning controls. In theory, this was to simplify and modernise the development assessment process. In practice, it stripped communities of one of their few tools to push back against inappropriate or excessive development.
Residents concerned about preserving the unique identity of towns like Huskisson, Berry, or Shoalhaven Heads found themselves increasingly voiceless. Attempts by councillors like Tribe, Johnston, and Krikstolaitis to restore planning safeguards were voted down. The message was clear: community character matters less than planning efficiency. And who benefits most from that shift? Not the community. Not local builders. But developers—those who gain most when assessment criteria are narrow and predictable.
All of this leads to a deeper question: What kind of independence is this?
True independence in public office means standing up to pressure—from bureaucrats, from interest groups, from your own allies—when the public interest demands it. But SIG’s pattern has not been one of independence. It has been unity masquerading as diversity. Their votes are tightly aligned. Debate is managed. Dissent is marginalised. And increasingly, the community is shut out of key decisions—whether that’s on rates, planning, staffing, or transparency.
Even SIG’s position on financial prudence is riddled with contradiction. Cr White has claimed more in travel and conference expenses than any other councillor—over $51,000 in a single year. When motions came forward to tighten oversight of these expenses, SIG councillors blocked them. At the same time, motions to improve transparency—such as releasing key confidential reports—have been routinely voted down by the SIG bloc.
From a marketing perspective, what Cr White and SIG have built is impressive. They’ve taken the language of transparency and independence and repackaged it to shield themselves from scrutiny. They’ve reframed austerity as responsibility, control as efficiency, and coordinated votes as individual conscience.
But public trust isn’t built on marketing. It’s built on follow-through.
The staffing cuts and planning rollbacks are not isolated issues. They represent a pattern: a Council majority that sees engagement as a box to tick, not a principle to uphold. One that treats criticism as disloyalty. One that campaigns as local champions, then governs like a closed shop.
This is not what voters were promised. And it’s not what the community deserves.
The role of a council is not just to manage rates and rubbish—it is to steward the character, services, and future of the region. And when a governing group treats staff, planning, and the public as obstacles to be navigated rather than partners to be respected, then something is deeply broken.
Councillor Patricia White, as Mayor and Chairperson, often participated in and presided over numerous council resolutions. While many of her votes were part of unanimous decisions, indicating broad consensus or her alignment with the majority, there were several instances where her vote was controversial, either due to significant opposition or her casting a deciding vote.
Here's a summary of the controversial issues where Councillor White's voting pattern stands out, not these are taken direct from the minutes, and as you know the minutes are very bland and do not detail why decisions were made, just the numbers:
Issues Councillor White Supported (and were Controversial):
Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014, Chapter G4 Tree and Vegetation Management - 45 Degree Rule (October 14, 2024 - MIN24.498):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR, Opposition: Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: This resolution involved reverting to a previous "45 Degree Rule Exemption version" for tree and vegetation management1. While specific arguments aren't detailed in this particular vote, later minutes (March 11, 2025, MIN25.108) show the same opposing councillors arguing for different approaches to tree management, including considering existing trees and a native species list. This highlights an ongoing disagreement on environmental and planning policies related to tree removal and management. The later debate even included a point of order regarding "Greens and Labour Eco Terrorism," indicating the contentious nature of this topic.
Australia Day 2025 (October 14, 2024 - CL24.279):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Tribe and Cr Norris. Controversy: The specific reasons for their opposition are not detailed in the sources, but it indicates a disagreement over the proposed plans or the broader approach to Australia Day celebrations. There is a GIPA application in concerning an expensive meal held at Bannisters that allegedly shows the meal was originally charged to Council.
Rescission Motion - Community Groups & Organisations (October 28, 2024 - MIN24.515):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Controversy: This motion aimed to rescind a previous resolution (MIN24.501) that sought to develop a policy facilitating collaboration with community groups for infrastructure projects. Councillor White supported undoing this policy. The motion passed on her casting vote as Chairperson. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The opposing councillors (Cr Dunn, Tribe, Norris, Boyd, Johnston, Krikstolaitis) wanted to retain the previously adopted collaborative policy, suggesting they believed in its importance for community engagement and infrastructure delivery.
