' VJ Confidential:- Summary of Matter Precis of Evidence ...€¦ · Confidential:- Summary of...

. ~

"' VJ :::, 0 :r.:

• '"lo

.... ~- ~ ~ (..[) ~ ~

Confidential:- Summary of Matter & Precis of Evidence

REF:- 'Bait Box'

Version:-#Ll. ~ ~ U")

L&,I - I- 2 -' u r a I/) o O.. IOrg nal Chart Reference:- Office of CEO, Office of Deputy CEO and Waste/Water/Sewerage Division .

~ ~ I- ·: a.: :z: 0 ~ 0 z 0-:::, Q

=5

......

.,, ~ Cl)

c3

DATE:-

Breach of Local Govt Act and TRC Procurement Policy. Instruction & interference by Mayor & Councillor in a contract. {Direction to Officer to break the law)

"Complicit" admission by CEO in email.

2012 (2012/2013 FY - 2015)

Timeframe/Duration:- Ongoing & Systemic.

Belief that it is:-

List of Allegations:-

1. 2012 -2015

2. I 2012 - 2015

3. I 2012 - 2015

Breach of Local Government Act and Corrupt Conduct.

That Mayor Lee Long did deliberately and knowingly breach the Local Government Act and commit an act of corrupt conduct by:(a} Directing an officer to award a contract to a certain party. (b} Directing an officer to award a three year contract instead of 1 year as was stated in the tender document to that certain

party. (c) Directing a contractor what to put on their invoices.

That Cr Shaaron Linwood was present when Mayor Lee Long gave the unlawful direction to the officer and she did not report the corrupt conduct. That Cr Linwood conspired with or was complicit in the unlawful actions of Mayor Lee Long. That Cr Linwood failed duty to report corrupt conduct by Mayor lee long. CEO Ian Church did commit an act of corrupt conduct through allowing and enabling others to commit acts of corrupt conduct despite his direct knowledge. That CEO Ian Church did allow and enable acts that are in contravention of the Local Government Act to occur. That CEO Ian Church conspired with or was complicit in the unlawful actions of Mayor lee Long. That CEO Ian Church failed in his 'Duty to Report' corrupt conduct by Mayor Lee Long.

of 5


of 5

Perpetrator / Conspirator / Enabler / Accessory Perpetrator Mayor Lee Long Accessory/Conspirator Councillor Shaaron Linwood Accessory/Conspirator CEO Ian Church Accessory/Conspirator Deputy CEO Matthew Hyde

Precis of evidence

Audio & Transcript from direct witness. REDACTED initially for protection of witness. Context:- Senior Officer lodged complaint of allegations of corrupt conduct against Mayor and a Councillor in relation to interfering with contract and invoices. CEO admitted culpability/involvement in an email. PERSON B “Initially we thought it was only going to be planning and local laws, and um, I have just

done up a table of the current um organisational structure and there is not an area that doesn’t have a red light on it.”

PERSON A “Mmmm, oh well, yeah, ha, ha, it’s a, yeah I think that your target areas from the executive management team, I think that you are spot on there. And um, there is no doubting that.”

“Tablelands is an absolute basket case. Um, but that comes from the approach from the top and the way that it is being managed.”

SECTION 2 PERSON 2 “I have an issue in relation to a contract, ah that I could provide you with some

information on.” PERSON 1 “And is that the one that you had previously, were going to go to the CMC over?” PERSON 2 “Well it was not up to me to go the CMC, it was up to the CEO or his nominated person who

was Matt Hyde, um, to undertake that. And there was never, never provided to me any evidence that they had gone down that path. Um, to lodge a complaint, oh, oh, sorry to lodge my allegation. Um, which happen to be, and I will tell you, it was against the Mayor um and Shaaron.” (Mayor Lee Long & Cr Shaaron Linwood)


of 5

PERSON 2 “And um, So yeah, I was never provided the feedback that the process had commenced or, you know, under the normal circumstances the CMC in those days, you would report something because I can think of other issues that were reported, and that the CMC would come back and say right we will take this on or you guys do the investigation and please inform us once you have completed that etc. That was the standard form and I saw none of that in that process, and um, and it was um, you know, that I don’t even believe that there was a meeting with the Mayor and the CEO.”

SECTION 3 PERSON A “Listen, I got onto this old computer that we’ve got and I just happen to find a copy of my

complaint being lodged.” (Allegations being sent to CEO) “But I also found copies of numerous emails which I had put to one side in relation to that and also a payment process for the operator for the facility, the waste facility at Irvinebank and Herberton , Ken Lakey, um and, where the Lakeys implicated the Mayor as being the one dictating what they should be putting on their invoices.”

PERSON B “Wow”. PERSON A “So you know, And then I also have one from the CEO asking me to clean this mess up,

because he admits his culpability but wanted me to deal with it.” PERSON B “Laughs”. PERSON A “I do have a few things there that may be beneficial”.

“What I would like to do is just see how your submission goes and then if I can provide further evidence that will assist in the process that you will go through, and um I think that I would be pretty comfortable in that. And that gives me a chance to go through and find anything else I might have as well.”

Audio & Transcript from direct witness.

REDACTED initially for protection of witness.

“The Mayor and Councillor Linwood came to (to a work location)”. “The Mayor was the one who gave the directions telling me who to award the contract to and to make the contract for 3 years not 1. This was a breach of the Local Government Act.” “I was directed by the Mayor, Cr Linwood was beside her when she directed me.” (internal note:- Transcript to be cross checked for word-perfect prior to font colour changing)

-


of 5

EVIDENCE currently held on file:-

Audio & Transcript of direct witness. Audio & Transcript of direct witness. Additional Witnesses for interview or subpoena.

1. Direct Witness - person id B05. 2. Recipient of information in Audio - Person id A02.

3. Contractor - Person ID F06. Remaining Investigation Points/Scope/resources.

Obtain all internal emails and notes form, by, between CEO Ian Church, Mayor Lee Long, Cr Linwood, and Officers and Contractor id F06.

Obtain all file materials in relation to the tender process, tenders, contract, invoices, payment records, and performance reviews.

Obtain all hard copy and electronic evidence from Persons id B05 & F06. Unknown motivation for the Mayors direction to the officer. Suspect undisclosed conflict of interest or

similar disclosable relationship status by Mayor Lee Long and potentially Cr Linwood. This needs to be investigated to identify the motivation or ‘logic’ behind the action. There are other examples of Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest and Proven Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest.


of 5

The 4 elements of Corrupt Conduct

EFFECT of the conduct

RESULT of the conduct

BENEFIT or DETRIMENT arising from the conduct.

LEVEL OF OFFENCE Criminal (Corrupt Conduct) or disciplinary Breach.

TRC Officer unable to perform their job in compliance with the Local Govt Act because of the Direction from the Mayor Rosa Lee Long. Other tenderers not given the same opportunity and advantages. Tender document stated one year and other parties tendered on that basis.

Inequitable and unlawful tender and contracting process. Three year contract awarded to certain party despite other parties being equally or more suitably qualified and capable.

BENEFIT:- contractor inside knowledge to enable higher invoicing rates and variations. Contractor given surety by not having to re-tender. DETRIMENT:-

(a) TRC denied the opportunity to go back out to open market in a transparent and competitive process for three years.

(b) Senior Officer (Manager) put in a terrible position of having to break the law.

This matter meets the threshold for corrupt conduct because it was deliberate premeditated direction by the Mayor to an officer that was in breach of the Local Govt Act and Councils Procurement Policy. The Mayor went to the officer to direct him. This did not come up on-the-run in a meeting. It was deliberate and it was covered up. The CEO admitted in email of being complicit and then directing officer to sort it out. Officer made and internal complaint making these allegations and at that later time both the CEO & Deputy CEO failed their Duty To Report and enabled the cover up to continue.


Page 1 of 7

REF:- AZTEC

Version:- #L1.

Organisational Structure Ref:- Office of CEO & Deputy CEO.

MATTER:- Proven Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

By Councillor (and 2016 Mayoral candidate and developer(s)). This is not an isolated Proven Undisclosed Conflict of Interest (CoI) in relation to Councillor and/or Mayor, and it is not an isolated undisclosed CoI (perceived/ material) by Councillors and/or officers. CoI’s are only declared and managed appropriately by a very small minority.

DATE:- 20th August 2015, 2015 and ongoing.

Timeframe/Duration:- One-off and ongoing.

Belief that it is:- A Proven Undisclosed Conflict of Interest by a Councillor in relation to a developer.

List of Allegations:- 1. 20th August 2015 Cr Peter Hodge failed to disclose a (perceived or material) conflict of interest in ITEM-1 AZTEC Park Developments Pty

Ltd. DA/14/0126. 2. 17th September 2015 Cr Peter Hodge acted to avoid detection and punishment by failing to and refusing to respond to the confirmed

conflict of interest in relation to DA/14/0126. Further, Cr Hodge failed to recognise the conflict of interest in voting on a motion that was about himself. This is an ongoing and systemic failure of good governance.

17th September 2015 Mayor Lee Long failed in her duty as chairperson to ensure procedural fairness and to act in the public interest. (Breach of Local Govt. Principles)


Page 2 of 7

Perpetrator / Conspirator / Enabler / Accessory Perpetrator Cr Peter Hodge Accessory/Conspirator Matthew Hyde (Acting CEO) (Deputy CEO) Accessory/Conspirator Tate Jones (Acting Deputy CEO) Accessory/Conspirator Mayor Rosa Lee Long Accessory/Conspirator Ms Kate Eden (Senior Advisor Governance)

Precis of evidence TRC Agenda 20 August 2015

− ITEM-1 Aztec Park Developments Pty Ltd DA/14/0126 − ITEM-16 Proposed land sale to Malanda Lions Club.

TRC Minutes 20 August 2015 “During the course of the meeting Cr Hodge became aware that there could be a perceived conflict of interest in relation to Item-16 on the Agenda Proposed Land Sale ….. to Malanda Lions Club.” Cr Hodge declared a perceived conflict of interest in relation to Item-16 on the Agenda as a person on his election team is a member of the Malanda Lions Club. Cr Hodge indicated that he proposed to exclude himself from the meeting while the matter is debated and the vote is taken, however, if he did so there would not be a quorum.” NOTE – Team Tableland candidate Lionel Smith is the link declared in the Conflict of Interest due to his membership (executive position?) with Malanda Lions Club. NOTE – there were only 3 councillors left in attendance after Cr Pagani was denied access to the meeting via teleconference and Cr Marti & Cr Linwood walked out in disgust. The quorum for TRC under the current legislative provisions and following de-amalgamation is 3 including the Mayor. The Item was therefore deferred to the next Council meeting.

TRC Minutes 20 August 2015 ITEM-1 Aztec Park Developments Pty Ltd …. DA/14/0126. Moved by Cr Hodge Seconded by Cr Stocker Carried Unanimously however NOTE that only 3 councillors including the Mayor in attendance. NOTE - There was no (perceived/material) conflict of interest disclosed by Cr Hodge despite Team


Page 3 of 7

Tableland candidate Cherie Mills and her husband Ray Mills direct ‘employ’ of the DA applicant. (DA/14/0126)

TRC Minutes 03 Sept 2015 “Cr Hodge declared a perceived conflict of interest (as per Section 173 of the Local Govt Act 2009) in this matter and left the meeting room at 10.02am taking no part in the vote on Item-17.” ITEM-17 Proposed Land Sale…… to Malanda Lions Club. (Team Tablelands candidate Mr Lionel Smith)

TRC Minutes 17 September 2015 ADHOC-5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST – CR HODGE Moved by Cr Linwood Seconded by Cr Marti “That council Hodge explain why he didn’t declare a Conflict of Interest in Item-1 Aztec Park Developments Pty Ltd -… on the Agenda at the meeting on 20 August 2015 when his Division 6 Election Team Member and her husband stand to be direct financial benefactors of sales of those blocks.” LOST 4-3 with the mayors Casting Vote Cr Lee Long Called for a Division of Votes to be recorded. Crs Linwood, Marti and Pagani voted for the motion. Crs Lee Long, Stocker and Hodge (with the Mayor’s Casting Vote) voted against the motion. Note:- when asked to explain why he did not declare any Conflict of Interest the motion was LOST on the mayors casting vote. Cr Hodge voted on this motion which in itself is a conflict of interest.

Councillor Register of Interest and Governance fall under the office of the CEO and Deputy CEO. TRC meeting Minutes 20 August 2015 show that the following relevant officers were in attendance and

− Matthey Hyde as Acting CEO − Mr Tate Jones as Acting Deputy CEO

TRC meeting Minutes 03 September 2015 show that the following relevant officers were in attendance.

− Matthew Hyde as Acting CEO − Mr Tate Jones as Acting Deputy CEO − Ms Kate Eden as Senior Advisor Governance.

TRC Meeting Minutes 17 September 2015 show that the following relevant officers were in attendance.

− Matthew Hyde as Acting CEO − Tate Jones as Acting Deputy CEO


Page 4 of 7

(NOTE – transcript to be cross checked internally to ensure it is word perfect prior to type setting text to blue and italic font)

TRC meeting 17th September 2015 Audio & Notes from TRC meeting demonstrate in the debate prior to the ADHOC motion being voted on (and LOST on the mayors casting vote) there were a few key points made. Cr Hodge In relation to the Conflict of Interest he stated “I have none.” “They are no relation to me”. And “There was a perceived Conflict of Interest regarding sale of land to Lions Club because Lionel Smith (one of his team tablelands candidates) had negotiations with officers.” Cr Linwood pointed out that his candidate Cherie Mills works for Aztec developments as does her Husband Ray Mills. Cr Linwood stated that she has a business card of Cherie Mills clearly demonstrating this direct link. Despite having all this detailed information provided by Cr Linwood the mayor reminded Cr Hodge that he did not have to answer anything until after the vote was taken. The Mayor brought it to a vote and ensured it was LOST on her casting vote. It was discussed in the gallery by members of the public that there is also a plaque/certificate/licence style document on the wall at the Hedley/Aztec office in Main Street Atherton to the same effect that Cherie Mills works there and so does her husband Ray Mills.

A rapid Desk-top search was conducted to see if the perceived/material Conflict of Interest could be easily proven one way or the other. Each of these references are printed and in the primary evidence file. Facebook provided evidence that:-

− Cherie Mills has links to CR Hodge and Team Tablelands. − Cherie Mills Husband is Ray Mills. − Cherie Mills’s husband Mr Ray Mills profile photo is that of Mr Ray Mills of Aztec Developments,

Panorama Views estate & Hedley Homes. − Cr Hodges Team Tablelands Photo shows Cherie Mills in Yellow shirt. (26 August 2015)

Google Aztec Developments & Hedley Homes − Panorama Views shows Ray Mills and Aztec Park Developments PTY LTD with Ray Mills Mobile

number and office contact details at 73 Main Street Atherton. − White Pages search for Hedley Homes Atherton shows 73 Main Street Atherton and the office

phone number is the same. − Free public ACN and company name searches show Aztec park development & HEDZ No21 Pty Ltd

have corporation linkages.


Page 5 of 7

TEAM TABLELANDS flyer

− ‘signed’ by Peter Hodge, Cate Teece, Cherie Mills, Lionel Smith, Gary Scott. − Contact details are C/O Cherie Mills at a PO Box in Tolga.


TRC Agendas and Minutes for 20 August, 03 & 17th September 2015 TRC meeting audio files for all relevant agenda and adhoc items. (Transcripts pending final checking) Tablelander Newspaper Article ‘Hodge Team Vows to strengthen communities” 16.06.2015. Print out and electronic version of Team Tablelands Photo from Hodge Facebook posted 26 August 2015. Print outs from Cherie Mills Facebook page. Print outs from “Panorama Views” website clearly showing Ray Mills and Aztec Homes and Hedley Homes

office links via common address of 73 Main Street Atherton. Telstra white pages printout for Hedley Homes Atherton showing 73 Main Street is also Hedley Homes

office. Print out of online company searches. Hard Copy and scan of Team Tablelands flyer. Hand written meeting notes from Person ID A02 in relation to ADHOC item 17/09/2015. Additional Witnesses for interview or subpoena.

1. Public Gallery Witnesses to 17/09/2015 ADHOC -5 − Person ID A01, A02, A07.

2. Interview Cr Marti, Linwood & Pagani. Remaining Investigation Points/Scope/resources.

Note - that Cr Paganis participation in the 20 August TRC meeting was to be via video link. This was denied by the casting vote block and a mayoral minute was introduced to amend standing orders to prohibit Cr Pagani participating via videoconference despite this having been prearranged with the Acting CEO Matt Hyde and the equipment already being set up and tested.


Page 6 of 7

Discreet look into TRC planning files to see if there is anything going on with Aztec Park Development to ascertain if this is limited to a proven undisclosed conflict of interest or goes further into influencing officers etc beyond the Council ‘board’ table.

An ASIC company search is required to investigate company and officer details including but not limited to

Heldey Homes, Aztec Developments Pty Ltd, HEDZ NO21 PTY LTD, including officers, directors, subsidiary, parent and related companies.

Investigate all sponsorship, in-kind and donations by Aztec, Hedley Cherie & Ray Mills etc (as per details

obtained by ASIC searches) for any links to TRC, TRC Councillors & officers, Atherton RSL, Atherton Mens shed, Mountain bike club, Tableland Cycle Sports, Atherton Roosters Rugby, Atherton Show, Tablelands Art Gallery etc.

Investigate the land and house origins of Cr Peter Hodge.

Investigate the Building and contractor providers of Cr Stockers new home (2014 construction). It is of concern in the community that both homes are above the pay scale and financial capacity of Hodge & Stocker.

The development the subject of DA/14/0126 is at Yungaburra. The Deputy CEO and General Manager

Planning and community facilities and other officers have property at Yungaburra so linkages and benefits, direct or indirect must be investigated. Yungaburra is locally referred to as the new centre of the universe for TRC investment & resources and “Dirty Deals Done Dirt Cheap”. This community concern needs to be investigated with an open mind.

The level of this Proven Undisclosed Conflict of Interest must be investigated to determine if it is a

perceived or material Proven Undisclosed conflict of interest and how ‘deep’ it runs through TRC the organisation, Councillors and officers.


Page 7 of 7


Criminal (Corrupt Conduct) or disciplinary Breach.




LEVEL OF OFFENCE

At the 20th August 2015 meeting the resolution was carried with only a total of 3 councillors present including Cr Hodge and the Mayor. If Cr Hodge had of declared a Conflict of Interest there would not have been a quorum so the matter would have had to be deferred to the next meeting. Both Agenda Items (relating to Aztec & Malanda Lions Club) were listed on the publically available agenda at the same time however there was a stark difference in how Cr Hodge treated the links of two different candidates of his ‘Team Tablelands’ to Council business listed on that agenda. The effect is that Cr Hodge is not consistent in how he deals with his team candidates and their links to the ongoing business of Council. The undisclosed Conflicts of Interest is an ongoing unresolved matter despite Cr Hodge, Mayor & Senior officers from the office of the CEO and Deputy CEO being made aware of the Proven Conflict of Interest.

