SIG Councillor’s Motion on Email Signatures Is a Political Joke — And Possibly a Breach of Conduct
The circus gets an even bigger clown?
At the 12 August 2025 Ordinary Meeting, Shoalhaven Councillor Luciano Casmiri — a declared member and official of the Shoalhaven Independent Group (SIG) a registered political party in the state of NSW— has put forward a motion that’s both absurd and deeply revealing.
His proposal? That councillors should have the right to include their political party affiliation in their council-issued email signatures.
Yes — a councillor from a registered political party named “Independent” wants permission to explicitly advertise his party affiliation in official communications.
The irony is staggering.
SIG is not some vague community alliance. It’s a fully registered political party in New South Wales. And Lou Casmiri isn’t just a member — he’s listed as one of the three official officeholders. For years, SIG councillors have traded on the word “Independent” to imply neutrality or detachment from politics-as-usual. Yet they vote as a bloc, campaign using coordinated resources, and repeatedly use populist framing to attack planning staff, delay policy reforms, and shut down transparency. Patricia even admitted on the soft old Chance and Whitewash show - yes they are a political party…
So what’s the real game here?
This motion isn’t about transparency. It’s political branding, plain and simple — using council infrastructure to promote a party image ahead of the next election. If SIG councillors want to publicly identify their party, they’re welcome to do so on campaign flyers, in council debates, or on their own time. But council email signatures are not campaign tools — they are taxpayer-funded communication channels for governing, not grandstanding.
Worse, this motion borders on a breach of the Model Code of Conduct. The code prohibits councillors from using council resources for political purposes. Embedding a party label — particularly one tied to a registered party and an any upcoming election — could easily be construed as using ratepayer-funded systems for political advertising. That’s not transparency — that’s misuse of office.
And let’s not ignore the time-wasting at play here. While residents face rising rates, degraded infrastructure, and housing pressure, SIG councillors are tying up public meetings with motions about email footers. It’s political theatre, not governance.
If SIG councillors want to come clean about being part of a political party, that’s welcome — honesty is a good start. But they can’t keep pretending they’re apolitical while voting in lockstep and using council platforms to fly their flag.
Shoalhaven deserves better than this. We deserve councillors focused on roads, rates, and real issues — not partisan posturing in signature blocks.