Perth Voice Interactive

AS October’s local government election draws nearer, a Bayswater councillor is calling on his colleagues to disclose interests in social media pages to “discourage” their politicisation.

For some social media consumers, suburban Facebook groups are a lifeline of information, a place to post about lost dogs, talk politics, document burglaries, or discuss strange cars parked in the street.

But the groups have been politically contentious at Bayswater council due to elected members’ involvement. In 2019 now-retired councillor Chris Cornish tried to establish a register for councillors to disclose their involvement in social media pages, but a majority downvoted his motion.

One of those who supported the 2019 motion, Cr Elli Petersen-Pik, wants to revive the idea.

His motion calls for a publicly available “’Social Media Interest Register’ on the City’s website, where elected members are required to disclose whether they, or their spouse/partner, manage, administrate, or moderate any community social media account… relevant to the City of Bayswater”.

Cr Petersen-Pik says the motion “would improve transparency and discourage any inappropriate usage of community social media platforms for political purposes”.

While a few councillors are involved with one or two pages, Cr Catherine Ehrhardt held the social media crown in 2019: She declared involvement in running 16 pages, including the hugely popular and influential “Maylands Community Notices and Chat Group 6051”.

That group is one of the largest local pages and has more than 6,600 members.

Outlawed

The page has since outlawed any discussion of politics and is now run by Cr Ehrhardt’s husband, Grant Rae. His firm hand in banning people who’ve posted about politics or mentioned elected members has irked a growing list of locals and led to spin-off groups of the exiled.

Six of the banned members have penned deputations in support of Cr Petersen-Pik’s motion, which goes to a vote at the July 25 meeting.

Aleysa Drozdova wrote: “The biggest online group for my community… is administered and moderated by one of the councillor’s spouse. This is not transparent in the group’s description.

“Moreover, the councillor’s spouse blocked people from the community group for mentioning another councillor in a positive light. Effectively, this excludes electors from the main online community page, any updates related to local businesses, safety, or other issues.”

We asked Cr Ehrhardt about the page, and whether she had any involvement still. “No, I haven’t been for years,” Cr Ehrhardt said, adding she had no control over her husband’s Facebooking.

“It’s his page, he’s entitled to run it how he wants. It’s one standard for all. It’s a blanket ban on all politics because my husband hates politics.”

Cr Ehrhardt said she had no problem declaring her social media involvement, but wasn’t convinced another registry was needed as they already had many transparency registers that staff were spending time on.

A report from council staff, who would have to maintain the register, lists some pros and cons. 

While stating they support transparency measures, they advised the current registers already take time and each new entry means an “officer must sacrifice or postpone other work” to keep them up to date. 

The report also states “the City would be unable to check the veracity of disclosures or non-disclosures” and if someone lodged a complaint about a secret social media maven, they had no way to check if it was true.

by DAVID BELL