Demonstrated systemic inconsistency in how the Councillors handle their responsibilities in regard to Development Applications and Conflicts of Interest. Diminished public confidence in governance and processes of Councillors, Mayor and Senior Officers.

AZTEC development request was approved without debate. If Cr Hodge had properly declared the conflict of interest on the decision date there would not have been a quorum for that issue so it should have been deferred.

This now Proven Undisclosed Conflict of Interest is above the threshold for corrupt conduct because Cr Hodge behaved in ways to avoid detection and punishment despite being given detailed and credible information about the Conflict of Interest and the opportunity to disclose. Mayor and Senior Officers Breached Local Govt principles in enabling this to (a) happen and (b) continue. The level of their involvement in this offence is misconduct however it may be proven from further investigation that their involvement also crosses the threshold of Serious Misconduct or Corrupt Conduct.


Page 1 of 5

REF:- ‘DICTATOR’

Version:- #L1.

Organisational Chart reference:- Office of CEO & Deputy CEO.

MATTER:- Prohibition on General Business. No more General Business at TRC.

TRC Meeting 1 Oct 2015 ITEM-9 Amendment to Standing Orders contravening a ‘right’ stated in s277(7) LG Regs & CEO defamatory comments about a certain Councillor.

DATE:- 1st October 2015

Timeframe/Duration:- second half of 2015 and specifically report and decision of 1st October 2015.

Belief that it is:- Unlawful decision of TRC being an ‘unsound decision’ as defined by Section 121 Local Govt Act 2009 (1Jan2014). Breach of Local Govt Principles Official misconduct by CEO making defamatory and public comment on a councillors apparent intellect. List of Allegations:- 1. 1st Oct 2015 Unlawful decision by TRC at the hands of Cr Stocker, Cr Hodge and Mayor Lee Long relying on her casting vote for

passage of a predetermined resolution, by deliberately and knowingly amending the Standing Orders in a certain way despite there being clear and real warning about sloppy or misleading reference to Statutory Provisions in the Officers Report and it being clearly explained to them that this resolution would be a contravention of the Local Govt Regulation s277(7).

2. 1st October 2015 CEO Mr Ian Church and TRC Officer Kate Eden did, despite hearing clearly articulated warning and correction from a Councillor with legal qualifications, knowingly and deliberately support and encourage the passage of an unlawful resolution to amend standing orders. CEO Ian Church and officer Kate Eden failed to and refused to avail themselves of all and any assistances available to them to slow or defer the passage of the resolution in question so they could check the Statutory Basis in question.

1st October 2015 Breach of Local Govt Principles


Page 2 of 5

Mayor Rosa Lee Long, CEO Ian Church, Deputy Mayor Geoff Stocker & Cr Peter Hodge deliberately and knowing breached Local Govt Principals by enabling and encouraging the passage of a resolution despite being made aware that it directly contravened a legislative provision. The processes were not rational, justifiable or transparent and therefore Breached the Local Govt Principles of 1) Transparent and effective processes and decision making in the public interest. 2) Democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement 3) Good Governance of, and by, local government, 4) Ethical and legal behaviour of local govt. employees.

1st October 2015 CEO making public defamatory and offensive remarks about a certain councillor during the course of his duties. 1st October 2015 CEO Ian Church committed a Breach of the local govt. principal of Ethical and legal behaviour of local govt. employees

by failing to uphold the laws and system of government of Qld. 1st October 2015 CEO Ian Church behaved in a manner that contravened good public administration thereby contravening the Public

Sector Ethics Act s4 and the Code of Conduct. Perpetrator / Conspirator / Enabler / Accessory

Perpetrator CEO Ian Church / Mayor Rosa Lee Long Accessory/Conspirator TRC Officer Ms Kate Eden – Senior Advisor Governance. Accessory/Conspirator Cr Stocker & Cr Hodge.


Page 3 of 5

Precis of evidence TRC Agenda Item -9 Officer Kate Edens Report.

• There is an officers report in the agenda so this is a pre-meditated resolution that has had time and resources committed to it’s construction prior to being brought to this council meeting.

• Whether deliberately or through sloppy workmanship, the officers Report refers to Statutory provisions to under pin this resolution that are not relevant to the matter.

• This was described by Cr Pagani during in the meeting as “incorrect underpinning” and a “fundamental error”.

Stat Dec of Lyn O’Connor, ratepayer in public gallery of TRC meeting. CEO Ian Church, while speaking about Cr Pagani to Cr Marti said “She hasn’t got a fucking clue”. Manual notes taken at the meeting and provided with the Stat Dec support this.

Stat Dec of Jason Ward rate payer in public gallery of meeting. CEO Ian Church said “She hasn’t got a fucking clue” in relation to Cr Pagani while talking to Cr Marti. Manual notes taken at the meeting and diary summary written up that evening and provided with the Stat Dec support this.

During the meeting there was some unspoken prohibition practiced by the Mayor as chairperson that limited the opportunity for opposing councillors to politely question the material before them and the concerns around the erroneous or misleading Statutory Basis listed in the officers report and the most relevant Statutory Basis not being mentioned in the officers report.

It is an agreed and often spoken of policy of councillors to workshop all policies and amendments to policies yet this is the second amendment to standing orders without any workshopping for councillors. The first was a condition on teleconferencing that was brought about on the run through a mayoral minute after Cr Pagani had made a request to CEO (Acting) to teleconference. This new amendment (Item-9) has questionable origins, motivations and is simply not in the public interest.

EVIDENCE currently held on file:- Audio files – TRC meeting 1 Oct 2015 TRC Agenda ITEM-9 Officers Report. Report on TRC item9 summary by Barrister. Statutory References from Local Govt Act & Regs. Stat Dec by witness Lyn O’Connor including manual notes taken during the meeting. Stat Dec by witness Jason Ward including manual notes taken during the meeting and long-hand diary

summary.


Page 4 of 5

Additional Witnesses for interview or subpoena.

1. TRC Officer Ms Kate Eden – as to how this was initiated and any internal discussion, deliberation or direction she was given by anyone and at any time.

Remaining Investigation Points/Scope/resources.

Need to obtain all internal notes, emails etc from and between CEO, deputy CEO, Senior advisor Governance and all councillors in relation to standing orders, motions etc to gain a more detailed understanding of how this came be the report it was at the time it was presented.


Page 5 of 5






Flawed report relied upon. Decision pushed through on casting vote despite concerns and information being clearly provided by a Councillor with legal qualification. Some sort of unwritten prohibition was put into practice by the mayor in chairing the meeting and disallowing some councillors to speak more than once. There is a new way to raise ADHOC matters giving 10 days notice or a mayoral minute, however it must be understood that this is not consistent with the “right” stated in s277(7).

Denies Councillors, and therefore the public, their “Right” s277(7) to bring urgent matters before a council meeting. It provides an alternative passage that enforces a longer timeframe (10 days) and conditions that are not effective or impartial because they rely on the discretion of the CEO who can be, and as practiced at TRC, is directed by the Mayor. An unlawful resolution was passed which must now be processed through the Local Govt Dept to the Minister for removal by the Minister under s121 Removing unsound decisions. There is now a total disregard to the legislative provisions and the hierarchy of the legislation over standing orders. The resolution creating a new standing order denies councillors a clearly stated ‘right’ to raise General Business in another way and at another and lesser time than that which is now stipulated by the new standing order. Because this amendment to the standing order was not workshopped and had no transitional time councillors were denied the ability to raise new matters at this meeting. A right that they had and all used in practice up until the passing of the resolution at ITEM-9 on 1st October 2015.

The BENEFIT of this change is to the favour of only a few in that the mayor now effectively controls all agenda items through her power to direct the CEO and her practice of directing the CEO. The DETRIMENT of the amendment was evidenced on the same day by the denial of general business. Cr Marti clearly stated that the Yungaburra supermarket had burnt down over night and he wished to raise that in general business. The new rule had no lead time, no workshopping and no transitional period. Transition of one meeting would have at least afforded the councillors procedural fairness in the interim despite the introduction of an otherwise unlawful and poorly conceived amendment.

It is only early days in relation to this issue and we only have what was displayed in the Council meeting to go on at the moment. On this basis it appears that this matter might be a cluster of misconduct and official misconduct that does not meet the threshold of corrupt conduct. However, a cautionary note that it was certainly an abuse of public office which come into play in relation to the way this amendment came to the table and was processed on the day under the chairmanship of Cr Lee Long and the ‘leadership’ of CEO Ian Church. The threshold will need to be revisited in time once more information comes to hand.


Page 1 of 4

REF:- UNION

Version :- #L1.

Organisational Structure Ref:- Office of CEO & Deputy CEO.

MATTER:- Violent Outbursts - attempted assault in workplace by CEO. This is one example of Physical violence, violent outbursts in the workplace and while acting in an official capacity.

− At an official Enterprise Bargaining meeting, and in front of staff, alleged that CEO Ian Church attempted physical assault on Union Representative.

DATE:- Late 2014 – early 2015

Timeframe/Duration:- One off event however it must be noted that this is not an isolated event and there are other reports of similar attempted assault and threats of violence.

Belief that it is:- Misconduct by CEO Ian Church.

List of Allegations:- 1. Meeting date to be

confirmed (2014/2015) CEO Ian Church attempted to assault a person in attendance in their official capacity during the Enterprise Bargaining meeting. Attempted common assault.

2. Meeting date to be confirmed (2014/2015)

CEO inappropriate behaviour by yelling during meeting and in-front of staff.

Perpetrator / Conspirator / Enabler / Accessory

Perpetrator CEO Ian Church Accessory/Conspirator Matt Hyde (Failed Duty to report/disclose)


Page 2 of 4

Precis of evidence

Audio File (Full Transcript pending – quotes subject to word perfect verification) Person id B06 tells Persons A01 & A02 about an attempted assault of union rep by CEO Ian Church and CEO Ian Church conduct at meeting in front of staff. At the EB meeting “In front of everyone Ian Church starts yelling, How dare you, How dare you come up here. Your union hasn’t been here and you turn around and try and tell these people here that they should vote no, you haven’t even been part of the process.” CEO was yelling in the meeting and in-front of staff. Union person advised they were fully briefed by the previous rep who was not available. At the end of the meeting Person B06 went back to their office across the road. Person ID B10 was at the EB meeting and they came back to the office and told B06 that you left too early and missed the bit where Ian tried to punch F03. Ian had a clenched fist. Deputy CEO Matt Hyde pulled CEO off F03. F03 spoke to B06 that evening and confirmed what had happened to him after B06 left the meeting venue. F03 gave a detailed account of the circumstances and the violent physical threat to himself by the CEO.

Audio File & Transcript Person ID F05 talks to Person ID A01.

• Person ID F05 is a witness who re-confirms in this audio that CEO Ian Church attempted to assault a Union Rep at the EB meeting.

Person id A01 “Ah, Now you are the third person that can confirm to me that there was a violent

outburst via the CEO towards (Person C) during the…”

Person id F05 “Oh definitely, Oh Oh definitely. It was that bad, it was that bad, it was the 2IC um , He actually came and grabbed me from outside and said you better get in here, That’s how bad, That’s how bad it was.”

-


Page 3 of 4


Audio & Transcript of Person F05. Audio of Person B06 (Transcript pending) Additional Witnesses for interview or subpoena.

1. Witness B06, B10. 2. Victim F03.

3. Additional witnesses once identified based on attendees at EB meetings. Remaining Investigation Points/Scope/resources.

Ascertain full list of attendees at the Enterprise Bargaining meeting in room 12. Internal notes, emails and memos between and from Ian Church, Matt Hyde and HR dept. and

communications outgoing to staff or reps during EB process. The CEO’s verbal and physical behaviours in front of staff and third party experts and representatives

during an agreed and structured process is extremely concerning. If one behaves this badly during a formal meeting and towards external experts then what goes on behind closed doors? There needs to be some insight gained to the true nature and frequency of workplace bullying, verballing and threats of or actual physical violence. Our intelligence already demonstrates that this verbal and physical abuse whether real threatened or attempted is not isolated to this meeting and this date. There is evidence that the CEO’s threatening and violent behaviours including verbal, posturing and threats of violence, is frequent even in public arenas.

Investigate internal complaints process and outcomes. Survey staff independently and confidentiality to ascertain the true level of bullying, threats, intimidation and fear in the organisation at both white and blue collar levels. There is evidence of staff who make internal complaints being handled inappropriately, performance managed out of the building or terminated ‘for other reasons.’


Page 4 of 4






CEO verbal outbursts and actual attempted violence while in his official capacity and at a work meeting effects the organisation and everyone in it. Contributes to workplace stressors including emotional stress and the fear that an individual or their colleagues may face the same verbal or physical attacks.

Staff are too frightened to speak up. The CEO’s verbal and physical behaviours in front of staff and third party experts and representatives during an agreed and structured process is extremely concerning. If one behaves this badly during a formal meeting and towards external experts then what goes on behind closed doors?

Benefit to CEO – staff are too intimidated and afraid of either verbal or physical attack so they don’t complain or rock the boat. Detriment to staff and organisation:- Staff settle for less and the organisation suffers moral and cultural decline. Detriment to Staff who are experiencing workplace bullying from several angles or perpetrators suffer mental exhaustion and eventually become physically unwell and demonstrate emotional instability and vulnerability that can become very deleterious over time.

Definitely a disciplinary breach by CEO Ian Church to be yelling in the workplace and attempting to physically assault a 3rd party participant while attending in their official capacity. There may be more details that push this conduct or associated aspects over the Corrupt conduct threshold.


Page 1 of 4

FILE REFERENCE = “Weight”

Version:-#L1.

MATTER:- Public Insults on the basis of physical appearance (weight)

and cover-up by Mayor and others.

When read in conjunction with the ‘Tribunal’ matter of alleged lies and perjury, this matter further demonstrates the alleged (and evidenced) bullying and lying traits of a person in Public Office.

DATE:- 20 November to 4 December 2015 and ongoing.

Timeframe/Duration:- systemic & accumulative.

Belief that it is:- 1. Breach of standing orders 2. Breach of Local Govt Principles 3. Misconduct 4. Corrupt Conduct – conspired deliberately misleading council to avoid punishment.

List of Allegations:- 1. 20 November 2014 Mayor Rosa Lee Long Breached Standing orders 4.18.6 and 4.18.9 dot point two, when she made discriminatory,

indecent, offensive personal attack on another Councillor. 2. 20 November & 4 December

2014. Mayor Rosa Lee Long breached Local Govt principle of Ethical & Legal Behaviour (Local Govt Act) by verbally attacking another councillor and on 4 December articulating a concocted story to avoid punishment/penalty.

3. 20 November 2014 onwards. Abuse of public office, lied to avoid punishment /penalty Conspired with others to cover-up and avoid penalty.

4. Prior to and including 12 Feb 2015

CEO Ian Church, despite direct knowledge, allowed cover up with preliminary assessment finding “frivolous matter”.

5. Prior to and including September 2015

Acting CEO / Deputy CEO Matt Hyde, despite direct knowledge, allowed cover up with preliminary assessment finding “frivolous matter”.


Page 2 of 4


Perpetrator Mayor Rosa Lee Long Accessory/Conspirator Councillor Geoff Stocker (Deputy Mayor) Accessory/Conspirator Councillor Peter Hodge Accessory CEO Ian Church Accessory Acting CEO (Deputy CEO) Matt Hyde Precis of evidence

1. Original Notes of Lyn O’Connor 20 November 2014 TRC meeting supported by Audio and Transcript. - Mayor Lee Long “Pushing your weight around… A lot of weight too I must say.” - Gallery “Orgh – Order” - CEO Ian Church to Mayor “You need to be very careful”. - Cr Pagani “Alright, Thank you for that, Discrimination on the basis of weight, This is, this is

as good as it gets isn’t it!”

2. Original Notes of person id#A02 from 20 November pm, received phone call from person id#D06 with information from person id#B08 re cover-up being planned by Mayor Lee Long, Cr Stocker & Cr Hodge.

- 3pm office, Ian Church gone, Person B08 whispered to Person D06 that the 3 are in the Mayors office getting their stories straight.

3. Original Notes of Lyn O’Connor 04 December 2014 TRC Meeting.

- Cr Pagani commented on Mayors scurrilous and discriminatory remarks of 20 November 2014 asking Mayor to withdraw them and apologise.

- Mayor responded that she was not going to apologise as she didn’t attribute anything to her weight, referring to putting her weight behind her.


1. Original Notes of Lyn O’Connor 20 November and 04 December 2014 TRC Meetings. 2. Audio and transcript of 20 Nov 2014 TRC meeting.


Page 3 of 4

3. Notes of person A02 received call from person D06 re persons meeting in Mayors office. 4. Two community cabinet request forms tabled 20 Nov 2014. 5. Complaint of Councillor Marjorie Pagani 2015 6. Email communications Cr Marjorie Pagani & CEO Ian Church including Preston Law suggesting a

‘finding’ of ‘frivolous matter’ 13 - 23 Feb 2015. 7. Preliminary assessment of Ian Church 12 Feb 2015. 8. Email communications Cr Marjorie Pagani & CEO Ian Church including Preston Law suggesting a

‘finding’ of ‘frivolous matter’ 13 - 23 Feb 2015. 9. Preliminary assessment of Ian Church 12 Feb 2015. 10. Complaint of Mrs Lyn O’Connor dated 16 September 2015. 11. Preliminary finding of Acting CEO Matt Hyde dated 18 Sept 2015. Additional Witnesses for interview or subpoena.

1. All Councillors re 20 Nov & 4 Dec 2014. 2. Individuals present in gallery – Lyn O’Connor, Jason Ward.

3. Media (reporters) present – Justin Fris (Mareeba Express) and one other. 4. CEO Ian Church, Kate Eden & Matthew Hyde. 5. Preston Law Mr Mal Skipworth. 6. Person B08 & D06 must be interviewed with reference to notes of person A02 dated 20.11.2015. 7. Person B08 must be interviewed / subpoenaed re direct knowledge of the persons in the Mayors

office afternoon of 20 November “getting their stories straight”. Remaining Investigation Points/Scope/resources.

CEO Ian Church, Kate Eden & Matthew Hyde re file notes, verbal instructions and all communications to and from Preston Law especially re brief, scope of works and plausible alternatives. Email of 16 January from Kate Eden or other referred to in Mr Skipworths email of 9 Feb 2015 to Kate Eden cc Ian Church and notes from “phone discussion” referred to in same email.

Preston Law Mr Mal Skipworth re file notes, all communications with Council officers and councillors whether verbal, electronic or other.

Tablelander, Express and Advertiser printed articles, file notes, audios and drafts.


Page 4 of 4

4 elements EFFECT of the conduct




The initial 20 November 2014 “Pushing your weight around… a lot of weight too I must say.” comment from Mayor Lee Long directed at Cr Pagani shocked everyone in the room. CEO Ian Church reached out with his left hand motioning towards the Mayor, he leant towards her and quietly said “You need to be very careful” and the discussion/debate on the topic stopped. The 4 December cover-up lie from Mayor Lee Long, with the support of Stocker & Hodge again shocked everyone in the room. CEO & Acting CEO making preliminary finding of ‘frivolous matter’ despite them both having direct knowledge of the details of the events and their impacts on Cr Pagani and others including the public.

