Cr Bob Proudfoot: Passion, Pavilions and the Perils of Prolonged Politics

From Council Floor to War Room: Bob’s Battle With Brevity

In the theatre of local government, some actors enter stage left and barely leave a footprint. Cr Bob Proudfoot, on the other hand, leaves not only footprints but a pavilion named in his honor.

Representing Ward 2 under the Shoalhaven Independents Group/Party banner, Proudfoot is one of the more recognisable and long-serving figures in Shoalhaven City Council. He’s the kind of councillor who genuinely cares—about sports fields, regional roads, and what happens to your rates. But in politics, good intentions must share the stage with good process, and it’s here that the Bob Proudfoot story becomes more complicated.

Let’s begin with the obvious: Proudfoot is passionate. He speaks with conviction. Even if it is tedious, and Shakespearean, with overuse of statements like “…there can be no question about that” and “It brings me great comfort, great comfort”, along with his habit of often repeating key words three times, one after the other.

He has advocated consistently for infrastructure like the Nowra Bypass and the Francis Ryan Reserve Pavilion. He’s been involved in community sport and local institutions for decades. His commitment isn’t in question. But local government isn’t a coaching sideline—it’s a policy arena. And in recent years, Proudfoot’s style of governance has drawn more than a few raised eyebrows.

He continually dips into operational matters, that are not the realm of a Councillor in the chamber, a lot of that work can be done “off stage”, but he continues to bring into the chamber people with gripes, that he then complements and launches into long winded statements of why they should get a better, or a special deal. It is populist politics at the most basic level. One that had its origins in the 1950’s.

It may a good resource for him to go back and look what the then “Department of Local Government” report in the Shoalhaven Council from 2009, and what was said that needed to change.

Effective local government relies on a clear separation between governance and administration. In its 2009 Promoting Better Practice review, the NSW Department of Local Government offered a frank appraisal of Shoalhaven City Council’s performance. Among its more pointed observations were concerns about councillor conduct—particularly around grandstanding, involvement in operational matters, and overly lengthy speeches in council meetings.

It seems appropriate that a grandstand will be named after Bob Proudfoot:

These behaviours, while often motivated by genuine passion or political commitment, were identified as barriers to good governance and professional decision-making.

Grandstanding and Public Performance The report criticised the tendency of some councillors to use the council chamber as a platform for political theatre. Rather than engaging in constructive debate or focusing on outcomes, certain councillors were observed delivering statements aimed more at the gallery or media than at fellow councillors. This performative style, the report noted, not only distracts from productive deliberation but erodes the professional tone expected in formal decision-making forums. The recommendation was clear: councillors should resist the temptation to grandstand and instead prioritise respectful, solution-focused dialogue that upholds the integrity of the chamber. Perhaps the worst behaviour in this manner is from Cr Kemp, who seems to bring a long to meeting die hard right wing supporters to clap and cheer.

Operational Interference One of the foundational principles of local government is that councillors set policy, while the general manager and staff implement it. The review highlighted several instances where Shoalhaven councillors blurred this line—becoming too involved in day-to-day operations, questioning staff decisions inappropriately, or attempting to influence administrative actions. Such interference, the report warned, places undue pressure on staff, confuses lines of accountability, and risks politicising what should be impartial, evidence-based service delivery. It recommended reinforcing internal education for councillors on their roles and responsibilities, and encouraging stronger leadership from the mayor and general manager in setting boundaries. A question that is relevant is why have we lost two CEO’s and a raft of directors and senior staff? What is going on?

Long-Winded Speeches and Inefficient Meetings Lengthy speeches were another issue called out by the reviewers. While debate is a fundamental part of democratic decision-making, the report found that excessively long and often repetitive contributions from councillors were dragging out meetings and undermining effective governance. The solution wasn’t to silence councillors, but to instil a culture of concise, purposeful communication. Recommendations included reviewing standing orders to better manage speaking time and fostering a culture of discipline in council debate—ensuring meetings remain focused, timely, and respectful of everyone’s time.

PHOTO: South Coast Register

Cr Proudfoot has become known for marathon-length speeches—particularly on hot-button issues like rate rises and budget strategy. While some view this verbosity as a sign of heartfelt conviction, others see it as a distraction, a form of rhetorical fog that makes it hard to see the fiscal wood for the emotional trees.

He is a master of creating mystery and confusion to things that are in fact quite straightforward, but he has the skill to say things are white, when they are clearly black.

In one recent meeting, what should have been a focused debate on financial sustainability turned into a winding monologue about generational responsibility, laced with frustration, philosophy, and repeated themes. There’s nothing inherently wrong with speaking at length—but in governance, as in advertising, clarity often trumps volume.