Councillor Briefing - Go FOGO (Food Organics and Garden Organics) Grants (October 28, 2024 - MIN24.517):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Controversy: This motion resolved to merely "receive the Notice of Motion... for information" regarding FOGO grants. The motion passed on her casting vote as Chairperson. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The opposing councillors (Cr Dunn, Tribe, Norris, Boyd, Johnston, Krikstolaitis) likely sought a more substantial discussion or action regarding the FOGO grants, suggesting they felt merely receiving information was insufficient for such a matter.
Community Service Clubs Contact Board (November 26, 2024 - MIN24.626):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Tribe, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to review options for a public contact board for community service clubs, develop costings, and present findings in a briefing. The opposition's reasons are not specified, but could pertain to the necessity, cost, or perceived benefits of such a board.
Greenwell Point Community Pool Operational Hours (November 26, 2024 - MIN24.627):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR.Opposition: Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: This motion aimed to review the pool's operational hours and explore a pro-rata fee structure for season passes11. The consistent opposition suggests disagreement with the proposed management approach or the financial implications.
Detailed Restructure Plan Concurrent with Resourcing Strategy (November 26, 2024 - MIN24.632):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR.Opposition: Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion directed the Acting CEO to report on a detailed restructure plan by December 17, 2024, and arrange a workshop on future strategic direction. The opposition's concerns are not explicitly stated, but might relate to the timeframe, the necessity of the restructure, or the proposed approach to strategic planning.
Fee Waiver for Nowra CBD Christmas Activation (December 10, 2024 - MIN24.652):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR.Opposition: Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis (and Cr Dunn, per later correction. Controversy: This mayoral minute proposed waiving fees for Christmas activation in Nowra CBD. Opposition likely revolved around financial implications or perceived fairness to other areas of the Shoalhaven.
Rescission Motion - Planning Proposal - Local Character (December 10, 2024 - MIN24.654):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: This motion sought to rescind the previous adoption of Planning Proposal PP073 related to "Local Character". Councillor White supported undoing the adoption. The opposition clearly wanted to proceed with the planning proposal, indicating fundamental disagreement on the direction of local character planning.
Notice of Motion - Planning Proposal - Local Character (December 10, 2024 - MIN24.655):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to pause Planning Proposal PP073 and the drafting of character statements, and receive more information.. Councillor White supported this pause. The opposition sought to continue with the planning proposal, suggesting a desire for faster progression or a different approach to its development.
Report - Ongoing Maintenance of Vegetation at Collingwood Beach (February 18, 2025 - MIN25.33):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion directed the Acting CEO to report on the maintenance of vegetation at Collingwood Beach21. Cr Krikstolaitis raised a point of order and apologized for suggesting Council had an "agenda", indicating that the opposition questioned the motives or necessity of the report, possibly believing existing plans were sufficient or that the report served a hidden purpose.
Establishment of Playing Fields - St Georges Basin & Jervis Bay (February 18, 2025 - MIN25.35):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Controversy: The motion directed the Acting CEO to prepare a report on suitable sites for at least six new playing fields. The motion passed on her casting vote as Chairperson. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The opposition (Cr Dunn, Tribe, Norris, Boyd, Johnston, Krikstolaitis) likely had concerns about the feasibility, financial implications, or the prioritization of new playing fields over other community needs.
Proposed Works in Kind Agreement - Badagarang (February 18, 2025 - MIN25.50):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Norris. Controversy: The motion was to provide 'in-principle' support for finalizing negotiations for a Works in Kind Agreement for a development in Badagarang. Cr Norris was the sole dissenter, indicating a disagreement with the terms or the principle of the agreement.
Shoalhaven City Council Apply the Statutory Minimum for the Cambewarra Pony Club (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.66):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion resolved to apply the minimum statutory annual rental for Cambewarra Pony Club and negotiate other lease provisions. The opposition likely disagreed with granting such financial relief, possibly due to broader financial sustainability concerns for the Council. Cr Tribe apologized for comments relating to the vote, implying strong disagreement.
Cost of Acquiring and Running Fleet Vehicles (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.67):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Johnston. Controversy: The motion requested a detailed report on the cost of acquiring and running fleet vehicles, including the previous Mayor's electric vehicle, FBT, and other expenses. The opposition's reasons are not explicitly detailed, but they might have found the request unnecessarily intrusive or a waste of resources.