Cr Pagani alienated and her ability to contribute to debate and discussion was diminished. Brings TRC into disrepute. Public confidence in the Local Government is diminished. Public confidence in the complaints process to be conducted independently and without fear nor favour are greatly diminished.

Benefit:- 20 November 2014 - Mayor got the upper hand, stopped

the discussion and pushed the matter to a vote.

Detriment:- 20 November 2014 - Mayors conduct directly brought

TRC into disrepute. - Cr Pagani’s divison and the broader

TRC were less well represented that would have otherwise been possible because of the increased, direct and public bullying and attacks on Cr Pagani physical appearance.

Benefit:- 4 December 2014 - Mayor avoided detection and

punishment in the simplest terms of retraction and/or apology.

- Mayor avoided detection of breach of standing orders and misconduct.

Detriment:- 4 December 2014. - The offence and detriment to Cr

Pagani of 20 November is reinforced by the mayor.

- Not in the public interest.

The original comment re pushing ones weight around might be assessed by some as a frivolous matter however it is the Mayor who holds public office, concoction of a lie and conspiring with others, in an attempt to cover it up and rewrite history that is a higher level offence that crosses the threshold to corrupt conduct. TRC and others have since had to invest financial and other resources into handling at least two complaints about this matter. The public conduct of Mayor Lee Long is offensive and frequent enough however it is the deliberate lies and attempted cover-ups that are a higher offence coupled with their repetitiveness, frequency and accumulative effects that bring this behaviour above the threshold to corrupt conduct by a public officer.

Confidential:- Summary of Matter and Precis of Evidence.

Page 1 of 5

REF :- “Tribunal’

Version Control:- #L1.

MATTER:- Perjury (Lies in oral evidence and statement) to Tribunal investigator re Proven Breach of Confidentiality.

DATE:- 20th Sept 2012 / 2013.

Timeframe/Duration:- One-off, over time, systemic & accumulative.

Belief that it is:- Corrupt Conduct through both abuse of public office and perverting the course of justice by Mayor Rosa Lee Long. (Crime and Corruption Act 2001 s15 and s16) And Purgery by lying to tribunal investigator. (…INSERT ref to Act and section for purgery in public office ???….)

List of Allegations:- 1. 20 SEPTEMBER 2012 Mayor Breached Confidentiality by providing confidential information to Mark Freeman via a telephone call at the

conclusion of TRC meeting 20 Sept 2012. 2. 21 SEPTEMBER Mayor Lee Long deliberately and knowingly mislead and deceived councillors & officers at internal meeting held at

Council officer 21 Sept 2012. 3. 4 OCTOBER 2012 Mayor Lee Long deliberately and knowingly mislead and deceived others including by trying to use Senior Officer as a

scapegoat at public Council Meeting in Mareeba. 4. 20 SEPT 2013/2013 Accessory/conspirator role of Cr Hodge by failing to report, failing to disclose his direct knowledge to CEO and

Tribunal. 5. 21 SEPT 2012/2013 Accessory/Conspirator role of Cr Stocker may be evident in his conduct at the following internal meeting defending

the mayor and attacking a fellow councillor. 6. 2012/2013 Mayor Lee Long deliberately and knowingly mislead & lied to the investigator in official interview for the Local Govt.

Disciplinary Tribunal.


Page 2 of 5

Perpetrator / Conspirator / Accessory / Enabler

(NOTE:- It is evidenced and /or understood based on the evidence available at the time of writing, that the following persons can be alleged to have been involved in this matter in the following ways.)

Perpetrator Mayor Rosa Lee Long Accessory/Conspirator/Enabler Cr Peter Hodge (Failed to report direct knowledge, conspirator / accessory) (Councillors Duty to Disclose) Accessory/Conspirator Cr Geoff Stocker (conspirator / accessory enabled & supported cover up) Enabler Tablelands Regional Council CEO Mr Ian Church (CEO’s Duty to Disclose Corrupt Conduct) Receiver (of confidential information) Mr Mark Freeman (MF)

Precis of evidence

1. Tribunal report. - Fact = Confirmed a breach of confidentiality had occurred. - Confirmed “the mayor admitted to making a phone call on the 20th Sept 2012 to Mark Freeman (MF) and

we were not advised of any other phone call made to MF from the phone records provided.” - Fact = The investigator only interviewed CEO, Complainant A and Mayor Lee Long. Therefore 1 of the 2

Complainants and the receiver (MF) of confidential information were not interviewed during the investigation process for the Tribunal.

2. Statutory Declaration (Person id D08) Dated 2nd October 2015

- “I have kept all records relating to matters arising following the TRC meeting of the 20 September 2012 in Atherton.”

- Meeting concluded 4:43pm - MF spammed email 6:45pm - Special meeting of councillors called and held on 21st Sept 2012 at Atherton Council offices. - Mayor was “very quiet and looked very nervous”. - “Cr Stocker turned to me in an aggressive manner.” “You can’t accuse the mayor of anything.” - “Next TRC meeting in Mareeba Mayor Lee Long made comments blaming the acting CEO and staff. I can

remember the mayors bullying comments to the acting CEO and staff present.” - Offensive letter received by only ‘opposing’ councillors by post.


Page 3 of 5

3. Complaint doc May 2014 (Person id D07) - “The CEO also advised us that the mayor had been interviewed, and it was found that she had contacted

the resident (MF) by telephone following the meeting. The telephone records showed that no other person at the meeting had telephoned the resident (MF). However, we were advised that the mayor gave a ‘plausible’ explanation for her phone call.”

- “Cr Hodge called an urgent meeting of Councillors to be held at the Atherton Office. He (Cr Hodge) said that he had overheard the Mayor calling a person after the meeting, and describing to that person the detailed events of the meeting. He (Cr Hodge) said he did not know who she had called.”

- “Cr Hodges observations were not passed onto the Tribunal.” - “It is admitted, and has been found by the Tribunal, that the only person who contacted the recipient of the

information was the mayor, and that Cr Hodge failed to advise the Tribunal of his knowledge of the mayors telephone call describing confidential information.”

Transcript/Audio of TRC CEO (2014) - “She got away with it.” - (“He’s the problem, Crisafulli”) “I’d say it has got his (Minister David Crisafulli’s) mark all over it, but I’d say

in terms of we are not going to upset the apple cart here, it was so obvious who did it and everyone knew.” - “It is always in the best interest of the public, doesn’t matter how long it takes”.

Transcript/Audio of TRC Senior Advisor Governance (August 2015) - “It (the tribunal report) was the absolutely unbelievably piss weak bullshit fucking piece of shit by the

tribunal, unbelievable.” - “there are people here who have a vested interest in it not being fixed, because if that was not the case

it would not be in this situation. And those people must be powerful people, I don’t know if it permeates the whole organisation, but, um, you want to fix an organisation where there is an agenda that does not want it fixed.”

- “If people acted properly and well like they should it wouldn’t matter, but if people wanna behave very badly it is very difficult to make them accountable, especially the councillors.

- “and Cambell Newman came in and changed all the laws and stuff to make it really easy because he was a bloody tyrannical bastard, who wanted to run things his way, and he set it up so they could. And he stuck a DG in there so that they could”.

TRC Situation Report (Public interest disclosure doc) page 28. “Comments on Rosa’s (mayor) leadership style”. “She self justifies all the time; has no introspection; is paranoid; leaks confidential information (there was a CJC investigation that proved her phone was used on a particular matter but nothing is going to be done about it.);”


Page 4 of 5

EVIDENCE currently held on file:- i. Determination Report (all 4 pages) of Local Govt. Remuneration and Discipline Tribunal DGC12/1119. ii. D08 Statutory Declaration. Oct 2015 including emails & MF letter. iii. D07 Complaint to TRC CEO of May 2014. iv. Transcript & Source Audio files (after the event) including but not limited to those quoted above from

TRC CEO and Senior Advisor Governance. (2014/2015) v. Transcript & Source Audio files (after the event) Deputy CEO/Acting CEO. NOTE:- Public Interest Disclosure Doc.

vi. (Public Interest Disclosure doc) TRC Situation Report October 2013 (only cover & page 28 on this evidence file, full doc in file REF:- ‘WILD’.)

Additional Witnesses for interview or subpoena.

1. Interview the receiver of the confidential information (MF). 2. Interview both complainants (only one was interviewed in 2013 by investigator for Tribunal).

3. Re-interview CEO. 4. Interview Deputy CEO & Senior Advisor of Governance. 5. Interview Cr Hodge to confirm evidence of the aspect of his “direct knowledge” – he heard the phone

conversation of the Mayor on the afternoon of 20th September. 6. Interview anyone named as being in attendance at the 20 Sept & 4 October 2012 TRC meeting and internal

meeting of 21st September 2012 including but not limited to TRC officers & staff. 7. Person D09 wants to be subpoenaed (or similar) due to current position and previous threats/defamatory

attacks. 8. Interview D07 to follow up on the details disclosed in the ‘complaint’ doc of May 2014. Remaining Investigation Points/Scope/resources.

A. Follow up the offensive & directly threatening letter sent by Mr Freeman to the ‘opposing’ councillors. i) The actions and correspondence of the Justice of the Peace Branch, Registrar Damien Mealey to Mr

Freeman (MF) and the police. (ref Stat Dec of D08). ii) The official complaint with police and the police visit to MF. (ref Stat Dec of D08)

B. Review record of interview of Mayor Lee Long with the tribunal investigator. The record of interview would have been signed off by the participants.

C. Obtain all emails and records from and between Councillors & Officers and MF. D. Obtain source survey/interview document relied on by consultant (id F04) in constructing doc “TRC Situation

Report 2013, page 28 makes reference to Mayor Breach of Confidentiality.)


Page 5 of 5

The 4 elements of

CORRUPT CONDUCT.





Mayor holds public office and lied in interview. Mayor tried to use a scape goat by falsely accusing deputy CEO in Public Meeting. Mislead council in general meeting. Withheld crucial information from Council in special meeting. Effect on Staff

- “ …” Senior officer Quote to be checked for word perfect prior to inserting in this section in #L* version.

Mislead investigator and therefore directly affected the Tribunal finding. Perverted the course of Justice. Scape goat officer was ‘damaged’ by the sudden accusations against him in a public council meeting in full view of the public gallery and colleagues. The further result of this act is that the perpetrator avoided discovery and punishment which has effectively encouraged such behaviour to continue.

- “because the leader has been encouraged” CEO.

The result was an otherwise unnecessary investigation and referral to the LG Tribunal. The Breach of confidentiality in itself was serious misconduct, however the corrupt conduct comes in the lies and cover up to avoid detection and punishment which unnecessarily wasted public resources of both TRC and DLG and the Tribunal.

The benefit to the Mayor was to escape discovery and punishment. The detriment includes a loss of both public and staff confidence in the relevant authorities (Dept of Local Govt, Director Generals Dept and the Local Govt Tribunal)

A breach of confidentiality on its own is a very serious matter. This matter meets the 4 elements for corrupt conduct. This is above the threshold for Corrupt Conduct through the abuse of public office and perverting the course of justice and because of the act of misleading and deceiving the investigator in an attempt to avoid discovery and punishment. This cover up of lying in interview constitutes an act of perjury in a signed statement and/or record of interview.


Page 1 of 6

REF:- ‘WILD’ Version:- #L1.

(Corporate Structure Ref:- 1. Office of CEO : Executive Projects & Councillors Governance.)

MATTER:- CEO & Mayor Deliberately Fail to Obey a Council Resolution (for 8 months), And ‘unlawful’ direction of the Mayor to CEO contravening an unanimous resolution, And Breach of Trust & confidentiality by CEO covered up by providing leaked restricted information to others that were not entitled to

receive it, And 8 months after the unanimous decision to bring the report to the next council meeting, a document amended by unknown persons was

presented to the Council meeting.

DATE:- 2013 - 2014

Timeframe/Duration:- One-off & systemic.

Belief that it is:- Corrupt Conduct because there was an initial breach of Trust and Confidentiality by an officer which was masked by a further Breach of Confidentiality by the same officer to more than one person and on more than one occasion. ( INSERT ref to Act & s. …..)

And Secondary serious misconduct and possibly corrupt conduct by deliberately disobeying a council resolution to benefit one person only and to the detriment of other persons and the organisation. ( INSERT ref to Act & s. …..)


Page 2 of 6

List of Allegations:- 1. 2013 CEO breached Trust and Confidentiality by knowingly and deliberately providing a then restricted report to Mayor Lee

Long (and other councillors) but not all councillors.

2. 2013 CEO breached confidentiality and showed favouritism by knowingly and deliberately providing the restricted report to other councillors in a different way and at a different time.

3. 2014 CEO deliberately and knowingly disobeyed the unanimous Council Resolution of 16 January 2014 by failing to and in fact refusing to comply with said resolution which was about a report that was already in existence at that date.

4. 2014 An amended and seriously sanitised report was eventually tabled for council and this action was almost consistent with the earlier resolution except it was done in confidential, with a report that was not in existence at the time of the resolution and the report was amended. The sanitation of the report by unnamed persons and the attempt to have it passed off as the original consultants report constitutes an act of misconduct and it is alleged that this is serious enough to be determined as corrupt conduct involving an element of fraud that was exposed during the dialogue at the ordinary council meeting.

January – September 2014 Mayor unlawful direction to CEO.

September 2014 Mayor & CEO (and others) being deliberately misleading and deceptive at Council meeting and in confidential.


Perpetrator CEO Ian Church Accessory/Conspirator Mayor Rosa Lee Long Accessory/Conspirator Cr Geoff Stocker & Cr Peter Hodge.


Page 3 of 6

Precis of evidence

1. TRC Situation Report October 2013. (Public interest Disclosure doc for CCC) This is the original consultants report provided to CEO Ian Church for contextual verification only. Ie. For checking things like acronyms and organisational language, not the content. This report was to be presented back to the councillors in a future workshop and was not intended by the consultant to be shared with anyone at all until she presented it in the context of a professional workshop. (Evidence base of this statement is held securely however not on Primary Evidence file at this time due to sensitivities of some individuals)

2. TRC Minutes 16 January 2014

- “ADHOC-3 COUNCILLOR’S INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT SESSION WORKSHOP” Cr Linwood requested that the report prepared as a result of the Councillor’s internal development workshop be presented to the next meeting of Council. Moved by Cr Linwood Seconded by Cr Pagani “THAT the report prepared as a result of the Councillor’s internal development workshop be included on the agenda for the next meeting of Council.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY”

3. TRC Agenda Thursday 04 September 2014

ITEM-13 Tablelands Regional Council – Situation Audit CONFIDENTIAL. The Resolution of 16 January 2014 set a specific timeframe for the report to “be included on the agenda for the next meeting of Council”. Contrary to the specific and agreed timeframe stipulated in the unanimous resolution on 16 January 2014, it was 15 meetings or 8 months later that a different report was eventually included on the agenda for a Council meeting.

NOTE:- Audio obtained & provided confidentially to CCC under Public Interest Disclosure.

4. Audio & Transcript TRC meeting 4 Sept 2014 including confidential. - “When there was a resolution moved in January of this year, for the report to be tabled that referred to a

report that was then in existence because the CEO confirmed that there was a report in existence.” - “This um report bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original. And there is a second report this is not

the same as the first report. None of them were labelled DRAFT. Not one.” - “Because we had a council resolution and myself and Cr Linwood prevailed upon the CEO quite strongly,

on many occasions to release the one, at that stage at January there was only one in existence, and the CEO didn’t release them to us because he said he had been directed by the mayor not to release it until the mayor had herself edited out of it.”


Page 4 of 6

- “So, in the circumstances where, ah, and it is not contested that the Mayor twice met with Ms wild, ah, and this is the result of that, it’s hugely concerning because each and every councillor talked about the mayors poor conduct and the mayors bullying. But the bully then gets to go to the report writer without the knowledge or consent of all of the persons who participated and prevail upon her to rewrite the report.”

- So, the point is it then reverts to this, ‘Councillors’ are poor leaders, ‘Councillors’ are dysfunctional amongst themselves. All of the problems which is the reason why we held those meetings about the mayor and her conduct. They are not here, they are gone.”

- “You saw the original draft, none of that has appeared in here, it has now been reversed to say that we are the poor leaders and we should do something about it. Well that is a 100% reversal from what was in that original report. And there should never have been a meeting with the mayor given those circumstances unless we were all involved in it. It should never have happened.”

- “Sorry, Problem here, there were comments about all of us so why do we only extract those critical of the mayor for secrecy, but we leave the others in.”

CEO “Whatever has been said to me and whatever pressure was applied to me, ah, it doesn’t matter. It is my responsibility, to comply with this resolution of council.”

Cr Pagani “It matters to me CEO. I, I know you are taking responsibility because you should not have accepted that direction. But I don’t hold you responsible. It was the mayor who directed you unlawfully.”

Mayor “He’s got nothing in writing.” Cr Pagani “oh give us a break, are you going, Mr CEO, would you truthfully stand up under oath and say you

didn’t say that,” CEO “No, I would not say that.” Cr Pagani “No, so don’t worry about whether it is on paper or not Mr CEO.” “she (the consultant) says, “those reports were for the purpose of discussion between you (CEO) and I (consultant)

only”. Why was the Mayor involved?” 5. Audio & Transcript:- Person ID B06

- “Ian told me directly that he breached trust in a huge way because he forwarded those notes (confidential) to some councillors.”

- “So He says, I fucked up, I breached her trust and she is a very damaged person now as a result of what I did.”

- “But I know she (the consultant) was directed, he (Ian Church) told me, to change her report.”


Page 5 of 6


a) TRC Situation Report October 2013. (Public interest Disclosure doc for CCC) b) TRC Minutes Thursday 16 January 2014. Page24. c) TRC Agenda Thursday 04 September 2014. Page 3. d) TRC Minutes Thursday 04 September 2014. Page 1 & 17. (Confidentially obtained & provided under Public interest Disclosure)

e) Audio & Transcript of TRC meeting 04 September 2014 ITEM-13. (Contains debate/discussion in both the confidential and public session of ITEM-13.)

f) Audio & Transcript of Person ID B06. Additional Witnesses for interview or subpoena.

1. Interview contracted consultant Mrs Shelley Evans Wild re 2012-2014. 2. Interview All Councillors of the de-amalgamated TRC.

3. Interview Deputy CEO Matthew Hyde & Ms Kate Eden. 4. If interviewed by investigator, Mayor Rosa Lee Long & CEO Mr Ian Church need to be handled with caution

and sufficient rigour to support prosecution of Official Misconduct and corrupt conduct should the opportunity present.

Remaining Investigation Points/Scope/resources.

a) All task/project files of Mrs Shelley Evans Wild have been sent to her solicitor for safe keeping. This occurred in 2014 following a heads-up from Deputy CEO Matt Hyde re defamation threats by a Councillor believed to be the Mayor, so Shelley Evans Wild contacted her solicitor for advice and all her files are in the safe keeping of her solicitor. She is happy to be interviewed etc. Contact details current and on file.

b) TRC Agenda 04 September 2014 contains CONFIDENTIAL report for ITEM 13 Tablelands Regional Council – Situation Audit at page 273. A copy of this CONFIDENTIAL report must be obtained for comparison to the report provided in the accompanying Evidence Primary File REF:- ‘WILD’.