He as a record of asking for staff reports or consideration of issues, that often make him look like a man or action, but in essence it is just contributing to council spending money that was never budgeted for – not a good approach when you position yourself as financially conservative.

And then there’s the matter of consistency. Cr Proudfoot campaigned vocally against rate increases—only to vote in favour of a 12% rise when it came to the crunch. His justification? That it was the only responsible path forward to avoid administration. This may well be true—but it raises the behavioural question of framing. How can ratepayers trust a position if it changes dramatically under pressure? The result is cognitive dissonance: the feeling that the man who spoke like an opposition leader voted like an administrator.

Perhaps most concerning was Proudfoot’s involvement, alongside the Mayor and Cr 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. For a councillor who often rails against poor process, Proudfoot’s own actions here seemed to bypass the very transparency and due diligence he publicly demands.

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 stated, 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 Cr Bob Proudfoot. No mention of Cr Wilkins. Not even a sideways glance at the Mayor, Patricia White—who, by any account, has presided over a period of highly partisan and polarising governance. So why the restraint?

Because in modern politics, omission is often the most strategic form of signal. Butler didn’t need to name Bob Proudfoot. 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. Proudfoot’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 him directly, Butler achieved three things at once:

1. She protected herself legally—a wise move in an environment where the litigious are often louder than the guilty.

2. She created a stronger narrative—because when audiences connect the dots themselves, the conclusions feel earned, not imposed.

3. 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 be clear: Bob Proudfoot is not a villain in this story.

He is, like so many in public office, a man convinced of his good intentions. But that conviction does not shield him from criticism—especially when he participates in actions that override standard process or destabilise leadership for ideological gain. When a councillor helps orchestrate the departure of a CEO midway through a financial crisis, the public has a right to ask “why?”.

Butler’s silence on Proudfoot’s name wasn’t an oversight. It was the equivalent of a bold underline—just in invisible ink. And in doing so, she reminded us of that transparency in politics isn’t just about declarations and documents. It’s also about the language of responsibility, the choreography of power, and the subtle art of implication.

In the end, what Butler didn’t say may have spoken louder than anything she did.

This duality—of earnest intent colliding with inconsistent execution—defines his time on council. He is a man who believes he is doing the right thing but sometimes forgets that process is not a nuisance to be sidestepped—it’s the public’s guarantee that power won’t be misused. His speeches, while heartfelt, sometimes cloud issues that need razor-sharp focus. His advocacy is real—but real advocacy must also be accountable.

Proudfoot would be seen as a classic case of “intention over impact.” He signals virtue through long speeches and emotional appeals, but the signal loses power when not matched by procedural clarity or policy consistency. He’s not dishonest—he’s just running on an instinctive operating system in a world that demands precision.

To his credit, Cr Proudfoot is no bureaucratic automaton. He brings personality, visibility, and real community connections to his role. He isn’t afraid to speak up. But governance, unlike sport, is not about who shouts the loudest. It’s about who listens best, responds wisely, and makes decisions that hold up under scrutiny—not just passion.

Cr Proudfoot consistently demonstrates a discernible voting pattern, generally aligning with a particular bloc of councillors on contentious issues.

His common allies often include Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Clancy and Cr Kemp.

Cr Proudfoot's core voting bloc is often contrasted by an opposing group, typically comprising Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

This consistent division indicates a clear ideological or political alignment within the council.

Below are specific instances of contentious issues and Cr Proudfoot's voting behavior:

• CL24.277 - Rescission Motion - Moratorium on Development that is not supported by Contemporary Studies [D24/361159]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the rescission motion, which was ultimately LOST (failed). He sided with Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, while Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted against it.

• MM24.33 - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014, Chapter G4 Tree and Vegetation Management - 45 Degree Rule [D24/431925]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the mayoral minute, which was CARRIED. His support aligned with Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, and Cr Clancy, against Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL24.272 - Reaffirmation of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (Amendment) [D24/340163]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White and Cr Clancy, opposing Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis57.

• CL24.276 - Rescission Motion - Caps on Short Term Rental Accommodation in New Residential Subdivisions [D24/361230]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the rescission motion, which was CARRIED. His vote was with Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis, and Cr Clancy, opposing Cr Tribe and Cr Norris.

• CL24.281 - Rescission Motion - Community Groups & Organisations [D24/444471]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the rescission motion, which was CARRIED by the casting vote of the Chair. He voted with Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, against Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis4.

• CL24.283 - Notice of Motion - Councillor Briefing - Go FOGO Grants (Amendment) [No HPERM Ref provided]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the amendment, which was CARRIED by the casting vote of the Chair. He was joined by Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, while Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted against.

• CL24.288 - Proposed Finance Review Panel (Motion) [D24/453950]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Norris, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis, and Cr Clancy, opposing Cr Tribe and Cr Boyd.