Commencement of Shoalhaven Family Daycare Future Direction - Validity of Recission Motion (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.73):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion requested the acting CEO to assess the commencement of the Family Daycare transition resolution and the validity of a rescission motion against it. Councillor White supported this assessment. Cr Tribe's statement (and subsequent apology) about councillors making a "shameful decision" indicates strong opposition, likely believing the Council should not be questioning the validity of a rescission motion or delaying the daycare transition.
Progress Update - Detailed Planning - Moss Vale Road North Urban Release Area (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.88):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to defer the matter to a Councillor Briefing. Councillor White supported deferral. The opposition likely wanted to proceed with the report's recommendations or a different, possibly faster, course of action for the urban release area planning.
Mayoral Minute - Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee - Appointment of a CEO (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.91):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion defined the committee's purpose and delegated CEO appointment tasks to the Mayor.... Cr Krikstolaitis called councillors "corrupt" and left the room. This indicates strong opposition centered on the scope of the committee, the delegation of power for CEO appointment, or concerns about transparency and governance. This echoes earlier concerns from a 2009 "Promoting Better Practice Report" about councillors interfering in staff matters and the role of this committee....
Community Consultation for Shoalhaven Family Day Care (SFDC) Stakeholders (March 11, 2025 - MIN25.95):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR.Opposition: Cr Tribe, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: This motion was to transition SFDC administration to external providers by a suitable date and include an SFDC representative in consultation. While Councillor White previously opposed this transition (February 18, 2025 - MIN25.51), she supported this new resolution. The opposition might have had continued concerns about outsourcing the service or the consultation process.
Resolution for Completed Developments with Works In Kind Agreements (March 11, 2025 - MIN25.98):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Clancy, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Proudfoot. Controversy: This motion was an amendment to request a detailed report on Works in Kind Agreements for two specific developments. Councillor White supported this more limited reporting. The opposition (who were FOR the original motion to ensure registration and resolve disputes for three developments4748) preferred a broader, more action-oriented approach to resolving the disputes and ensuring registrations.
Post Exhibition Report - ‘The Gordon Timbs 45 Degree Rule’ (Amendment No. 57) Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (March 11, 2025 - MIN25.108):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to adopt Amendment No. 57 to the 45 Degree Rule (tree and vegetation management) as exhibited. An earlier amendment (Cr Tribe/Norris) to not adopt the exhibited draft but to consider existing trees and a native species list was lost. This indicates the opposition generally disagreed with the specific changes to the vegetation management rule. The "Greens and Labor Eco Terrorism" comment by Cr Kemp (who generally aligns with Cr White's voting bloc) points to strong ideological differences on environmental policy.
Materials Recovery Facility Risks - Independent Consultant - Contract Lawyer - Review Waste Strategy (March 11, 2025 - MIN25.110):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Norris and Cr Boyd. Controversy: The motion recommended appointing an independent consultant and commercial contract lawyer to review the Materials Recovery Facility project due to financial implications and risks, and to review the overall waste strategy. The opposition's reasons are not stated, but they might have viewed these actions as unnecessary or a delay, or preferred a different approach to addressing the risks.
Ulladulla Leisure Centre - Operating Hours Extension Request (April 15, 2025 - MIN25.176):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Norris and Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion sought to reinstate Ulladulla Leisure Centre's indoor pool seasonal hours to pre-2025 levels (reversing earlier reductions). The opposition likely prioritized financial sustainability, as previous reductions were made for this purpose.
2025/2026 DPOP & Budget - Compliance with Acts - Waste Management Strategy (June 10, 2025 - MIN25.286):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR.Opposition: Cr Norris and Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to ensure compliance with relevant acts for the 2025/2026 budget and delivery plan. The opposition's reasons are not explicitly detailed, but opposing a compliance-related motion could suggest they felt it was unnecessary, redundant, or that it inappropriately emphasized certain aspects of compliance.
2025 / 2026 Budget Review (June 10, 2025 - MIN25.287):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion adopted specific Key Performance Measurement targets for the 2025/2026 Delivery Program and Operational Plan. The opposition's lost amendment to only note the employee costs per capita recommendation suggests they disagreed with the inclusion of specific, potentially stringent, performance targets in the main resolution.