Note – there is some differing perspectives around some minor details of who did what, and in what exact order; however it is believed that these minor variances are totally attributable to the ordinary variation between witnesses perspectives of the same events that happened over time and are not in any way a contradiction of the relevant facts of the matters.

Audio of Person ID F04 is held on file and currently pending completion of transcript. Obtain all 3 versions of the report referred to in TRC 4 Sept 2014 meeting (Ref audio).


Page 6 of 6


Criminal (Corrupt Conduct) or disciplinary Breach.




LEVEL OF OFFENCE

CEO Ian Church gave very sensitive & confidential initial report of consultant to some councillors and not others. After a unanimous resolution to bring the report to the next council meeting Cr Pagani & Cr Linwood had to fight for 8 months to see the document whereas other councillors had already been given it.

CEO window dressed or masked his deliberate breach of confidentiality (breached trust) by eventually giving 2 other councillors the opportunity to read the report in a room at the council however this action still did not give all councillors equitable access to the document. Some have it, some read it and some don’t see it at all until other councillors take it on themselves to make it an even playing field. Confidence of consultant in CEO professionalism is severely damaged. Waste of executive project resources because nothing was gained from the process once it was so deliberately and seriously compromised. A Councillor threatened to sue the consultant because they did not find the genuine content of the report to their personal liking.

DETRIMENT of initial confidentiality breach by CEO: – Councillors lost confidence in professionalism, confidentiality and impartiality of CEO Ian Church. Action:- Mayor directing CEO not to comply with Resolution & CEO refusing to and failing to comply with unanimous Council resolution. DETRIMENT – Considerable resources and influence applied in trying to get CEO to comply with unanimous resolution over many months. Relationship between councillors and CEO fractures deeply. BENEFIT – Report is amended by undisclosed person or persons to sanitise the content faithfully provided by the consultant. Benefit to Mayor of not disclosing her faults and therefore not acknowledging any potential for improvement and the leader of the Local Government.

CEO Breach of Confidentiality of very sensitive document is a serious disciplinary matter. The attempt to cover it up or mask the impact by later disclosing it to some other councillors is a secondary matter that may go over the threshold of corrupt conduct. However for certainly, amending the document and trying to pass it of as the consultants work is a fraudulent act coupled with the failure and refusal to comply with a council resolution. The systemic and accumulative nature of the behaviours in relation to this executive project and report is a breach of the public sector Ethics of Integrity & impartiality, Is not promoting public good, does not demonstrate a commitment to a system of government, and is void of accountability & transparency.

2015 LNP & Labor Party were informed, in various ways and to varying degrees, of the now systemic failure of TRC through various means.

Response = use the complaints process.

Complaints processes failed in 2014 and by May 2015 we ascertained that nothing had changed or improved to ensure procedural fairness.

So, we wrote about the Failure of the complaints processes in a Briefing Paper – Dated 16th May 2015 Titled “Our Local Government and the Failures of the Complaints Processes.” (attached) see page 14 for evidence of the Director Generals office staff being directed “Not to look under rocks”. In a nutshell:- The failure commences when all complaints are referred back to the Council CEO for preliminary assessment. This is the first critical failure point in the system because the CEO is hired and fired by the Council (and in this case, by the mayor and a voting bloc whom the complaints may be about). In addition The mayor can direct the CEO without having to put that direction in writing. This is void of impartiality and conflicts of interest, material personal interests are obvious.

BRIEFING PAPER : OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE FAILURES OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCESSES.

16th May 2015 Page 1 of 19

Briefing Paper

Our Local Government

and

The Failures of the Complaints Processes.

Tablelands Regional Council This briefing paper was prepared and provided in good faith and in the public interest and as a case study.

I

J

Counc:tkWINMOII UnwoodPtfl)nM.-....dTRC ...,_LltONI.N: l.Gllf lc.....,., fior 14#1f .............. otiooaeCt--o.oll'!Mionw lM<iOnelfrofflU."8M)•dlpuly_,...

Upset in the TRC

'' "Justice and right come a very poor

second to politics in a Rosa Lee

Long-led council," - Councillor

Shaaron Linwood



CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

MINISTERIAL POWERS

TRC PROFILE AMALGAMATION/DE-AMALGAMATION/POWERFUL MAYOR.

CASTING VOTE

MINDLESS OPPOSITION

THE FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCESSES OF 2013/2014.

2013 TRIBUNAL DETERMINATION

2014 COMPLAINTS FAILURES

DG’S & CMC REPORTS TO COMPLAINANTS.

THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL GOVT. CEO

STRATEGIC REFERENCE MATERIALS.

ATTACHMENT 1 17.04.2013 TRC/MAREEBA DE-AMALGAMATION – MUTUAL ELECTIONS.

ATTACHMENT 2 05/08/2014 MINISTERIAL BRIEFING NOTE #1.

ATTACHMENT 3 (A) COUNCILLOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST MAYOR FROM 20 NOV & 4TH DEC 2014.

(B) CEO ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINT FROM 20 NOV & 4TH DECEMBER 2014.

(C) SUBSEQUENT EMAILS COUNCILLOR (COMPLAINANT) AND CEO.

ATTACHMENT 4 2013 TRIBUNAL DETERMINATION.

ATTACHMENT 5 SHORTENED VERSION OF A 2014 CMC COMPLAINT.

ATTACHMENT 6 LOCAL MEDIA : CUTTINGS RELEVANT TO THIS BRIEFING PAPER.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Briefing paper is prepared in good faith to assist in bringing individuals up to speed with the reality of our Local Government and the failures of the complaints processes of 2013/2014. It aims to provide part of a comprehensive and objective rapid assessment tool of the TRC situation and outlook. In summary TRC, meaning the Councillors including the Mayor, are deeply divided and unsalvageable. The image on the front of this paper, taken from local media early in 2014 provides a perfect pictorial summary of the deep division and irreconcilable differences within our remaining Councillors. This paper further aims to provide a clear timely factual insight of what is happening in the TRC Local Government and the reasonable expectations of the future that are completely reliant on State Government intervention. The current uncertain and volatile operating environment underlines the need to review and refine some legislative arrangements that have allowed this situation (a) to begin and (b) to continue despite the best efforts of complainants and other professionals who have gone out on a limb in pursuit of justice for themselves and others.

Rapid evidence based briefings have been provided to some key stakeholders in the new Qld Govt. however it must be noted that to date (7 weeks) there has been little if any response and no additional uptake of briefings.

Since de-amalgamation the TRC situation has changed significantly for the worse and it was not sustainable or reputable to begin with. The Local Government has been facing a crisis for some time and it has proven impossible to get any relevant or meaningful intervention to suitably curtail, guide or correct the situation. There is no turnaround in sight. This Councillor group is unsalvageable. In the simplest terms we need serious intervention, it is available, we meet the trigger and need it now. TRC does not have the ability to provide the region with an effective, stable and solvent local government. The staff, those remaining beyond redundancy and physical or emotional illness due to the toxic culture, are doing their best in very trying circumstances. This briefing paper is a brief summary and a snapshot of some of the cache of evidence and investigations that have been assembled over 2 years. For reasons set out in this paper official complaints to-date have failed, not because the misconduct and offences are not serious or real but because of personal and political interference, cover ups and failures that continue make this community suffer at the hands of this Council (5 Councillors & Mayor Lee Long). In such circumstances, it is understandable why individuals feel so desperate that they may seek to take the law into their own hands. Such desperate actions would be an unfortunate and undesirable response to completely unnecessary and avoidable political and personal interference and cover-ups that cause ongoing harm to individuals and the community. In relation to both the 2013 tribunal determination and the 2014 complaints, very senior local and state government officers have stated to complainants that “this had Crisafulli’s mark all over it” and “he (the minister) just swept it under the carpet”. These are the type of views that very senior people



who worked in and around the complaints process need to have the opportunity to express through an enquiry or similar process so that they are heard and lessons can be learnt. The immediate priority is to stop the harm to individuals, staff and community that is being inflicted by a Powerful Mayor and a deeply divided and dysfunctional group of Councillors. 1. Our Local Govt. has seriously and continuously breached the local government principles

and is incapable of performing its responsibilities lawfully and in the public interest.

Deeply divided Unsalvageable Ruled by mindless opposition and an entrenched voting block reliant on the mayors

casting vote. “The budget is shot to shit” (Councillor delegated to Audit Committee). Councillors are embroiled in a culture of bullying, code of conduct and procedural

breaches and lack of objectivity in decision making. There is a culture of bullying and intimidation by some councillors against some

councillors and staff. Repeated breaches of the Councillor code of Conduct (or equivalent). Breaches of proper meeting procedures and the LG Act. Poor staff morale – “a toxic culture” (CEO) The interference of Councillors in operational and local law decisions. A culture of mindless objection and lack of objectivity and public interest in decision

making. A lack of proper financial and other planning for the future in the public interest. Council is dominated by a block of three and decision making is dominated by this

pack of 3 and the mayors casting vote. An atmosphere of shouting, aggressive behaviour, profanities, discriminatory or

defamatory remarks and threats by or on behalf of councillors or the mayor. Councillors feel there is no point in speaking out at meetings. Councillors directly influencing officers reports and recommendations. Councillors disregarding officers advice without minuting reasons for going against

officers recommendations. Additional costs and liability for damages through lack of diligence in decision

making. Serious and worsening financial position. Councillors in the minority group (the 3 without the mayors casting vote) are denied

information and given no warning of important matters to prevent them from preparing for debate.

Evidence some councillors make decisions based on motives other than public interest and upholding the laws of the local government and state.



2. The Complaints processes of 2013-2014 have failed.

This doesn’t mean the breaches, misconduct and offences are not real. There is not a simple belief of wrongdoing held by complainants. There are compilations of cogent evidence that has been offered to the DG’s office

in earlier complaints and this evidence has not been requested or reviewed by any level of the initial or subsequent assessment prior to the complaints being determined as ‘unsubstantiated’.

The complaints assessment process has failed despite the breaches and misconduct being very real, very serious and well evidenced including documentation and transcripted audio files.

The Director Generals office stated that they were directed “not to look under rocks” and therefore could not call on evidence that was offered but not actually provided with the complaint.

3. The harm to individuals, community and the region cannot be allowed to continue until the

next quadrennial election in March 2016. 4. The Local Government Minister has the reasonable grounds, powers and the tools to act.

5. This region urgently needs an administrator and advisory committee to stop the harm and

bring a short period of stability prior to the next election.

6. Waiting until the next quadrennial election is not meeting the Local Govt and the State Govt most fundamental duty of care and public interest test.



RECOMMENDATIONS

These initial recommendations are presented in two parts – urgent and in due course.

Urgent:-

AIM = STOP THE HARM.

1. Minister Local Govt. take all necessary steps to make a very rapid assessment that there are in fact more than ‘reasonable grounds’ to intervene. (A suspicion or belief is reasonable if it is reasonable in all the circumstances.) (see Ministerial Powers Section)

2. Give relevant notices with minimum timeframes to facilitate the dismissal of the Councillors including the Mayor.

3. Appoint administrator and advisory committee to serve until the 2016 Quadrennial election.

In due course:-

AIM = review, learn, amend and hold to account.

a) Amend Local Govt. Act/Regs to provide clear guidance on the ethical, prudent and limited use of the mayors casting vote.

b) Establish relevant review mechanism to capture the situation of TRC and the failures of complaints processes and State Govt. to date. For example, an enquiry.

c) Amend relevant legislative frameworks. d) Hold a limited moratorium on complaints so that original complainants can present

additional material without fear of committing an offence and financial penalty for making the same complaint twice.



INTRODUCTION

This information has been prepared as a primary tool to brief relevant individuals of the undeniable and shocking situation within our local government. It will establish that there are sufficient grounds to satisfy the requirement of ‘reasonable belief’ and demonstrate the failures of the formal Complaints process as experienced in this region during 2013 and 2014. The foundations that we base our expectations of both local and state government on are well grounded and based on detailed reviews of the relevant legislative frameworks coupled with attendance at almost every council meeting since late 2013. Having consistently attended so many council meetings, the contributors have solid appreciation for the working style and capacity of the individual councillors including the mayor and have over time built a very detailed cache of evidence of Inappropriate Conduct, Misconduct, Official Misconduct, Corrupt Conduct and Criminal Conduct.

We cannot impress strongly enough that the problems within our local government are both serious and real. There is however a considerable blockage, breakdown or interference within the relevant complaints management processes that are not letting the seriousness of the matter be reflected in complaints being sustained and offenders being held to account. Each of these aspects are explained in more detail throughout this briefing paper.

A small snapshot of local media can be found at ATTACHMENT 6. Our media files are reasonably complete and over time have become substantial despite the reluctance of local editors to print anything about the mayor for fear of threats. As an example, again during April 2015 the mayors partner/spouse confronted the editor of The Tablelander newspaper personally in the workplace in a very loud, hostile and threatening manner that was noted by all staff that were present. This is just one more demonstration of the calibre of some of the characters involved and the bullying, threats and intimidation that happens and is attempted not only within TRC but within the wider community. Because things are not reported in the papers it does not mean they are not serious and real. Journalists often witness the misconduct of councillors at council meetings yet they are prevented from reporting the events accurately due to the fear of and threat of reprisal.

MINISTERIAL POWERS

The Local Government Minister has the existing obligations, powers and the tools to act. The Local Government Act s123 contains very clear instruction on the ministers powers and relevant thresholds or onus of proof.

s123 Dissolving a local government (underline added for effect)

(1) (b) the Minister reasonably believes that a local government has seriously or continuously breached the local government principles; or

(c) the Minister reasonably believes that a local government is incapable of performing its responsibilities.

From a very rapid assessment of all the correspondence from this region to politicians from both ALP & LNP, complaints to the ombudsman, Director Generals office and CMC and local media, any



reasonable person would have reasonable belief that the Tablelands Regional Council as a Local Government has seriously and continuously breached the local government principles AND is incapable of performing its responsibilities due to deep division, toxic culture and financial position.

Noting that:- a suspicion or belief is reasonable if it is reasonable in all circumstances; and an act is only reasonable if it is reasonable in all the circumstances. Therefore, under the circumstances of amalgamation, de-amalgamation, deep division, dysfunction and misconduct it is indeed unreasonable for any Minister not to act and dismiss this council with the upmost haste.

TRC PROFILE: AMALGAMATION/DE-AMALGAMATION/POWERFUL MAYOR.

TRC was initially formed through the forced amalgamation of Herberton, Eacham, Atherton & Mareeba Shires.

The remaining TRC commenced on 1st January 2014 following de-amalgamation by Mareeba Shire.

TRC ratepayers & residents did not get a say in amalgamation or de-amalgamation.

The current six TRC councillors (including the mayor) are a mixed bag elected by the then amalgamated TRC. One councillor was appointed unopposed, one councillor was appointed following a competitive selection process in a division that had no nominations prior to the local govt. election close of nominations.

Mareeba voted to de-amalgamate and got a fresh councillor election during 2013.

TRC got what is locally referred to as the left over Council. At ATTACHMENT 1, there is a paper (17.04.2013 TRC/Mareeba De-amalgamation Mutual Elections) that explains in more detail about the situation during 2013 and the request that was made to then Minister Crisafulli for TRC to be granted a separation election at the same time as the ‘new’ Mareeba Shire. The minister went within a breath of granting this separation mechanism but decided he ‘did not want to open that can of worms’. As a result, the continuing TRC was denied an equal opportunity of success after the split because we have a dysfunctional group of councillors, under the leadership of a mayor whose styles and traits were acknowledged by the then minister as a key contributing factor in deciding to allow Mareeba to have a de-amalgamation vote in the first place.

During 2012 the Local Govt. Act/Reg’s were amended by the Newman Government. This included some apparent changes that have lead to what is referred to within the Local Govt. sector as ‘The Powerful Mayor Model’. There is some debate over the basis and head of power for the powerful mayor model however when leadership styles and personalities are involved, the result is certainly a case of a very dangerous, often out of control, Powerful Mayor. It is however very well understood that the then Minister Crisafulli always referred to ‘it’ specifically using the words “Powerful Mayor Model”. The basis of this Powerful Mayor Model is said to be seated squarely at the feet of the then Newman Govt.

The common reference point cited is s12(4)(d) of the Local Govt. Act. s12 (4) The mayor has the following extra responsibilities-



(d) directing the chief executive officer and senior executive employees, in accordance with the local governments policies;

To use an analogy – we have rules to limit ‘P’ Platers from driving V8 motor vehicles – in part because they are judged to be immature or inexperienced to handle that level of power. So too, some individuals, including mayors, simply cannot handle the additional powers of the Powerful Mayor Model.

Contributing further to the dangerous concoction of an individuals traits and power, the then Minister Crisafulli gives this mayor further spirited encouragement with words to the effect of ‘you have two votes and two years to do whatever you want’. (a reference to the mayors casting vote).

The reality at TRC now is that the casting vote is always used in the same block of three. (Mayor Lee Long, Stocker & Hodge) The casting vote has been used to pass minutes of the previous meeting even though Hodge & Stocker say they do not recall the part of the meeting in dispute. The casting vote was used 6 times in one meeting, always in the same block of three. This goes far beyond the reasonable tensions of competing views held by the elected representatives. A far more suitable description would be the mindless opposition to anything that comes from any one of the other 3 councillors. Through this mindless opposition the voting block of 3 using the casting vote have purely by chance got two significant decisions legally and technically right. The principles behind these two chance decisions were later completely dismissed by the same block of 3 including the mayor demonstrating a complete lack of consistency, disregard of officers advice and the overriding public interest. Observers in the public gallery are left in shock at the double standards that also go against the public interest using the same block of 3 councillors and the mayors casting vote.

There needs to be more stringent guidance on the interpretation and application of a mayors casting vote. There is plenty of good guidance material available on the use of this privilege. It must not be left to chance that any mayor would wield the responsibility of a casting vote, rightly or wrongly, simply to advance their own position. There are several highly respected and well-seasoned chairpersons who have observed a TRC council meeting and they are simply dismayed and disgusted at the mayors conduct and use of the casting vote to get her own way. The same voting block of 3 and the casting vote is a serious symptom of the dysfunctional conditions within TRC councillors.

The high levels of use of the casting vote, coupled with it always being in the same block of three councillors and on contentious issues is a clear symptom of the very deep divide between the councillors. The biggest casualty of this situation is the detriment to the fundamental principal of Public Interest. The remaining 6 councillors (including the mayor) of the continuing TRC are deeply divided to the point of serious dysfunction and frequent misconduct.

While everyone seems to know about the dysfunction and misconduct, to date no-one has acted. At a local and State level it does not matter whether this inaction is personally or politically motivated it does not mean there is not a serious problem that warrants serious intervention. Locally individual officers and staff are trying to survive the toxic culture and bullying. Politically, the Newman Govt through Minister Crisafulli had no political will to get involved and act despite being made fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. At ATTACHMENT 2 is a copy of a ministerial briefing sent to Minister Crisafulli 05/08/2015. There was absolutely no response from the then Minister to this candid briefing paper. There are very pointed quotes listed in this paper that demonstrate a further



snapshot of the seriousness of the situation and the pain that senior officers were suffering at that time.