• CL_20241105_MIN_18130_EXTRA.PDF - Resourcing Strategy 2022-2026 & Special Rate Variation[No HPERM Ref provided, recorded as MIN24.591]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR this resolution, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, and Cr Clancy, against Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL24.347 - Notice of Motion - Caring For Indigenous Culture (CAFIC) - Pilot Program (Amendment) [D24/471615]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, opposing Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL24.360 - Notice of Motion - Fleet & Plant - Fuel Usage - Cost Control & Transparency (Amendment) [D24/501812]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was LOST. He sided with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, and Cr Clancy, against Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis9.

• CL24.362 - Notice of Motion - Community Service Clubs Contact Board [D24/502448]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Norris, and Cr Clancy, opposing Cr Tribe, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL24.363 - Notice of Motion - Kangaroo Valley Community Pool [No HPERM Ref provided]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, against Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL24.365 - Detailed Restructure Plan Concurrent with Resourcing Strategy [D24/504355]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He joined Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, and Cr Clancy, while Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted against.

• CL24.369 - 2024/2025 Community Donations - Round Two [D24/429132]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. His vote was with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Krikstolaitis, and Cr Clancy, opposing Cr Tribe and Cr Johnston.

• MM24.38 - Mayoral Minute - Fee Waiver for Nowra CBD Christmas Activation [D24/521847]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR this mayoral minute, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, against Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, Cr Krikstolaitis, and Cr Dunn.

• CL24.383 - Rescission Motion - Planning Proposal: Local Character (PP073) [D24/518737]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the rescission motion, which was CARRIED. He sided with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, while Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted against.

• CL24.384 - Notice of Motion - Planning Proposal - Local Character (PP073) [D24/518775]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. His support aligned with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, against Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL24.385 - Notice of Motion - Call in DA MA24/1370 - Huskisson Hotel [D24/504955]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Clancy, opposing Cr White, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.2 - Rescission Motion - Planning Proposal - Local Character (PP073) [D25/4539]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the rescission motion, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.10 - Notice of Motion - Feasibility Study for Establishment of a Traffic Control Function[D25/16211]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, while Cr Clancy, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted for.

• CL25.11 - Notice of Motion - Code of Meeting Practice - Mobile Phones and Tech Use in the Chambers [D25/16637]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Boyd, against Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.22 - Budget Strategies and Guiding Economic Parameters (Motion) [D25/5253]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was LOST. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.29 - Notice of Motion - Ongoing Maintenance of Vegetation at Collingwood Beach[D25/42688]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He sided with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, and Cr Wilkins, against Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.30 - Notice of Motion - Public Mowing Schedule (Amendment) [D25/55158]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the amendment, which was CARRIED by the casting vote of the Chair. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, and Cr Wilkins, against Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.31 - Notice of Motion - Establishment of Playing Fields - St Georges Basin & Jervis Bay[D25/55819]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED by the casting vote of the Chair. He joined Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.26 - Notice of Motion - AEC Fleet & Plant Service Review Report (Amendment) [D25/42035]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was LOST. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Boyd, against Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.45 - Notice of Motion - Costing Analysis - Previous Mayors Electric Vehicle (Procedural Motion) [No HPERM Ref provided]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the procedural motion, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Boyd, opposing Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.45 - Notice of Motion - Costing Analysis - Previous Mayors Electric Vehicle (Resolution) [No HPERM Ref provided]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. His vote was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Boyd, and Cr Krikstolaitis, against Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, and Cr Johnston.

• CL25.42 - Rescission Motion - Shoalhaven Family Daycare Future Direction [No HPERM Ref provided]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the rescission motion, which was CARRIED. He sided with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.51 - Policy - Councillor Expenses and Facilities (Amendment 1) [D24/543502]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST this amendment, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Norris, and Cr Boyd, opposing Cr Krikstolaitis and Cr Johnston.

• CL25.51 - Policy - Councillor Expenses and Facilities (Further Amendment) [D24/543502]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST this further amendment, which was LOST. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Boyd, against Cr Tribe, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.59 - Progress Update - Moss Vale Road North Urban Release Area (Deferral) [D25/34891]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the deferral, which was CARRIED. He joined Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, while Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis voted against.

• MM25.3 - Mayoral Minute - Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee - Appointment of a CEO [D25/69302]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR this mayoral minute, which was CARRIED. His support aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, against Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.64 - Notice of Motion - Grant Policy Update [D25/90934]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was CARRIED. He sided with Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Clancy, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.65 - Notice of Motion - Community Consultation for Shoalhaven Family Day Care (SFDC) Stakeholders [D25/93522]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Norris, against Cr Tribe, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis

• CL25.69 - Notice of Motion - Resolution for Completed Developments with Works In Kind Agreements (Amendment) [D25/91047]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr Clancy, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr White, Cr Kemp, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.79 - Post Exhibition Report - ‘The Gordon Timbs 45 Degree Rule’ (Amendment No. 57) Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (Amendment) [D25/27069]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.79 - Post Exhibition Report - ‘The Gordon Timbs 45 Degree Rule’ (Amendment No. 57) Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (Motion) [D25/27069]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Tribe, against Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• FR25.2 - Materials Recovery Facility [D25/30913]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the recommendation, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis, opposing Cr Norris and Cr Boyd.