Expenditure - Contractors and Full Time Staff - Quarterly report (June 10, 2025 - MIN25.288):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to require quarterly reporting on contractor expenditure and FTE staff. The opposition may have viewed this as excessive reporting or disagreed with the focus on these specific financial metrics.
Bereavement Services - Project Income Statement - EOI for Sale (June 10, 2025 - MIN25.289):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion directed staff to prepare an EOI for the sale/lease of the Worrigee Crematorium / Chapel / Café6061. The opposition clearly disagreed with the potential privatization or divestment of these bereavement services.
Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Determination of Councillor and Mayoral Fees 2025/2026 (June 10, 2025 - MIN25.290):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR. Opposition: Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis62. Controversy: The motion adjusted Councillor and Mayoral fees to the maximum allowed. Cr Tribe explicitly raised concerns about "reported job cuts target by 2026/2027", directly linking the increase in remuneration to potential financial austerity measures. The opposition felt it was inappropriate to raise fees given the financial context and potential job cuts.
Rescission Motion - Moratorium on Development that is not supported by Contemporary Studies (October 14, 2024 - MIN24.499):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR (to rescind the moratorium). Outcome: MOTION LOST (meaning the moratorium remained in effect). This places Councillor White on the losing side, having supported removing the moratorium. Opposition (who voted AGAINST her and FOR keeping the moratorium): Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: Councillor White supported removing a moratorium on development that was not supported by contemporary studies. The strong opposition wanted the moratorium to remain, implying a desire for more stringent development controls and a focus on contemporary studies.
Community Groups & Organisations (October 14, 2024 - MIN24.501):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION CARRIED. This places Councillor White on the losing side.
Opposition (who voted FOR the motion): Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to develop a policy facilitating collaboration with community and sporting groups for community-funded infrastructure, consistent with financial sustainability principles and subject to community consultation. Councillor White's opposition suggests she disagreed with the proposed policy or its framework, potentially perceiving it as too broad, financially unsustainable, or not aligning with Council's existing practices.
Rescission Motion - Planning Proposal - Local Character (January 21, 2025 - MIN25.2):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION LOST (meaning the rescission failed, and the "pause" from MIN24.655 remained). This places Councillor White on the winning side, having successfully resisted rescinding the pause. Opposition (who voted FOR the rescission): Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: This motion sought to rescind the decision to pause Planning Proposal PP073 (MIN24.655). Councillor White voted against rescinding, meaning she wanted the pause to remain in effect. The opposition wanted to undo the pause and likely proceed with the planning proposal, reflecting a desire for continued progress on the local character planning.
Greenwell Point Community Pool Operational Hours (January 21, 2025 - MIN25.3):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Opposition (who voted FOR the motion): Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion was to review Greenwell Point Pool operational hours for increased usage and explore pro-rata season passes, citing local support, economic benefits, and tourism. Councillor White's successful opposition suggests she disagreed with pursuing these changes to pool operations.
Feasibility Study for Establishment of a Traffic Control Function (January 21, 2025 - MIN25.9):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION CARRIED. This places Councillor White on the losing side. Opposition (who voted FOR the motion): Cr Clancy, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: The motion directed a feasibility study into establishing an internal traffic control business unit. Councillor White's opposition implies she did not support exploring this in-house service, possibly due to cost concerns, perceived inefficiency, or preference for existing external providers.
Budget Strategies and Parameters - 2025/26 - Amendment (January 28, 2025 - MIN25.27):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: AMENDMENT LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Opposition (who voted FOR the amendment): Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis. Controversy: Councillor White opposed an amendment proposed to tie the capital works program to ensuring no reduction in the Council’s unrestricted cash balance. Her opposition suggests she might have found the amendment's wording or implication too restrictive for financial management.
Public Mowing Schedule (February 18, 2025 - MIN25.34):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION CARRIED on her casting vote as Chairperson. This initially placed Councillor White on the losing side, but her casting vote reversed the outcome. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The motion was to develop and publish a public mowing schedule and implement a one-year trial. Councillor White opposed this, likely from concerns about practicality, resources, or the necessity of publishing a detailed public mowing schedule.