The CEO has demonstrated the inability or unwillingness to assess and elevate complaints. One such example can be found at ATTACHMENT 3. Despite the CEO witnessing and commenting on the misconduct at the time it occurred, he later somehow determined the complaint was frivolous. This again rests in the interpretation and entrenched overreaching practice of s12(4)(d) of the mayor having the power to direct the CEO and other relevant Senior officers. It is interpreted and indeed practiced in TRC that the mayor hires and fires the CEO and holds this and the threat of performance reviews over the CEO. Mayor Lee Long and some Councillors interpretation and application of her ‘power’ to instruct the CEO and seniors officers has gone so far as instructing officers what their professional reports and recommendations to council must be. This was particularly common and forceful in the first half of 2014 and had serious physical and emotional health effect on some officers.

The background to complaints and the failure to date to get them assessed fairly and in the public interest are further explained later in this briefing paper. Just because a complaint is not sustained it does not mean the offence did not happen. It simply means that for whatever reason it has not been either presented with enough rigour to sustain prosecution or has not been assessed with enough rigour and integrity to go the distance through a complaint system. Despite professing independence, the complaints frameworks are not immune from the very real risk and temptation of political influence, direction or intervention.

The TRC financial situation on it’s own could be enough to trigger an administrator.

Cr Hodge, who is the delegated councillor on the Audit committee stated very clearly at the council meeting “The budget is shot to shit”. The CEO said there is perhaps better ways to express the situation although he certainly agrees with the sentiment. Any reasonable person understands a prudent local govt. budget however the financial position is constantly cited as a reason for diminished services, delays and failures. At a council meeting one General Manager stated “because of councils financial situation, we have had to cut dramatically. Construction, maintenance and infrastructure services has taken a large hit, we have lost about 45 staff, and we are now having to become very lean and mean.” Maintenance of the most basic ‘housekeeping’ nature has been cut so far that gutters of administration buildings were not cleaned prior to the wet-season and the archives, amongst other things, sustained significant water damage. The current ongoing dispute about de-amalgamation cash splits is currently posing a further serious impact on the financial standing of TRC. Staff levels and resourcing has been cut so far that just in the planning and environmental health sections, odour and environmental nuisance complaints are lost and not followed up and development offences are left unchecked including breaches of P&E court orders. All these factors are leading to increasing brazen lawlessness that is destroying innocent law abiding peoples lives and businesses. This group of councillors under the leadership of this mayor are deeply divided, unsalvageable and are causing loss and harm to this community and individuals.



CASTING VOTE

The Local Government Act gives a mayor a casting vote. This should be used with great caution and on rare occasions. The legislative framework must be clarified to prevent the misuse of the privilege of the casting vote.

TRC under Mayor Rosa Lee Long is a case in point of the blatant unconstrained misuse of the casting vote.

The datasets are available to evidence the use of the casting vote by Mayor Lee Long over and above any previous local mayor and indeed any mayor anywhere. The casting vote was used frequently prior to de-amalgamation when the councillors numbers were much greater and there was still some level of balance in a lot of the decisions making. Since de-amalgamation on 1st January 2014 the casting vote situation has become a serious misuse of power. Data supports the following statements:-

• The use of the casting vote increased 600% during 2014 on non-procedural matters. • The casting vote has been used to pass misleading and deceptive minutes. • The casting vote was used 6 times in one meeting in 2015. • The casting vote is ALWAYS used in the same voting block of Councillor Stocker, Hodge and

Lee Long.

Councillor Hodge & Councillor Stocker, in the essence of criminal law are “knowingly concerned”. Ie they are consciously and deliberately involved in committing, supporting or plotting an offence. The other three councillors (Marti, Linwood & Pagani) have stopped attending what used to be called the Mayors Monday Meeting, now held Tuesdays, because these three councillors were being pressured into untenable unethical positions by their presence and involvement at these ‘mayors meetings’. The initial aim of these meetings was councillor and officer briefings ahead of upcoming agenda items. The actual content and behaviour at these mayors meetings go way beyond briefings and lean heavily to the side of crime and corruption through the over reach of directing officers as to the content and outcome of their reports and recommendations. The block of three with the mayors casting vote actively conspire to influence the outcome of council decisions with complete brazen disregard for the officers professional opinions, public interest and the law.

In May 2015, the block of three councillors (Mayor Lee Long, Stocker and Hodge) voted down an amended councillor staff interaction policy. Based on comments of officers and other councillors this has been reviewed and it is clear that the councillors who opposed the amendments are acting to protect their current comfortable patch where they lack transparency and accountability.

This is evidenced in the recent and ongoing debacle over the Atherton Performing Arts building and the Tableland Investments development group. Councillors Hodge, Stocker and Mayor Lee Long have acted against council officers reports and recommendations, disregarded the councils own current policies and acted contrary to state policy. This will sound a bit cryptic because it is ongoing and involves official misconduct that is solidly evidenced and so serious that it is already a criminal matter and it will be reported as such.



If the amended councillor staff interaction policy was endorsed then this situation would have been avoidable. Overreaching councillors (including the Mayor) that deliberately and intentionally later blatantly mislead and deceive the council are committing an offence that is both contempt of public office and a criminal offence.

MINDLESS OPPOSITION

The block of three councillors, with the mayors casting vote, operate in mindless opposition to the other three councillors. Major contentious issues are pushed through with the casting vote to the complete abandonment of any genuine consideration of the public interest.

Councillor Stocker, the Deputy Mayor, has openly stated that he has in fact voted in the block without knowing our understanding what he was doing at the time. This was a very public demonstration of the block with the mayors casting vote behaving as a pack and in mindless opposition to the other three councillors, the CEO and officers reports and recommendations.

Put more simply, it is very normal for the block of three with the mayors casting vote to vote in opposition to anything they can that is raised or supported by Cr Marti, Linwood and Pagani.

There are unanimous decisions which is a demonstration that Cr Marti, Linwood and Pagani can and do act in the public interest and to the best of their respective abilities. They also vote in various configurations and are not in any way at risk of acting as a mindless block in opposition. However, it is almost a certainty that anything raised that would support the Divisions of Cr Linwood and Pagani the block of three with the casting vote will block it with complete disregard for the public interest.

This mindless opposition is well known and understood by the TRC council CEO and officers and it goes well beyond anything that could be reasonably explained as the tensions of competing views held by individual councillors. It far exceeds any party political alliances or voting blocks that may normally exist from time to time in any local government.

THE FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCESSES OF 2013/2014.

This section will explain the experiences of the 2013 and 2014 Complaints processes.

2013 TRIBUNAL DETERMINATION

An earlier complaint was referred to the Local Government Discipline and remuneration tribunal.

Tribunal determination is ATTACHMENT 4.

It makes interesting reading and highlights the perceived or real lack of rigour or independence of the Tribunal at that time.

The tribunals determination concludes that there was certainly a breach of confidentiality.



It further states that Mayor Lee Long and CEO Ian Church were interviewed. Apparently, from the available information and based on discussion with some of the parties, neither of them were interviewed under oath, no statements or affidavits were sworn. The recipient of the leaked confidential information was not interviewed despite posting the confidential material on social media. This is certainly not giving the impression of a rigorous process.

The tribunal confirmed there was a leak of confidential information but failed to pursue the matter in the public interest.

In fact the Tribunal determination report (Page 4) states that “given that over 10 months has passed since the allegation was made,.. the tribunal considered that it was not in the public interest to pursue the complaint any further.” It is always in the public interest. Even the TRC CEO stated that “it is always in the best interest of the public, it doesn’t matter how long it takes”.

The CEO further commented to the effect that “it had Crisafulli’s mark all over it” (the supposedly ‘independent’ tribunal had the then Minister Crisafulli’s mark all over it), “the minister was not going to upset the apple cart”, and “It was so obvious who did it” “we all know who did it”.

A deliberate breach of confidentiality is a very serious matter and the fact that the Mayor got away with this based on her explanation being “plausible” is a contributing factor in her and others ongoing and increased brazen misconduct and lawlessness. It doesn’t matter if her lie was ‘plausible’ it was a concocted cover up that deliberately and intentionally mislead the investigator and tribunal. An additional act of contempt that in itself must be pursued and pressed.

The public trust in a supposedly ‘independent’ disciplinary tribunal must be restored.

In addition, obtaining a copy of the Tribunal Determination has been difficult. The Tribunal Annual Report 2013 states that (page 6):- “The determinations that the Tribunal makes in relation to disciplinary matters are required to be published on the relevant Local Government website as they are concluded.” The Tablelands Regional Council has only published the first 2 pages of the determination on their website in March 2015 following a long drawn out process of members of the public demanding that it be posted on the website in line with the Tribunals own instructions. As one can see from the Attached Determination, it has 4 consecutively numbered pages but TRC has chosen to only make two pages available on their website and two years after they were obliged to do so. Why would any local govt put itself in such a situation in contradiction to the Tribunals instructions? It is an outward expression of the symptoms of the internal interpretation and practice of s12(4) of the Local Govt Act where the ‘directions’ given by the mayor has festered into bullying and other completely overreaching behaviours that are not in the public interest and raise further questions about inappropriate conduct, misconduct and official misconduct within the walls of the organisation that the public do not witness as openly as the misconduct displayed in public council meetings.



2014 COMPLAINTS FAILURES

During 2014 scores of formal complaints were made by numerous complainants who had witnessed the inappropriate conduct, misconduct and official misconduct displayed in open council meetings.

For reasons set out in this briefing paper these complaints were ‘unsustained’. It must be noted that this does not mean the complaints were not real or serious, it means they simply haven’t got through a system which at that time was personally and politically influenced and blocked.

Complaints made to the DG’s office are referred to the Local Govt. CEO for initial assessment. This is a requirement under the Local Government Act. While in principal this is not a bad thing in practice it creates a very difficult situation. The CEO is directed by the mayor. Section12(4) of the local government Act is also dealt with in more detail elsewhere in this paper. By interpretation and practice the mayor directs, hires and fires the CEO yet the CEO is the primary assessor of complaints about the mayor and councillors. In the toxic culture surrounding TRC the CEO is struggling to keep his job from day to day without the added pressure of assessing complaints against Mayor Lee Long and others who are the primary source of his stress and duress. At best there is a perceived conflict of interest and bias towards the mayor and councillors to the detriment of complainants, procedural fairness and public interest. The CEO’s complete failure in this regard is demonstrated in the Attached example relating to the 20 November and 4 December 2014 Complaints brought by a councillor against Mayor Rosa Lee Long.

At the beginning of the complaints process several complainants studied the guidance materials provided by the Local Govt. Dept. and had several phone conversations with the DG’s staff to clarify the correct way to make compelling evidence based complaints.

As it turns out, due to the legislative changes and culture of the Newman Government, the DG’s office stated that they were inundated by the massive increase in complaints. Further, they were instructed and indeed directed “not to look under rocks”. So even though hard evidence and audio files were offered in the written complaint materials, these were never requested or considered by the DG’s office nor the Local Govt. CEO. For the reasons stated above, the initial assessment by the CEO failed and it was only when the CEO went on leave and the deputy CEO acted with more independence and integrity that some elements were referred to the DG’s for assessment. The DG’s office then deemed those few matters to be unsubstantiated because of a lack of evidence and because they could not look under rocks. In all fairness – when and investigator is advised that audio recordings exist and are available and they fail to avail themselves of this evidence there is no wonder the complaint was unsubstantiated at that time. However, it is important to point out that the complaint was made in complete compliance with all the information available from the department and clarified through discussion with relevant officers from the DG’s office.

It is apparent that there was some other element or barriers at play in the assessment system above and beyond the CEO’s difficult position and perceived conflict of interest or bias against complainants. It needs to be examined and understood whether these additional barriers were personally or politically motivated or directed.



The eventual reports from both the DG’s office and the CMC/CCC were an embarrassment of mismatched statements and findings which further eroded any remaining hope or confidence in any of the complaints processes available at that time.

Complaints being unsubstantiated at that time needs to consider the fact that complaints were diminished through the primary assessment process by a conflicted CEO and any subsequent process within the DG’s department whether personally or politically motivated. Especially during this timeframe and under these circumstances, unsubstantiated complaints in no way means the accused is innocent, vindicated or that the misconduct or breaches are not real or able to be proven through cogent evidence.

ATTACHMENT 5 is a shortened example of the detailed formatting and information of several complaints. These complaints were only made after detailed reference to the relevant legislative and policy documents. These materials included the TRC Standing Orders (TRC website), TRC code of Conduct (TRC website), Conflicts of Interest (material, real/actual, perceived), The 5 principles of Local Government as defined in the Local Government Act, The 4 ethics principles (Public Sector Ethics Act 1994). These aspects are set out clearly in the attachment under the ‘methodology’ that was provided in the documentation submitted to the CMC/CCC by one complainant.

The breaches, which can be cogently evidenced, included the following type of offences:-

• Official Misconduct - Dishonesty or lack of impartiality; • A breach of the trust put in a person by virtue of their position; or • A misuse of officially obtained information. • Misuse of Power – pre-orchestrated and with malicious intent. • Breach of Standing Orders • Denial of Natural Justice • Bias/favouritism • Official Misconduct - Misleading & deceptive - Blatant lies. • Misuse of powers - casting vote to pass minutes to cover lies. • Serious Misconduct – filling higher office and receiving additional income while

knowing he is unable and unwilling to act and fill that role sufficiently. • Breach of code of conduct, ethics and Local Govt. principle (e). • Misappropriation of public funds – accepting benefits. • Accountability and transparency. • Accountability & Transparency - Not using public resources in an effective and

accountable way. • Misconduct – mayor acted outside her authority • Misleading & deceptive – fraudulent document • Breach of local Government Regulation. • No integrity or impartiality. • Unethical behaviour • Mayor committed an act of disorder (SO 4.18.9) • Breach of Local Govt. Principles • Lack of commitment to the system of government



• Beaches of SPA • Council acting outside the law including local laws, scheme, state laws. • Official Misconduct - a breach of the trust placed in the councillor by virtue of their

position • Not making decisions in the overall public interest – the overall public interest does

not prevail. • Lack of commitment to the system of government ie laws. • Lack of legal behaviour (LG Principles No5) • Code of conduct – lack of concern for the environment and EPBC reserve. • Non-compliance with applicable legislation, council policies and local laws. • Lacks accountability and transparency • Lacks integrity and impartiality • Lacks professionalism • Improper influence on decision making to obtain personal advantage or favours • Conflicts of interest • Do not value their duty to manage public resources effectively, efficiently and

economically. • Not equitable treatment / favouritism • Loss of public trust and confidence in Mayor and Councillors individually and

collectively. • Misuse of council resources • Agenda items not consistently identified. • Minutes not accurate and lack relevant & crucial details. • Over use ‘Confidential’ • Misuse ‘Confidential’ • Official Misconduct – dishonesty - filling higher office and receiving additional

income while knowing he is unable and unwilling to act and fill that role sufficiently.

• Official Misconduct – a breach of the trust put in a person by virtue of their position.

• Breach of code of conduct, ethics and Local Govt. principle (e). • Misappropriation of public funds – accepting benefits. • Accountability and transparency – unjust enrichment. • Accountability & Transparency - Not using public resources in an effective and

accountable way. • Breach of standing orders – to disguise underlying relationships, alliances & conflicts

of Interest. • Conflicts of interest. • Do not value their duty to manage public resources effectively, efficiently and

economically. • Not equitable treatment / favouritism. • Failure to Exercise proper diligence, care and attention. • Denial of natural justice. • Denial of procedural fairness.



Such conduct is now ‘normal’ to witness at open council meetings. The interpretation and application of the powerful mayor ‘directing’ the CEO and senior officers is now displayed more often than not in the behaviours, actions or omissions and culture or the whole organisation.

The personal inability or unwillingness of the CEO as the primary assessor of complaints to do his job impartially has in fact fuelled a monster. The political interference through direction and influence of the DG’s office complaints processing has seriously failed the community. Coupled together, the CEO and DG’s handling and assessment of complaints makes them complicit in the ongoing and increasing lawlessness and misconduct. The truth does not go away because it is ignored.

DG’S & CMC REPORTS TO COMPLAINANTS

Setting aside the handling of complaints and the findings themselves, the reports of findings to complainants, especially from the CMC/CCC were erroneous throughout.

The tables of findings that have been obtained and reviewed are an embarrassment because of the miss-matched details and complete lack of attention to detail. It is a demonstration of complete disarray and a process that lacks even basic quality control or customer service standards.

Most complainants have not received the findings summary/report at all and upon asking to be sent a copy have been directed to the RTI pathway which is often time consuming, ineffective and costly.

THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL GOVT. CEO

As cited earlier, the local govt act empowers the mayor to ‘direct’ the CEO and senior executive employees.

s12 (4) The mayor has the following extra responsibilities-

(d) directing the chief executive officer and senior executive employees, in accordance with the local governments policies;

So a complaint to the Local Govt DG’s office about the local council and especially the mayor is sent to the CEO for initial assessment. The mayor has the power, by interpretation and in practice, to direct the CEO to do nothing or as little as possible. In a totally dysfunctional council, such as this TRC council, the CEO is already under enormous pressure and acts to keep his job even if it is not in the public interest. This is evidenced in the simplest way in the example at ATTACHMENT 3.

Even if the initial assessment is outsourced by the CEO it is ultimately the CEO that must sign off on the assessment and is therefore open to direction and influence from the Mayor. The CEO, under duress, is also the person setting the scope of the external assessor if one is used to create the perception of independence.



Additionally, a deputy CEO and Senior Advisor of Governance are often involved in complaints handling. Both these individual positions are able to be, and have been, directed by the Mayor.

So in summary, setting aside any political will or influence from State or the LG DG’s office, a council with a troublesome or even criminal mayor is left with no independent umpire. A rotten mayor can get away with it, leaving the ratepayers, community and regional economy completely vulnerable. A region therefore is totally reliant on the State mechanisms actually working as a back stop where the CEO is personally unwilling or unable to act in the public interest. One must do more than simply be seen to do the right thing because over time the perpetrators get more bold, brazen and proficient in their misbehaviours.

Whether it is through interpretation or practice our council operates under the guise that the Mayor hires and fires the CEO. While this may not be single handedly possible it is effectively possible to execute such a manoeuvre when a voting block relying on the mayors casting vote acts mindlessly and recklessly on so many other occasions. In effect – the mayor through the inappropriate use of the casting vote and direction of CEO and officers has the ability to hire and fire the CEO. This creates the definite perceived bias on behalf of the CEO and other senior officers in making primary assessment of complaints. It further means that CEO’s and senior officers are not going to make public interest disclosures or become whistle blowers for fear of retribution.

In effect, a CEO of a deeply divided dysfunctional council with a powerful mayor will be party to hiding offences, even serious indictable offences, of others due to fear of retaliation and retribution. It is understood that reprisal and retribution in itself is an offence however given that no-one can suitably deal with the current offences it is highly unlikely that anyone would deal with acts of reprisal and retribution either. Therefore CEO’s and others settle for less, focus on survival and will not rock the boat no matter how bad the captain of the ship (the mayor) may be. Those in the know that are embedded in the system as employees bunker down until the next election. This has lead to the now toxic culture within TRC and it is having an intolerable impact on employees of all levels and departments. Even the CEO says that “the culture is f*****g toxic”.