• CL25.103 - Notice of Motion - Display and Disposal of Federal Election Material [D25/141839]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. His support aligned with Cr White, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis, against Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, and Cr Casmiri.

• CL25.114 - Sanctuary Point Library - Update Report 3 (Feasibility Study & Cost Estimates) (Motion by Cr Boyd/Cr Norris) [D25/39778]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.114 - Sanctuary Point Library - Update Report 3 (Feasibility Study & Cost Estimates) (Foreshadowed Motion by Cr Proudfoot/Cr Kemp) [D25/39778]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR this foreshadowed motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, and Cr Johnston, against Cr Norris and Cr Krikstolaitis4...

• CL25.118 - Development Application – DA23/1825 - 1 Wharf Road SHOALHAVEN HEADS (Motion to approve by Cr Wilkins/Cr Proudfoot) [D25/140487]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the approval motion, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Kemp, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.118 - Development Application – DA23/1825 - 1 Wharf Road SHOALHAVEN HEADS(Foreshadowed Motion to refuse by Cr Tribe/Cr White) [D25/140487]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the refusal motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr White, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.179 - Notice of Motion - Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy - For Adoption [D25/236650]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• FR25.29 - 2025/2026 DPOP & Budget - Compliance with Acts - Waste Management Strategy [No HPERM Ref provided]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. His support aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston, against Cr Norris and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• FR25.28 - 2025 / 2026 Budget Review (Amendment) [D25/227963]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis44.

• CL25.184 - Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Determination of Councillor and Mayoral Fees 2025/2026 [D25/237820]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Norris, and Cr Boyd, against Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.191 - Report Back - Planning Proposal: Local Character (PP073) - Finalisation Options (Amendment by Cr Tribe/Cr Norris) [D25/254191]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST this amendment, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.191 - Report Back - Planning Proposal: Local Character (PP073) - Finalisation Options (Foreshadowed Motion by Cr Proudfoot/Cr Wilkins) [D25/254191]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR this foreshadowed motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, and Cr Boyd, against Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.195 - Rescission Motion - CL25.191 Report Back - Planning Proposal: Local Character (PP073) - Finalisation Options [D25/254191]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the rescission motion, which was LOST. He sided with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston.

• CL25.197 - Notice of Motion - Planning & Development Committee (Amendment) [D25/218712]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the amendment, which was LOST. He was with Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston.

• CL25.204 - Proposed Road Closure - Depot Beach Road, Depot Beach [D25/215900]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr Kemp and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr White, Cr Clancy, Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston.

• CL25.141 - Notice of Motion - Changes to Ulladulla Harbour Management Strategy - Access and Hours [D25/185799]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was LOST. He was with Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Clancy, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.142 - Notice of Motion - Publishing of Culburra Beach/Orient Point Drain Clearing Schedule (Amendment) [D25/186652]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the amendment, which was LOST. He sided with Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, against Cr Clancy, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.161 - Notice of Motion - Shoalhaven War Memorials [D25/221391]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED by the Chairperson's casting vote. He aligned with Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.164 - Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy - For Adoption [D25/173597]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was CARRIED. He was with Cr Clancy, Cr Kemp, Cr Cox, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

• CL25.171 - Progress Report - Financial & Practical Feasibility of increasing internal delivery of Traffic Control Services [D25/207006]: Cr Proudfoot voted FOR the motion, which was CARRIED. He joined Cr Casmiri, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Wilkins, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis, while Cr Clancy and Cr Kemp voted against.

• CL25.152 - Post exhibition report - Planning Proposal: 131 St Vincent Street, Ulladulla[D25/144300]: Cr Proudfoot voted AGAINST the motion, which was CARRIED. He aligned with Cr Kemp, Cr Casmiri, and Cr Wilkins, opposing Cr Clancy, Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, Cr Johnston, and Cr Krikstolaitis.

In the end, Cr Proudfoot is a reminder that local government needs both heart and head.

One without the other is a recipe for policy drift. And for a region as dynamic—and as under pressure—as Shoalhaven, it’s time for leadership that understands the difference.

Overview of the series on our Councillors:

Councillor Proudfoot was provided with a draft of this article and asked for feedback or comment - he did NOT reply.

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.

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.