Policy - Councillor Expenses and Facilities - Amendment 1 (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.81):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: AMENDMENT LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: Councillor White opposed an amendment to remove "Meetings with ratepayers and residents" from the definition of "official business" for councillor expenses. Her opposition means she believed these meetings should be considered official business, suggesting she favored a broader interpretation of what expenses are covered for councillors.
Policy - Councillor Expenses and Facilities - Amendment 2 (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.81):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: AMENDMENT LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: Councillor White opposed an amendment that would have required "Evidence be provided upon submission in the claims portal" for expenses. Her opposition suggests she was against this additional layer of scrutiny for expense claims. These stances indicate a preference for less stringent oversight and potentially greater flexibility in councillor expense claims.
Community Lease Policy Consideration (February 25, 2025 - MIN25.70):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The motion was to develop a policy on community leases. Councillor White's successful opposition means she did not support the creation of such a policy, possibly believing existing arrangements were sufficient or that a new policy would be overly restrictive.
Grant Policy Update (March 11, 2025 - MIN25.93):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION CARRIED. This places Councillor White on the losing side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The motion was to consider adopting a policy where Council staff cannot refuse an awarded grant without a Council resolution. Councillor White's opposition implies she believes staff should retain the autonomy to refuse grants without requiring a full Council resolution, possibly for efficiency or strategic reasons.
Community Consultation for Shoalhaven Family Day Care (SFDC) Stakeholders - Amendment (March 11, 2025 - MIN25.94):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST.Outcome: AMENDMENT LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: Councillor White opposed an amendment to engage an independent consultant for community consultation regarding SFDC43. Her successful opposition means this independent consultation did not proceed, indicating a preference for other methods of consultation or a belief that it was unnecessary.
Expansion of Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee (March 11, 2025 - MIN25.123):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The motion aimed to expand the Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee to include the Assistant Deputy Mayor and an additional independent member. Councillor White's successful opposition means the committee's composition remained as it was, reinforcing her earlier stance in MIN25.91 where she supported the defined structure of this committee. The opposition clearly sought broader representation on this committee.
Draft Code of Meeting Practice - Public Exhibition (April 15, 2025 - MIN25.172):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR (main motion)84. AGAINST (further amendment).Outcome: The further amendment CARRIED despite her opposition. This places Councillor White on the losing side for the amendment. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: Councillor White opposed a "further amendment" that changed "must" to "where possible" in relation to camera usage for councillors remotely attending meetings. Her opposition indicates she preferred the stricter "must" for camera usage during remote attendance, suggesting a preference for stronger accountability or engagement in remote meetings.
Sanctuary Point Library - Update Report 3 (April 15, 2025 - MIN25.175):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST (initial motion)86. FOR (foreshadowed motion).Outcome: The initial motion LOST. The foreshadowed motion CARRIED. This indicates Councillor White successfully abandoned the current project. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: Councillor White initially voted AGAINST a motion that sought to receive the update, direct further examination of financial considerations, and submit a DA87. Instead, she successfully pushed for a foreshadowed motion to abandon the current Sanctuary Point Library project and investigate alternative sites. Those who opposed her on the foreshadowed motion (Cr Dunn, Tribe, Norris, Boyd, Johnston, Krikstolaitis) likely supported proceeding with the project as outlined in the report, or disagreed with abandoning the current plan.
Development Application – DA23/1825 - 1 Wharf Road SHOALHAVEN HEADS (April 15, 2025 - MIN25.179):
Councillor White's Vote: FOR (to refuse the DA). Outcome: MOTION CARRIED. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: A previous motion to approve the DA was lost, with Councillor White voting AGAINST it. The opposition (Cr Clancy, Kemp, Casmiri, Cox, Wilkins, Proudfoot) disagreed with the refusal, suggesting they felt the DA met the planning requirements or that refusal was unwarranted.
Proposed New Lease - Croquet Clubhouse & Courts - Artie Smith Oval (December 10, 2024 - MIN24.671, reintroduced as MIN24.680):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION CARRIED. This places Councillor White on the losing side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: Councillor White consistently opposed entering a five-year lease with Nowra Croquet Club. The majority of councillors supported the lease, suggesting they found the terms acceptable or believed it was beneficial for the community9091.