Primary Contacts:-

Mrs Lyn O’Connor M0407736746 [email protected]

Mr Jason Ward M0418876930 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



STRATEGIC REFERENCE MATERIALS.

ATTACHMENT 1 17.04.2013 TRC/MAREEBA DE-AMALGAMATION – MUTUAL ELECTIONS.

ATTACHMENT 2 05/08/2014 MINISTERIAL BRIEFING NOTE #1.

ATTACHMENT 3 (A) COUNCILLOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST MAYOR FROM 20 NOV & 4TH DEC 2014.

(B) CEO ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINT FROM 20 NOV & 4TH DECEMBER 2014.

(C) SUBSEQUENT EMAILS COUNCILLOR (COMPLAINANT) AND CEO.

ATTACHMENT 4 2013 TRIBUNAL DETERMINATION.

ATTACHMENT 5 SHORTENED VERSION OF A 2014 CMC COMPLAINT.

ATTACHMENT 6 LOCAL MEDIA CUTTINGS RELEVANT TO THIS BRIEFING PAPER.

Authors & Contributors - DISCLAIMER & INDEMNITY The paper is prepared and provided in good faith and in the public interest. It is intended only to provide information which may be of interest to stakeholders in Local Government and the complaints management processes. Every care and attention has been taken in the preparation of this document to take an evidence based approach to statement, references, opinion, in drawing conclusions and making recommendations. The Authors and contributors accepts no responsibility for any error, omission, mis-statement or mis-description contained in the document. All and any persons should not rely on any material or information contained herein but should make such independent inquiries as they feel are necessary to satisfy themselves as to the validity or otherwise of any such information. Any views or opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily the views or opinions of the authors and should not be read, taken or interpreted as such. Any persons relying on this document or other material in this document agree upon reading and using the material to INDEMNIFY the authors against all claims and liabilities whatsoever which may arise directly or indirectly in connection with the publication of the material including without limitation claims or liabilities which may arise in relation to the infringement of copyright, trademarks or other intellectual property rights, defamation, libel, slander.

Dear Rob I am deeply concerned that the Cairns Regional Council (CRC) has not acted appropriately over the past term of this Council.

1. Bob Manning and the Unity team received campaign contributions totaling over $40,000 from the Ireland

Family and business. Since the election of this Mayor and his Unity team, purchases from the Ireland Automotive dealership have been substantial. Many purchases were over $200,000, were not tendered and were finalised under the buy local scheme and I am not aware of any disclosures of conflicts being made when Unity Councillors recommended, voted and approved these purchases.

2. Garden Friendly Mulchers (GFM) has been contracted for the substantial amount of works for CRC and no other local arborists appear to be given fair consideration or fair percentage distribution of the works. GFM were central to damaging the Heritage trees at the library, which was described by an EHP independent arborist as substandard works that were not to Australian Standards. The leading arborist in the country, Dr Greg Moore, supported these findings. The independent Arborist report and Dr Moore were highly critical of GFM’s work and yet the Council has increased the amount of works contracted to them to the detriment of all other level 5 arborists in the city. CRC Arborist stated during the trimming the cuts were too big and he refused to take any further part in works.

3. Cairns Regional Council breached the Nature Conservation Act are abusing privilege by contesting and attempting to delay court proceedings until after the next council election date. The council has delayed court proceeding by arguing they need 5 days, which the magistrate threw out and posted a 3-day trial for February. It is expected the CRC attorneys will continue to push to delay this case further so as to not have the outcome until after the election. The council refused to pay the fine, which would be detrimental to their credibility and are risking, unnecessarily, hundreds of thousands of dollars in ratepayer’s funds on a futile and invalid defense. This is a misappropriation of ratepayer funds and abuse of privilege with the sole intent of political gain for the Unity team council members in the upcoming election.

4. I refer you to March/April 2014 dispersal and destruction of Heritage trees and Cairns Library. CRC breached the NCA and Heritage Acts. CRC have continued a systematic harassment of Flying Foxes at the library after their previous plan was derailed due to their breaches. After being forced to keep the heritage tree, which they attempted to deliberately destroy, Council commenced works digging up concrete under the tree, which is a Flying Fox roost and drove the animals from the roost daily over the period of 2 weeks. They claimed they were acting under the Code of Practice low impact activity. Low Impact Activity is defined as weeding, mulching and minor trimming, not excavation of concrete with heave machinery. They are again facing an investigation by the EHP.

5. CRC Councillor Terry James has a substantial listing of conflict of interests and yet continued to Chair development planning committees involving developments where he had a conflict or was a party to the proposal and would only remove himself at the vote to the laughs of the Mayor and other Unity Team Councillors. Mayor Bob Manning has admitted on public radio 4CA that decisions by the Unity Team are made prior to public meetings when Cr James would be present and in fact chairing the meetings. Mayor Bob Manning goes on to add that when there was not a consensus he would commence a closed to public meeting so as to achieve consensus and Cr James would be present at these meetings. The conflicts of interest of a decision involving Cr James are not being removed, as Cr James leaving only at the time of the vote, that is predetermined during his presence at meetings he chaired and arrived at consensus in closed meetings should be investigated. http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-regional-councils-51-councillor-conflicts-of-interest/story-fnjpusyw-1226845627003

6. Staff cuts during the Local Government de-amalgamation a political selection? Many staff appeared to be selected for dismissal based on political bias. http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-regional-council-workers-told-move-or-resign-30-jobs-sent-to-port-douglas/story-fnjpusyw-1226751040985

7. NSW ICAC approached CRC for email correspondence that has mysteriously gone missing.

Noel Castley-Wright 0420302610

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-regional-councils-51-councillor-conflicts-of-interest/story-fnjpusyw-1226845627003

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-regional-councils-51-councillor-conflicts-of-interest/story-fnjpusyw-1226845627003

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-regional-council-workers-told-move-or-resign-30-jobs-sent-to-port-douglas/story-fnjpusyw-1226751040985

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-regional-council-workers-told-move-or-resign-30-jobs-sent-to-port-douglas/story-fnjpusyw-1226751040985

Cairns Regional Council (Undeclared Material Conflict) This is an example of Councillors accepting a campaign donation and then voting on a

Development Application before Council without declaring a conflict of interest at the time.

This failure to disclose a material conflict of interest when approving a development

application would be regarded by some as the height of impropriety and a breach worth

serious investigation.

To be of value in alerting other Councillors, staff and the public gallery, the declaration of

the conflict must be ‘contemporaneous’.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST/ MATERIAL PERSONAL INTEREST

Cr James declared that the Unity Team, comprising Cr Manning, Cr Schilling, Cr Bates, Cr O'Halloran, Cr Richardson, Cr Fennell and himself had a perceived conflict of interest in relation to Closed Clause 2 of the Planning and Economic Committee held 11 June 2014 - Potential Acquisition of Land for Sport and Recreation purpose. He apologised that this matter was not tabled at that meeting and wished to rectify the oversight. In accordance with Section 173 (7) of the Local Government Act, the relevant Councillors would have still remained regardless of the declaration to ensure a quorum.

Cr James declared that the Unity Team, comprising Cr Manning, Cr Schilling, Cr Bates, Cr O'Halloran, Cr Richardson, Cr Fennell and himself had a perceived conflict of interest in relation to Closed Clause 3 of the Planning and Economic Committee held 11 June 2014 - Potential Disposal of Land. He apologised that this matter was not tabled at that meeting and wished to rectify the oversight. In accordance with Section 173 (7) of the Local Government Act, the relevant Councillors would have still remained regardless of the declaration to ensure a quorum.

Cr James declared that the Unity Team, comprising Cr Manning, Cr Schilling , Cr Bates, Cr O'Halloran, Cr Richardson, Cr Fennell and himself had a perceived material personal interest in relation to Closed Session Clause 8 - Legal Matter Reconfiguring a Lot (2 lots into 185 lots plus park & balance) Superseded Planning Scheme - 796L Ramsey Drive and 795 & 795L McFarlane Drive, Kanimbla - Division 4. In accordance with Section 173 (7) of the Local Government Act, he proposed that the Unity Team Councillors remain so that a quorum could be retained.

Cr Bates declared that a perceived conflict of interest in Closed Session Item 1 -Contractual Matter - Mountain Bike World Cup 2015 could exist (as per Section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009), due to his membership of Cycling Queensland, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest.

REPORT ON TABLELANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS 01 OCTOBER 2015

INTRODUCTION:

The Agenda for the ordinary council meeting of the Tablelands Regional Council listed at Item 9 (under

the heading 'PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS") an amendment to the council's Standing Orders which sought to remove the right of councillors to raise any items of general business at a

council meeting, contrary to the right conferred upon councilors pursuant to s.277(7) of the Local

Government Regulations. The proposal was passed by an equal division of councillors, with the use of

the mayor's casting vote to force passage of the amendment. The chronology of events and legislative

provisions which are relevant, is as follows (and please note this meeting was recorded by aud io equipment):

1. The agenda item provided the executive summary "Proposed amendment to the Standing

Orders for Council Meetings to add provisions for Notice of Motion in lieu of General Business".

The officer (Kate Eden - who has no legal training) recommended "That Council adopt the

revised Standing Orders for Council Meetings". The internal consultation was with the CEO and

Deputy CEO, neither of whom have any legal training. No outside consultation was sought nor

received.

2. The Officer's Report was based on "removing the item "General Business" from the Standing

Orders, and providing flexibility by adding provisions for notices of motion". Clearly the

removal of general business and the requirement [for ten days notice) does not add flexibi lity,

a·nd prohibits any flexibility of any kind in the agenda, save for the absolute and ultimate power

in this regard to be exercised solely by the mayor (pursuant to her right to add an agenda item without notice by way of a mayoral minute).

3. The motion supported the remova l of the right to raise general business items from the current

Standing Orders of (4.4.2) which provides t hat" The Agenda may contain .. General Business

(including any other business Council permits to be included in the Agenda), and also the

removal of the provision in 4.6 (Business Confined to Agenda): the provision contained in 4.6.2

Matters considered by Council under General Business shall include any matter which may be dealt with by Council"

4. In place of the removed provisions, the motion sought to add "4. 7 NOTICE OF MOTION: A Notice

of Motion must be submitted in writing to the CEO ten (10)calendar days prior to the next Council ordinary meeting. The CEO will make every attempt to list the item on the agenda for

the next available Ordinary Council Meeting".

5. Order 4.7 remained under the heading MAYORAL MINUTE: The Mayor may move that a matter

be introduced to the Agenda for consideration at a meeting. This motion does not require to be

seconded but requires a majority vote".

-

6. The consequence of t he removal of the general business item and replacement by a

requi rement of ten days not ice (which itself does not guarantee it will be heard, as t hat is a

matter for the CEO's discretion) is to deprive all councillors, (save and except for the mayor),

t he right to add a business item, and in the case of t he mayor, t he absolute power is

strengthened by the lack of requirement for a seconder.

7. The underpinning statements in support of the motion as it appeared on the agenda were

deceptive, misleading, and deliberately wrong - stating legislative provisions in support, which

did not support the proposal, and fu rther, omitting from the stated legislative provisions, an

overriding contrary provision of the Regulations which preserve the right of counci lors to deal

with items arising after the agenda has been made available to councilors (Local Government

Regulation s.277(7).

8. In summary, the Agenda Item stated, as the "Statutory Basis" for t he amendment of t he

Standing Orders to deny councilors the right to raise matters in general business, the following

provisions: a. The Local Government Act 2009 Section 162(e) - this is wrong and misleading. This section

states that a councillor's office becomes vacant if the councillor is absent, without the local government's leave, from 2 or more consecutive ordinary meetings of the local government over at least 2 months .. It clearly has nothing to do with the amendment of standing orders

to exclude general business from an agenda.

b. The Local Government Regulation 2012 Section 276 - this is also wrong and misleading.

This section is headed Teleconferencing, and sets out the meaning of that term. It has

nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment of standing orders to deny counci lors the

right to raise matters in general business. c. The report further states that t he practice of allowing general business "does not align with

the principle established by the Local Government Regulation 2012 Section 277(5) which provides "A list of the items to be discussed at a meeting mentioned in subsection 3 must be available for inspection at the time the agenda for the meeting is made available to councillors". What the officer, t he CEO, the Deputy CEO and the mayor, failed to state,

either to the council ors or the public, is that that provision is subject to, and overridden by,

the following provision in S.277(7), which states: "Subsection (5) does not affect the right to

discuss or deal with, at any meeting, items arising after the agenda for the meeting is

made available to councilors". This omission was deliberately misleading, not only to

councilors, but to t he public, and clearly renders ineffective the reliance by the council on

S277(5) for it s act ions.

9. The anomalies in t he stated statutory bases, and the omission (and effect of the omission) of

section 277(7) were highlighted during the course of debate, and the CEO refused to read the

section (which was read out to him), and the mayor, crs. Hodge and Stocker, proceeded to

approve the offending amendment notwithstanding the clear provision of the Regulation,

allowing the mayor to force the amendment through with the use of her casting vote. The

amendment purports to deny a statutory right by removing that statutory right wit h the use of a

council standing order, forced through by the mayor's use of a cast ing vote.

It is submitted that this glaringly obvious curtailment of a statutory local government right by the use of a standing order, is contrary to the Local Government Acts, and is a decision pursuant to section 121 of

the Local Government Act, which ought be revoked as a matter of urgency.

Tablelands Regional Council

Situation Audit

U j October 2013

~

"'

8~ . I ri

t.!Jz(.t,

' \t- t -~ - -- - --- --~ '

Tablelands Regional Council Situation Audit I October 2013

Comments on Rosa's Leadership Style

Verbatim Comments

~~t

♦11;d in • "She self justifies all the time; has no introspection; is paranoid; leaks confidentia l information (there was a CJC

investigation that proved her phone was used on a particular matter but nothing is going to be done about it.); I don't actually think the Mayor is all that intel ligent (the light is on but no one is home); t he Mayor gets fixated on whatever gets her attrntion first; she overpromises to the community then tries to bully staff to deliver on the promise; she pathologically lies; sat for 3 t erms for One Nation; has had no boss and hasn't worked for c1 nyone for 12 years; never been on a bo.=ird let alone chaired one; 12 years on the back bench in State politics; she doesn't know how to be a Mayor; she is a nasty piece of work; c;he st;:ibs others in the back and can be vicious - even her own family have warned us; the Mayor can't have a spirited debate without animosity; she has no cause and rffecl awareness; no emotional intelligence; criticises and condemns others and does not 1mderstand the affect this has on the group; ;:ippears to have limited awareness of her behaviour although she S;:Jys she knows she bullies - but she continues to behave in a 'bullying' mr1nner; appears to have no conscious; she is like a robot - c;he has ;rn iron will ;=md keeps going on anyway - her way - despi te any feedback; I believe she has Asperger's Syndrome; she rec;ponds to no feedback; she publically cr1nes the other Councillors. The Mayor is very operr1linnal wants to be hands on all the time but we can't go to every pothole; Mayor docs not understand group dynamics; the Mayor ic; liked by the constituents because she promises everything - the vote is no longer going her way so know she wants who votes on what recorded so she ca n tell the community that it is everyone else's fault th ings are not going her way; she hr1s set herself up as the Knight in Shining Amour and fights against the other Councillors; the Mayor wants development but does not understand economic development; Southern Tablelands community 1hink the Mayor is a hero; the Mayor loves to create drama, hut can't see the drama she creates; she likes lo put the cat amongst the pigeonc; and she wants to be the 'good onr' even though she set the cat onto everyone; she prom,c,es the world but won't agree to putting the rates up (we are the lowest in Australir1) and she can't ,;ee thP link bP.twrcn progress ;:ind revPnuc"

Tablelands Regional Council Situation Audit I October 2013 28

- -IVI

By J ustin Fris

LAST Thursday morning's Tablelands Regional Council meeting saw arguably the most controversial use of Mayor Rosa Lee Long 's casting vote during her tenure.

TRC councillors Peter Hodge and Geoff Stocker sided with Mayor Lee Long in updating an amendment to the TRC's 'Standing Orders' - with Cr's Shaaron Linwood, Rod Marti and Marjorie Pagani voting against it.

Amongst several new changes, this decision now means that any councillor wishing to table a motion during 'General Business', can only do so I O or more days out from the meeting.

If the issue falls within the I O day period before the meeting, it will be forced to queue two or three weeks until the next meeting.

,he. ExF'Re:s.s 7T\\-Oq- ao \S

~r~.&c?cf-' -

e .re1 n The new ruling states: "A notice must be submitted in writing to

the CEO, ten ( 10) calendar days prior to the next Ordinary Council Meeting. The CEO will make every attempt to list the item on the agenda for the next available Council Ordinary Meeting."

This infuriated Cr Rod Marti, was denied an opportunity to move a motion of support for those impacted by a serious supennarket fire in Yungaburra, the same morning.

"So on the morning of the Yungaburra Foodworks fire, and after visiting the scene early with fire crews still fully engaged, I was refused the oppommity to report its devastating effects to Council's scheduled meeting," he said.

"With the doctoring of the ' Standing Orders', councillors now have to give 10 days notice of 'General Business' items.

" fhe four votes of the Mayor, Cr Stocker and Cr Hodge have put

brakes on representing community issues as they happen. 'General Business' at the TRC is dead and buried."

Additionally to the above ruling, the TRC Mayor is now allowed to move any item into the agenda for consideration - even without a seconder.

The 'Mayoral Minute' ruling reads: "The Mayor may move that a matter be introduced to the agenda for consideration at a meeting. This motion does not require to be seconded, but requires a majority vote.

Once the meeting concluded, concerned ratepayers voiced their concern outside about how wording within sections of the legislation allowed for considerable ambiguity.

CONTINUED PAGE 3

TRC changes 'Standing Orders' with casting vote FROM PAGE 1

The motion was initially moved by Cr Stocker and seconded by Cr Hodge. Cr Marti pulled no punches in his prompt, succinct, assessment.

''The opportunity for councillors to bring motions into 'General Business' is intrinsic of being a councillor - that is what we are here for," he said. .

1 "If councillors cannot bring up a matter in 'General Business' to a council meeting, we are dramatically compromising the functioning

\ of this Council. "This is really an abuse of power. "Where is the community benefit in doctoring the 'Standing Or

ders'? Cr Lmwood said she found it quite 'strange' that particular coun

cillors were always keen to workshop contentious issues - however

on this issue, their silence was deafening. Along with this, she added that the use of the mayoral casting

vote had been abused (used 29 times since April 28, 2012); and had 'not one iota' of faith in the TRC's leadership.

This approach raised the ire of Mayor Lee Long, who accidently referred to Cr Linwood as 'Cr Pagani' - while voicing her disapproval.

Cr Hodge said he had rung several other councils within the state and inquired about how they went about their handling of 'Gen_eral Busihess'.

He told the room that many councils adopted the conditions recommended in the report and describe the report recommendation as 'good governance' .

Cr Pagani soundly took Cr Hodge to task over his stance on the

ity on how it was being delivered. A Local Government Association of Queensland representative

was briefed by The Express in regard to the amendment ruling; and, after being presented with the report, con.finned that there was 'nothing out of order' nor illegal in nature with the tabled conditions.

Looks around the gallery appeared resigned - even before the vote - and they weren't left with a pleasant surprise upon their departure.

Malanda Chamber of Commerce. vice president Christine Doan offered sentiments which appear to be growing by the day on the southern Tablelands.

" We hate it when politicians vote themselves a raise," she said. "We should also hate it if politicians vote themselves rul~ that make

matter and questioned the legal-

it so they always win." PA Of D .. __ ,... ______ ... _________ -

rR.o..sc- ?Pu£..

riGeti1e0tal

~b . ~ us1ness toff the agenda David Anthony

AMID claims of a dictatorship and abuse of power, Tablelands Regional Council has voted to scrap general business as part of its standing orders.

The matter was placed on the agenda for last Thursday's meeting, taking cowicillors Shaaron Linwood, Rod Marti and Marjorie Pagani by surprise.

Senior offic:ers recommended notices of motion, with 10 days' notice before a general meeting, as an alternative yo give councillors and officers the opportunity to research and consider councillors' concerns and then place them on the agenda for the next meeting. Deputy Mayor Cr Geoff Stocker and Cr Peter Hodge moved and seconded the motion.

Cr Marti said the move "dramatically compromised the function of council".

"It is of great concern if

To comment on this stcwy: e editoriaka>

tablelandnewspapers.com.au l1tacebook.com/thetablelander

cowicillors cannot bring up issues without 10 days' notice," he said I

"This is intrinsic to being a I cowicillor. This is what we are here for."

He referred to the standing orders in relation to agenda items that said "Business not on the agenda or fairly arising from the agenda shall not be considered at any meeting un- 1

less permission for that pur- ' pose is given by council or at the discretion of the mayor at such meeting."

"This suggests we don't ' need cowicillors, only a ' mayor," Cr Marti said

"Just today (Thursday) · Foodworks in Yungaburra has been destroyed by fire and I wanted to move a motion today about it TOPAGE4

--4 C: m CJ')

~ 0

a m m :::0 9' N

9 V,

• ~ -~ 0 ,....,. ,, m (1)

0 :::, r+ :::T (t)

";} O" (t)

iii :::, a. l/l --

~ Al' Q

8 '1l:'

8 ~ ::r ~

iii a ii: Ill ::s CL ~ -,

@ ~ws Jp,.e,~V-,.lslbE.R. 6liol'dolS

Hodge supports meeting change FROMPAGE t

"But I can't," Cr Marti said. Where is the community benefit in doctoring standing orders like this.

"If Cr Hodge wants to run for mayor, I want him to explain the public benefit"

Cr Linwood said she was disappointed the matter had "suddenly appeared in the minutes" instead of being workshopped like previous matters.

"This paves the way for a dictatorship," she said.

Mayor Rosa Lee Long took exception to the comment and called on Cr Linwood to retract it, quoting the standing order that said: "No councillor shall make personal reflections on or impute improper motives to any other councillor."

Cr Linwood retracted the comment and reiterated Cr Marti's excuse that this change could be open to abuse.

"I would support this if l had more faith in those who put this forward," she said.

'We have seen the abuse of the casting vote in this council."

Cr Lee Long said standing orders required the mayor's

,, I would support this if I had more faith in those who put this forward. Cr Shaafon Linwood

use of the casting vote to break a deadlock.

"Explain to me the efficiencies if someone comes to me with an urgent issue, but I can't do anything about it until the next meeting," Cr Linwood said.

Cr Hodge said he contacted other councils and found many used notices of motion instead of general business, such as Rockhampton and Douglas.

"Meetings are conducted more professionally and councillors get along much better," he said.

"We are seen in the community as being dysfunctional.

"We aren't. l know many of us work hard in our divisions. This change will provide good governance."

Cr Llnwood scoffed at the comment

Cr Hodge: "We can allow for emergent issues to be ruscussed."

Cr Linwood: "Then why don't we workshop it?"

Cr Marjorie Pagani, who was beaming in via videoconferencing, said council would be breaking the law if it went ahead with scrapping general business.

She said it went against state laws that allowed councillors the right to discuss issues outside the agenda.

The chief executive officer, Ian Church, said flying minutes were used when urgent matters arose.

A flying minute is sent to all councillors for a vote in between meetings to expedite action on things such as grant funding deadlines and then endorsed at the next meeting.

Cr Mardi: "Weare on quicksand here. Th.is is not in the community interest."

Cr Stocker said he believed flying minutes and urgent requests as approved by council were "adequate in covering eventualities".

Crs Lee Long, Stocker and Hodge supported lhe change with Crs Linwood, Marti and Pagani against The motion was carried with the Mayor's casting vote ..

·-{~~?·~: J.!,1{?'.st~~:.\~v)~t:iy:"·l,-'t.,\ ;f'/~;;:) ;;:\ ·· ,,;--itJs: ··\ ·. · • . ·. ·.· ·} ··;·._ . <i'f :>f )j~~;~t:.£:{{~f~,:; <'.. :::\ ~fiJ{f?f:,r,;;:/'.': ··.\,·' ~··.=·\~ .;tf·?f~1:,~'l~Jf'."'-t~fti~~ •. t3tf;~~~1':fj :- 1 lJECDA'f,:U1l- •;28t2014•-:80 .. ,(Free,.onthe1T~a,~:d~I S~f~-:-.•i,~'.'.. :{,~i,, •;,Gl,;,,•..:/,·.,, . , . .... . ,. · _.y. ,:;, .• ~ •• \;.•,:-.·,+, h',•'.,'. .•c! ,:,.:1. ·~0T8~~ .. ,i: ~,.'tC.i,;:~Q: ., ,; .~;:: .. •'Ii!-' .. ,,. -~ ' ""'' _,.,~ .---'~--···'-·', , .. - , lllfl , , . . ···. ,· '·"' -'~ q,11• •. ->l~- .· ,a~:-1, '.c ·, ,--~;,.,t: ·,':,. .' •.,,, ,,· ·•:.' ,; ·: .• ~·-· •· .•. · ." ' :; .• ·.;·J.,.,. ~ ~ ,-r r-.~~ .. ~ ••. ,:•.•.;,;.:· 0:',>J.',Xl\·•N1.i<,,/·

,,:, w:J.:-()."',1'' ,;;.;:~f,~;'t~tisr-::~t\'J_;-.!,J~>'~~,.i~,:.1: :!}.~-•.>.t.~H::'q, .:., "f:•· .. :: · r~w· -t-,;..,f..';.~ , .. , , .... f ,:; .• ,_.,., v1 .-.~ • ;.,,;y-.,f,;,{a·.-<, ~· •~"""'-';t,/-1~ ,;,r.;,-,•'. ·,r ;:,1r~t.1.t.~~-;s,),i'd-:~'i·••:~i y>~,., ... ~~w~· i«-J•,_•,s:-.;:.-,;,:-t~, . ·.,• .J.1.~.'!~'>" 'l:~~".::-:•~·,~~;' i ~~{"'Rli:-~~.;fJ'Jllit~~~!

caltlln Pearson

THE Minister for Local Government has issued 1 "stern warning" to southern Tablelands coun:i1101·s to stop the "petty politics".

The Minister, David Crisafulli, met with fableJands Regional Councillors last Wedneslay on an unrelated matter, but was unable to

avoid the elephant in the room. Increasing numbers of ratepayers are attend

ing council meetings and writing letters to the e4itor of the Tablelander about infighting among elected members.

Outspoken division six councillor Marjorie Pagani has i:nade repeated claims Maybr_ Rosa Lee Long held secret meetings, mis4sed her

. ' .

,,-, ,·' .. , ,,#Yl'T':~~tt ~;;;; .... , ·•-. ••··--••-"• .. ~~--... ..).At.ll-••J}lt:.b ... '\1/~.<¥,:J, ......... _.,~-·.:l~~-....... 1: ...... .,.4,1,_

casting vote and governed poorly. Cr Lee Long refuted the claims and accused

Cr Pagani of causing trouble. . She ejected her fellow councillor from the

May .1 meeting for making "offensive comments".

But•after his meeting with councillors, Mr CrisafµJIJ:hopes ratepayers have seen the end of

the TRC infighting saga after telling them to "get your house in order". -

"I don't believe th·ere i~ an advancement for your region with the' petty politics of 'he sai<;l., she said' and 'I'm going totell·on·you'," he told the Tablelander on Wectn·esday. ·

CONTINUED PAGE 2

COMMUNITY REACTION TO COUNCIL SERVICE CUTS - PAGE 3 s{,~il:t~l!l-...: . :.-••~J'!i'Yf~:$..l{'t'l-'::;'t,'Tu'll"l'\(i(s.-:· ~· ·• ··, • i; - " - -.- · .. i~.,M·fil;JL~~,-J!l~~~&i'.ffl.~,~

TUESDAY MAY 20 2014 FACEB0OK.C0M/THET ABLELANDER

1

i Smarten up or go! FROMPAG£1

"They should have left that

11 in the schoolyard and that was

my message to them today. "I issued a pretty stem

_ · warning to both sides of the argument.

"When they debate things it needs to be by all means fiery debate, healthy debate.

"But it can't be about per-. sonalities. ~ "It's got to be about debat-: , ing things based on issues." ;: i If the elected members fail ~ i to stop the "rubbish", Mr CrisaC; l fulli could be forced to throw ·;: i out the entire council. ;· , "There are two reasons why . , I councils are sacked.

"One is if they are unable to meet their financial commitments and the second is if the council is unable to function.

'Tm not suggesting either in are the case.

"But councillors need to ! know their rights and their re

.e . sponsibilities and their responli . sibilities to govern for their it l community."

Mr Crisafulli defended the

Mayor's use of the casting vote, which is allowable in the Local Government Act.

He said councillors were able to "speak forcefully on behalf of their constituents" provided confidential infonnation remained confidential.

"Provided they are doing it in the interests of the community, I will defend their right to speak out," he said.

"But it's got to be debate about taking the community forward, not personality politics.

"When personality politics come intQ it, that's when councils become dysfunctional."

TRC has called for Mr Crisafulli to allocate an additionaJ councillor since de-amalgamation on January left them with an even number of elected members,

The Minister ruled out a sixth councillor before the 2016 elections.

At its ordinary meeting on Thursday, the council voted to make a submission requesting an additional councillor in 2016. •

The Wednesday, July 1, 201 5

Locally owned and proudly independent

2015 ATHERTON SHOW Gulb~ IN:~~:.~::s ; '1, •; .,.

30.24 percent rise by 2017/18 By Justin Fris

THE Tablelands Regional Council's firmncial projections indicate net rates and uti lity charges will rise by 30.24% over the next three years.

TRC Mayor Rosa Lee Long banded down the budget on June 18, with the 'one-off' de-amalgamation levy of $100 dominating ratepayer discussions around the water cooler.

Delving a little deeper however, there are several figures which make for interesting reading; and have a direct co-relation with 111crcased household charges.

TRC oflicc1s proJCCt the following tollll net rates and charg..: 111cr..:ases withm the next 1h1ce years: ( 12.17 per cent in 2015/16, 7.54 percent in 2016/17 and 1091 percent 1n 20l7/18).

Oncc varmu~ d1~c1•·m'.~ and rcm,s,ions arc rakcn 11110 ,1ccoun1.

these amended official net rates and charges figures for ratepayers are: (12.64 per cent in 2015/16, 7.01 per cent in 2016/17 and 10.59 per cent in 2017/18) which results in the 30.24 per cent rise over the next three years.

Although there was only a 'general' rate rise ofs1x percent this year. increases lo waste and water charges and the de-amalgamation levy ensure the total rate rise was actually 12.64 per cent overall.

If those pcrcenta~cs are then converted 11110 dollars, it roughly equates to each TRC ratepayer paying over $1000 in increases by 2017/1 8.

Both business stakeholders and ratepayers within the TRC jurisdiction have had an opporumily to nm their eyes under the hudgct ,rnd ofTcr their opinions.

TRC Cl,O Ian Church sarcl the quotable projections were 'conscrvauvc', and pnwrdes ~omc co111c,1 on the dccmon~ as follows

"The percentage increases quoted, parlicularly for the general rate, are included in the I O year forecast and are extremely conservative," he said.

" lt is my intent ion as CEO to drive further efficiency and cost savings through our 'Sustainabil ity Project' so that these increases do not have to be levied.

"ll is expected that there will need to be further increases i11 utility charges, (wate1, waste and sewerage) as these arc requirnd to be charged on the basis of full cost recovery; and we are not quite there yet.

"Council has adopted a 'Sustairrnbil ity Strategy' which will see us continue to review ope1.itio11s wllh a view to reducing costs as well as finding alternative ~011rccs of revenue where possible.

CONTINUED PAGE 3

•

TRC rateoa= Olerss react FROM PAGE 1 . .. • .••.. y ·- ...... ··· ·• .. ··--. . . ·······-·•- -· . ·<

,Percentage Change in Rates, levies and ; I 1

I ' I "Por example we are: charges i

• Opumising our purch~smg 10 ens~re re- !General rates I 6.00% ·1 15.00% -15.00%i

duc.O<~:~~;~~t~:l~ ~'ia:a:~l~a~::~~:~z~~:sand !~eparate rate_ .... - - _;'__.. ·•···· :·1oo~Q.9~il ·- -.. -199.00°&[ -- I 11npr?ving management of maintenance ex- !Water l 13. 00% ·1 5. 00% I 5. 00% I pcn.di~;;,ementing robust asset management ISewer~ge . . . .. ·:::~- .... · .. . g:q9.% . 5.00°~!' ·5.00%i

I Waste management Separate Rate : 36. 19% [ 15. 28% 5. 00% ! systems • Evaluating returns on assets • Reviewing capital expenditure and focus

ing on renewals

!Waste collection··-- .. - . .. . --··-· ·1 ·- .... - -o~ooo/of -·- --·- 0:00%· ... - 5:·oooio'i . . ··•·· - --- ---------- •-·· • - ,. ____ --· .. -- ·· . -· . - ·1

• Reviewing operational expenditure (ongoing)

!?l?_ec)al ~9t_~ _-_Rur~!. fi£~ .. - ---··· _______ . _ _I ___ -· .~J~o/.~.L _______ .Q-9.9~-- __ .9.:.9.9.o/.?.i jSpecial Charges - Malanda Sewerage connections I -10.01%1 0.19%i 0.20%!

• Evaluating when borrowing for asset purchases is appropriate

1Totalratesandutilitycha~~-re\€n-~e- .. ... ·. . ! 12.17% ( 7.54%: 10.91% 1Less. Discounts 1 6.00% I 15.00%1 15.00%

• Reviewing core business and service levels in some areas of operations

: • 4 •• ,.. ,, ~·• • • '°' _,., •• e •••"•••· • , f • •• ''" ··•• •r••· ,.., • I

'Less: Pensioner remissions ; 6.00%1 15.00%1 15.00%; 1Less: Other remissions . 6.00%i 15.00% [' 15.00%, " In the time s111cc de-amalgamation, we

have cut in excess of $4.Sm from expenditure and saved the bottom line.

1Net change in Ratei] ev.ies an~ cha~e~ 12.~%j _ _ _ 7.01%1 10.59%\ "This has been achieved by reducing staff

costs and reducing expenditure in a number of areas of operations including GIS, Rcvegetation, water nnd waste and other operational areas. This has contributed lo the 2014/ IS

turnaround." Several local ratepayers have had time to digest the budget, with

the overwhelming majority unhappy with the projections. Kairi-based grazier Louise Pensini said increasing costs ;ind

rates played a major role in how her family budgets certain elements of the business.

"We have to budget anything that we grow," she said. "I've never known it to be as tough as ii is now.

"Sometimes it appears that some on the co11nc1I don't re.il,sc how much fanning mellns 10 the Tablelands."

Mrs Pcnsmi also felt the 'one-off' de-amalgamation levy of $100 could have been lmlved; and spread arou1icl a little more.

She said her fami ly wi 11 receive al least 12 rntes notices due to the ~,zc of thei r forming bu~mc,,

Topaz-ba,t.:d ratqrnycr Ian Bean disagreed wrlh the 1111pk1111.:11-1a1 mn of the onc-110 de-a•nalgarnation le\ y.

Add111u11all). he added th,11 tht' ra1c 11se~ \\<'1tld lw c1-pn1.1llv hartl on rc,1tkr1t, wi th l111111cd 1111·omcs. whi<:h 111~ l1u.kd pcn~" •11,·1, .

/· lal:rn-h-h~,r .I : .. I'-'"· , c·• I , r C 1·1 """" , I , , t , 1111 .,, \''"'"''' 1 Rt :11\•\' l 11\C Ill ,n,y h L 11~•,,l .. , lr.,•.1t1l·•,Jiq , 1, ihl' .,11,, ·• 'to

I\, ... J ~ i ,,

"The Mllyor said in her public address in August 2012 that Mareeba would have to pay for all of the de-amalgamation costs.

"Well, congratulations lo Marceba for de-amalgamation and getting a whole swag of new councillors who work together; MSC Mayor Torn Gilmore is a leader with an attitude of being the first among equals.

"(The) TRC is still suffering under the leadership style of Mayor Rosa Lee Long and nothing will i mprovc while she wields the casting vote; always in a 'gang', relying on Stocker and Hodge to support her every whim."

Trevor Sorenson - who is an active member of the TRC region across a multitude of community organisations - also offered hrs view on the oycrall rate rise situation.

"The rate hikes are very concerning as a ratepayer, given the Southern Tablelands is t.ik ing a bigger lut through de-amalgamation," he said.

"But even rno1 e conccnung. I\ the fact the 1 RC llre pu,hmit the general ni tc rise of(, pc1cent publ,cally: hu1 w11h the levy and ,1cld1ll()n:1I :idd ons. the real lig111c 1s 12.M per cent

"Why aren't the can.I~ bcmg put on tl:c tahlc 111 puhltc, 111 tcnns nf the iota I (r:rtt· 1 I'<:) ·1

11:t 1p1c,11011 I p,,~,·. 11~1 •~ ,,n lh 'II'' 111 111:,ny :1,11_1,, the , .. ,;tlt,·111 l.1l1kl:ind., , \\ h1 1, 11 ,, hl'r, ,1, h.1d 1,,1 ,k1111h· ral1c , ,tc ,11 ,I, ,1111:11t!:1m:.11 ,,, tit •1 •. h 1"~1! ~1 h1,t ,\ q • h. ,·\ ,,P.d ; \\~(Td

"It's also not good enough for the TRC lo lay off staff and services; and still s lug ratepayers with additional hikes and the levy.

" It is only adding more hurt, as 58 people have been removed from their jobs."

Mr Sorenson added that the TRC should take a greater look at how funds can be used more eflieiently; citing two examples of where money has or is being wasted.

The first, being the purchase of the Atherton Cemrelink building for $ 1.3 million, which proved to be a less than fruitful purchase upon de-amalgamation.