Planning Proposal: Local Character (PP073) - Finalisation Options (June 10, 2025 - CL25.191 - initial motion):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side, having successfully prevented the adoption of the proposal. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: The motion was to proceed with adopting Planning Proposal PP073 as exhibited9394. Councillor White voted AGAINST it, meaning she did not want to proceed with the adoption of PP073. This is consistent with her previous support for pausing/not proceeding with PP073. The opposition clearly wanted the adoption to proceed. Cr Kemp's point of order regarding "facial expressions" highlights the contentious nature of this planning debate.
Planning Proposal: Local Character (PP073) - Finalisation Options - Rescission Motion (June 17, 2025 - MIN25.304):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: MOTION LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side, upholding the decision to not proceed with PP073. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: This motion sought to rescind the decision to not proceed with PP073 (from MIN25.297). Councillor White voted AGAINST the rescission, meaning she wanted to uphold the decision to not proceed with PP073. The opposition wanted to revive PP073. Cr Proudfoot's point of order on Cr Johnston's "personal nature of her comments" indicates extreme tension and strong divisions over this planning proposal.
Planning & Development Committee - Amendment (June 17, 2025 - MIN25.305):
Councillor White's Vote: AGAINST. Outcome: AMENDMENT LOST. This places Councillor White on the winning side. Arguments Against Councillor White's Stance: Councillor White opposed an amendment to hold a workshop to draft the Terms of Reference for the Planning and Development Committee, preferring staff to draft it directly. Her successful opposition means less direct councillor involvement in the initial drafting of the committee's terms.
Overall, Councillor White's controversial votes often highlight key areas of contention within the Council, particularly regarding financial management, resource allocation (e.g., pool hours, fees, leases), council governance and oversight (e.g., CEO appointment, expense policies), and significant planning and development decisions (e.g., local character, moratoriums, specific DAs). Her positions, especially as Mayor, frequently represent a bloc that sometimes clashes with other councillors seeking different approaches to transparency, community input, or financial priorities.
Mayor White is an affable communicator. She speaks plainly, connects well, and can deflect with the best of them. But charm does not equal competence — and warm words don’t insulate us from cold facts.
She’s been on Council since 2012. That’s three elections. Four terms. Multiple budgets. Countless votes. If she hasn’t delivered real progress on pools, planning, infrastructure, staffing, or transparency by now — why should we believe “starting to deliver” is just around the corner?
Shoalhaven is at a turning point. The exodus of directors, outdated infrastructure plans, and unfunded decisions all point to a deeper crisis of leadership and accountability.
So we must ask:
Will the Mayor finally lead — with clarity, candour, and courage?
Or will Shoalhaven continue to be run by interviews, not outcomes?
Because after 12 years, the “got to start delivering” line doesn’t spark inspiration.
It sparks one simple question: Why haven’t you already?
Overview of the series on our Councillors
In any healthy democracy, it is not only appropriate—but essential—for citizens to reflect on the performance of their elected representatives. This essay offers a considered, good-faith assessment of Shoalhaven City councillors based on publicly available information, council records, media reporting, and direct observations from council proceedings.
Cr White was provided with a copy of this article and invited to comment - she did NOT respond.
The views expressed here are not intended to attack individuals, but to critique public actions, decisions, and patterns of behaviour that have tangible consequences for ratepayers and the wider community. Where opinions are offered, they are clearly distinguished from matters of fact and are grounded in observable conduct such as voting records, policy positions, public statements, and meeting participation. Criticism, where made, relates strictly to a councillor’s public role, not to their personal life or character.
Every effort has been made to present information truthfully, and to ensure that commentary is fair and balanced. This essay is written in the spirit of civic engagement and democratic accountability. It is my belief that elected officials, particularly at the local level where decisions have immediate and lasting effects, should be open to scrutiny and public dialogue. That is not defamation—it is democracy. The councillor was given a pre-publication version of this article.
Should any councillor believe that something here is inaccurate or lacks context, I welcome correction. This document is not fixed in stone. Like public service itself, it benefits from transparency, feedback, and the continual pursuit of clarity. My intention is not to cause harm, but to raise the level of informed discussion about the future of our city and the conduct of those entrusted to lead it.
It is through open dialogue—not silence—that trust in public institutions is either built or eroded. This contribution, however imperfect, seeks to foster the former.