Secondly, the TRC is currently headed to the courts, to contest the de-amalgamation cash-spilt mling.

This prnccss could take up to l8 months 10 be resolved; anti even then, there is no certainty that the Council will be better off.

Mr Sorenson solution to the TRC's plight ,~ for the Pa_laszczuk Uovernrncnt to install an admin istrator in a dual-baseJ role.

"The administrator should be brought in to address the current lina11cial issues facing the TRC until at least 1h~ next elcct1<1n," hi! S,lld

"They Cltllld also ;1,,1st with •Ill 1111g \ lltl tit,· ll'l'" ten by dc;1111,tlga,nat ,on "

The above grnph shows a complete breakdown of the TRC's rntcs proJoclions within 11,,.. next three y oors.

(tm:iqPSu ppt,ed)

• rise By Justin Fris

~ E.'<~~ dll · Ob·ol)(S Fe.\

1 HE 20 I 5120 I 6 Tablelands Regional Council budget ,1. c:, eventually passed last Thursday morning; albeit by \layor Rosa Lee Long's casting vote.

~ayor Lee Long's budget received support from Cr's c ,eoff Stocker and Peter Hodge - while Cr's Shaaroo L mwood. Ma!Jone Pagani aod Rod Marti opposed it

TRC ratepayers will see a general rate increase of 6 oc:r cent, which lnd1viduatly, equates to $1.70 per week .

..\long -.v1tb tbis - and a point of conteorioo amongst !bo~e opposed to tbe budget - is the one-off S!OO deJmalgamation levy, which will be payed by every prop<!rty ov,;ncr within the shire.

In a sparsely populated gallery compared to recent w~eks, Mayor Lee Long addressed the room with her budget speech, which was as follows:

"I present today tbe 20 I 5-20 I 6 budget for the Tablelands Reg10oal Council," she said.

"This $59 million budget is a reflection of the tough nnancial condition our region is facing since de-amalJamanon It provides a sustainable jouroey to a surplus budget w1rhm as short a time-frame as possible, and sets a strong foundation for our long-term financial plan de~pne significant hurdles which we need to overcome.

''Like all local governments throughout Australia, we ~1 <' facing challenges due to the freezing of financial as,1,tance grants. increased electricity and msuraoce costs, P1ainta10ing and renewing aging infrastructure and the ,.:d11ct1on m fuodmg streams. This Council has suffered ,1gmfican1 blows through the State Govemmenc enforced :imalgamation and subsequent de-amalgamation of our lncal government area. Costs to Tablelands Regional CoUJJcil bave \:feen significantly higher than estimated pnor 10 de-amalgamation.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 5

oe-amalga:mation levy added FROM PAGE 1

"This leaves our Co~cil with even less cash than annc1patcd, which will constrain Counci~'s ability ~o fund furure capital works. A de-amalgamation levy ,;i,ill help alleviate this risk.

·This budget is a responsible approach to meeting our core business deliverables whilst tightening our spendmg and planning for more prosperous times ahead. It _includes an average general rate rise of 6 per cent, which equates to approximately $1 . 70 a week for most ratepayers. and a de-amalgamation levy of $100 per ra_teable

property. · As we look to the future, Council must strive to op

erate more efficiently and seek additional sources of income to lessep the burden on ratepa~ers-

·'Utility charges are based on movmg towards full cost recovery for providing these services. Sewerage charges will increase by 9 per cent, which is an average annual wcrease of$59.50 per household. Water access charges will 10crease by $70.20 and water consumption charges will remain at the same cost per kilolitre as applied in "'014/2015.

''Overall, the water access charges aod water con,;umption cbarg~ will increase by approximately 13%. 1 he waste collection utility charge will remain at $277 .20 per service. however the waste management levy will increase by $55.85 to $211.20. Overall, the waste collec-1wn utility charge and the waste management levy will mcrea~e by approximately 15 per cent.

·'Despite operational cost savings and reducing exn.:nditure on new infrastructure, this budget is based on ::i projected operating deficit of $720,000. Howewr we expect to achieve a surplus budget in 2016/17, which will pro"ide sufficient cash reserves for a strong long-term

www.theexpressnewspaper.com.au

financial position. "We will continue to offer pensioner discounts of 30

per cent to a maximum of $240 per year and concessions to not-for-proAt organisations at the levels provided in 2014-15.

"A I 0 per cent discount on the general rate, where payment is made in full within the 30 day discount period, is available. Arrangements can be made to make periodic rate payments. .

"Ensuring ow- region can support growth without eroding our environmental, economic and social values, whilst still meeting our financial constraints, will be an ongoing challenge.

"Highlights i.n this 201S- 16 budget include - $10.2 million in road network projects, $2.2 million in waste projects including land.fill rebabilitatioJ works, $2.8 million in sewerage projects, $1.2 million w water projects', $0.9 million in community projects including libraries aDd $2.2 million in fleet including new garl>age trucks.

"New borrowings of $800,000 will fund waste recycling io.frastrucrure and partially fund the upgrade of the Tinaroo Sewerage Treatment Plant, with the balance of funds secured through State Government grants.

"Our·voluoteer based groups provide the foUDdations for grass-roots activities within our communities. We will continue to support community groups, events and athletes through our TRC Grants program with $80,000 available in this budget and a further $40,000 to assist community events."

After the speech, Mayor Lee Long stressed the significance of the de-amalgamation fee being a 'one-off' occurrence; and was committed to help the TRC's financial situation improve. Ratepayers will utimately have the final say on their overall opinion of the annotmcement

P~S.

Cr Geoff Stocker, Cr Peter Hodge, Mayor Rosa l ee Long, Cr Marjorie Pagani, Cr Rod Marti and Cr Shaaron Linwood after the budget meeting.

Mixed reactions ~e. ~ ~e..s.s

By Justin Fris ""I rJ _ ~ ~ ot\ ·uo• otO\..:>

p~ 5 • "lf we add the rate increase to the levy, in real terms, Council is delivering a more than 12 per cent increase in charges to ratepayers. r Kl couucillors had mixed reactions of last

n,ursda) morniog's budget, which was hand•d dnwn by Mayor Rosa Lee Long.

\ tier presenting her budget speech lo the · •nm. councillors were each given an opportU-111\" •o respond and indicate their voting pref-

Cr Maqone Paga.pi said: "I would like to , , ingrarulate the offieeIS, as always, for putting th1~ report together as they always do an amaz

mg JOb. "I. in most aspecis, support the work they

1,J, ~ c.Jooe in the budget; bnt 1 don' t support ho:: budgcr. I don 't support reduction, the dis

,,1 ,,ponionate reduction, of oeeds and services ",tbm tbese srnall towns.

.. t\nd I certamly can't support a tax on ratepayer~ of$100 for a de-amalgamation levy. It's 1 cax disguised as something else."

Cr Rod Marti said: "In my three years oo l ounc,l, I've always supported the budget It's r;p.1ably the most important decisioo we're

, cquu-ed to make annually • it underpins all , ,mnc,I operarions and ultimately sustainahil-l\

··So afte, much deliberation on this one, I ha,<. no choice but to vote against it Toe ,, ,L,on is simple. The problem for Council is

dmmg revenue. and the problem with this :ti~et 1s the use of a levy in response to rev

.Luc. The budget proposes a rate increase of 6 f'<-'1" cent plus a SI 00 levy.

"A 12 per cent increase is an enormous hit for ratepayeIS, which, because of its levy component, fails to adequately address the issue of declining revenue.

"Toe levy component of the increase completely misses the target. The choice of a oneoff levy is not a plan fur financial sustainability. A de-amalgamation levy is not a financial plan; and, what's more, de-amalgamation is not actually the problem.

"We can achieve a much better outcome for Council's financial sustainability with a lot less pain for ratepayers."'

In an adclitional writteo statement, Cr Marti added: 'This Council is notJooking to the future, this budget digs a deeper hole for a new and inexperienced councilt be said.

"The budget doesn't effectively address the structural issue of declining revenue, the levy completely misses the made. A levy is a one-off solution for a shor1 term problem; instead of going for the callipers, we opted for the ham-me.."'

"It's time the TRC moved on from de-amalgamation; ratepayers have moved on and the idea that we're oow paying de-amalgarnatioo costs 18 months after the event is nonsense."

Cr Sbaaron Linwood said: "In all consciousness, I am unable to support the proposed increases of rates and charges, especially the de-amalgamation levy.

"The other reason l cannot support this budget, is due to the reduction (58 jobs were culled recently) of the TRC workforce," she added.

"This decision bas bad a considerable effect on constituents within my area."

Cr Geoff Stocker said: "Tite blunt reality is, a little bit more belt tighteoiog may be a bit more apprppriate.

"Despite all this, I see aQ reason for gloom. I believe the efficiencies and revenues needed to be raised, services required to be maintained., and critical road oetworks can and should ultimately come from funber economic development

"Tb.is (budget proposals) will increase revenue, jobs, help families and help new businesses within the TRC."

Cr Stocker also commended Mayor Lee Long on her budget and believed she chose the best alternative.

Cr Peter Hodge said be would support Mayor Lee Lang's budget; highlighting that some short-term pain could improve the overall fi. nancial position in coming years.

TRC CEO Ian Church said council bad worked bard to generate sa'Vings across all operations; in a bid to improve overall efficiency.

"Despite a foiecasted deficit of $1.5 million ill 2014/201 5, we have been able to turn this arouod to deliver an operating surplus of SI. 7 million through operational saving and attraction of adcµtional external funding," he said.

~l il \ l Ii I I

I . , ~t ~ !,1

~ ~ i~ i • i

i~ : ~1 I ..

-· '. : I

i

I =

FACEBOOK.COM/THET ABLELANDER ·1 u1;~ll!,'i lUNE 2-:J :lOh ,.·~9 ,l _j;I •

news

Budget .t.o h,it hip pocket Katherine Kokkonen

PROPERTY owners will feel the brunt of council de-amalgamation in their hip pocket, followiµg the adoption of Ta_b\elands Regional Council's budget for 2015-16.

R,atepayers will face an av• erage general rate rise of 6 per cent as well as a $100 de-amalgamation levy per property. ·

Councillors were split in their support for the de-amalgamation levy, with Cr Shaaro.n Linwood, <:r Marjorie Pagani and Cr Rod Marti voicing their concerns at the budget meeting, on Thursday.

The budget was passed with the votes ef CP Geoff Stocker, Cr Peter Hodg~. Mayor Rosa Lee Long and her casting vote.

Councillor Lee Long said the $59 million budget. was a reflection of the tough financial conditions the region had faced sine~ de-amalgamation.

She said the cash split dispute with Mareeba Shire Council could leave Tablelands Regional Council with less cash and constrain council's ability to fund capital works.

"A de•amalgamalion levy would help alleviate this risk,"

Cr Lee Long said. She said local governments

faced challenges due to the freezing of financial assistance grants, Increased electricity and insurance costs, maintainIng and renewing ageing infrastructure and the reduction in funding streams.

She said the budget was a responsible approach to meeting council's core business while tightening spending and planning for the future.

Cr Pagani said while she st1pported the work of council officers on the budget, she did not support the reduction of funding for services in small towns nor the levy.

"I certainly can't sup.port a tax on rate payers of$100 for a de-amalgamation levy," she said.

Cr Pagani questioned the fairness of the levy, which would apply to all properties

. regardless of their value. "The proper way to do this

is on a rates basis and then the fairness aspect can show through," she said.

"To charge a tax and call it a de-amalgamation levy is in my view not fair or just."

Cr Stocker said the budget included many difficult deci-

A ...-t., ..... ♦ :,."" •-.,.. ..., ♦

sions that needed to be made due to·· problems council did not create.

He said the "blunt reality" was that while more belt tight-

. ening might be appropriate, In the long-term council could not solve their problems by continuing to raise rates and reduce services.

Despite Cr Stocker's appraisal of the situation, he was optimistic about the future.

He said work on critical road networks would increase revenues and briog in jobs, families and new businesses.

Cr Marti said he had always supported the budget in his three years as a <,:ouncillor, ~ut 'he fell he had to vote agalnst the2015-l6 budget.

"The reason is simple," he said.

"The problem for council is declining revenue and the problem with this budget is the use'of a levy in .response to revenue."

Cr Marti said the rate in• crease of six per cent and a $100 levy would in real terms mean counc.il would deliver a more than 12 per cent increase in charges to ratepayers.

"A 12 per cent increase is an enormous hit for ratepayers

~ ~ ·r !lft.:l.':,1£<t:.~•••· ' ~· I •;-. ·---..,__ ____ '...,..~ , , ·•:,'.Jr ·-- . • ··- -· ·······....,~~ ~fflr,.ir.:c:·· ----r,,,.: --- ·, · · . l - ··~·~ - ·--- . . . ' ·••,-· .. -~~---· -·-·•-····--·· .. ., ,, . .._ - . . ·----· -~ = . .. . ... ~,--... ;\"•'~ -.,i..,......,.,, ...... ...

, · . • , .-,, ..... - .~~---: " ~ ..::.:.-:::::,. • ..:...~-:::_-~ • • - ... _ ~ ..... 1\•1..'. ,,....__..._~

~ ,. ..

Tablelands Regional Council adopted Its 2015·16 budget on Thursday. But counclllors were divided on the de-amalgamation levy with Geoff Stocker, Peter Hodge and Mayor Rosa Lee Long on one side and Marjorie Pagani, Rod Marti and Shaaron Linwood on the other. Picture: Supplied

which, because of its levy component, fails to adequately address the 'issue of declining revenue," he said.

Cr Marti said a one-off levy was not a plan for financial sustainability and de-amalgamation was not the problem.

"A levy is a one•off solution

for a short term problem, instead of going for the calipers we opted for the hammer," he said.

"It's time the TRC moved on from de-amalgamation. Ratepayers have moved on and the idea we're now paying de·arnalgamalion costs 18

months after the event is nonsense. We can achieve a much better outcome for council's fi~ nancial sustainability with a lot less pain for ratepayers."

Details about the budget are available from council Customer Service Centres or at www.trc.qld.gov.au.

Queensland Parliament

13th October 2015

Matter of Public Interest “Inquiry Needed to Clean Up Councils

and Reform Local Government”

The ‘Case Study’ of

Tablelands Regional Council (TRC) And the Sterilised Complaints Processes.

TABLE of CONTENTS

Folder 1 - Summary of Matter & Precis of Evidence Witnesses / Characters [REDACTED] TRC Organisational Chart(s) Summary of Matters Table - Parliamentary Disclosure – TRC Case Study files. Broad Areas of Concern Case study File REF “…” and brief summary Financial & Audit REF ‘BAIT-BOX’

Breach of Local Government Act and TRC Procurement Policy. “Complicit” admission by CEO in email. Instruction and interference in a contract allegedly by the Mayor. A Direction to an Officer to break the law. Element of fraud alleged in assisting alleged unjust enrichment.

Planning and Development REF ‘AZTEC’ (‘Aztec’ is an internal file code only and no allegation is made or implied whatsoever on any organisations with similar names even if they happen to be named in evidence) Proven Undisclosed Conflict of Interest by Councillor (and 2016 Mayoral Candidate) This is not an isolated Proven Undisclosed Conflict of Interest by Councillors or officers or persons providing official services to TRC. CoI’s are only declared and managed appropriately by a very small minority.

Local Laws (This matter has been removed for protection of individuals due to changed circumstances)

Facilities (This matter has been removed for protection of individuals due to changed circumstances)

Human Resources REF ‘ WH&S / Fail to provide safe workplace’ (This matter is pending final completion and legal advice. Expected completion date 20th Oct 2015) REF ‘WEIGHT’ Public insults on the basis of physical appearance (body weight/size) (When read in conjunction with the ‘Tribunal’ matter of alleged lies and perjury, this matter demonstrates the alleged (and evidenced) bullying and lying traits of a person in Public Office to the detriment of individuals and the organisation.)

Governance REF ‘WILD’ (Also ‘Breach of Confidentiality’) CEO & Mayor deliberately fail to obey a resolution of Council. Alleged ‘unlawful’ direction by Mayor to CEO contravening an unanimous Council resolution’ REF ‘DICTATOR’ Prohibition on General Business. Ie No More General Business at TRC. Amendment to Standing orders passed on casting vote in voting bloc/’gang’. INCLUDES Defamatory comments by CEO about a Councillor in a public place.

Breach of Confidentiality REF ‘WILD’ (Also ‘governance’) Alleged Breach of Trust & Breach of Confidentiality by CEO.

Misleading & Deceptive REF ‘TRIBUNAL’ Proven Breach of Confidentiality covered up by lies and alleged perjury to Tribunal. Alleged Corrupt Conduct through both ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE and PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

Threats / Actual Violence /Reprisal / Retribution

REF ‘UNION’ Violent Outbursts – attempted assault in workplace by CEO. This is only one evidenced example of physical violence & violent outbursts in the workplace and while acting in an official capacity by CEO and other senior officers.

Individual Summaries of Matters and Precis of Evidence Primary Evidence

Example [REMOVED to protect individuals] NOTE:- ALL “Primary Evidence Files” held separately to protect witnesses and staff.

Statutory Basis Local Govt. Principles Misconduct Corrupt Conduct Explanatory examples from Reference Document.

Folder 2 - Primary Evidence Files (Only available to CCC/QPS officer with relevant Authority / delegated Authority.)

Authors & Contributors - DISCLAIMER & INDEMNITY The paper is prepared and provided in good faith and in the public interest. It is intended only to provide information which may be of interest to stakeholders in Local Government and the complaints management processes. Every care and attention has been taken in the preparation of this document to take an evidence based approach to statement, references, opinion, in drawing conclusions and making recommendations. The Authors and contributors accepts no responsibility for any error, omission, mis-statement or mis-description contained in the document. All and any persons should not rely on any material or information contained herein but should make such independent inquiries as they feel are necessary to satisfy themselves as to the validity or otherwise of any such information. Any views or opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily the views or opinions of the authors and should not be read, taken or interpreted as such. Any persons relying on this document or other material in this document agree upon reading and using the material to INDEMNIFY the authors against all claims and liabilities whatsoever which may arise directly or indirectly in connection with the publication of the material including without limitation claims or liabilities which may arise in relation to the infringement of copyright, trademarks or other intellectual property rights, defamation, libel, slander.

!,This section not comElete at the time of the internal deadline

or Parliament 'Matter of Public Interest' - case Stud ]

Research Brief Research and Information Service

For Mr Shane Knuth, MP

Request Dismissed Queensland Councils

Date 24July 2014

Thank you for your recent request regarding dismissed Queensland councils over the last 15 years.

Johnstone Shire Council is the only Queensland council that has been dismissed between the years

1999-2014. The council was dismissed as the council became embroiled in a culture of bullying, code

of conduct and procedural breaches and lack of objectivity in decision making.1 These formed some

of the arguments justifying the need for dismissal.

The timeline of events are as follows:

• August 2006 - Local Government Minister (at the time), Desley Boyle issued a 'show cause'

as to why the council should not be dismissed.2

• October 2006 - Seven days' notice was given to the council which meant the Minister for

Local Government (then Andrew Fraser) intended to make a decision regarding the

dismissal.3

• October 2006 - Two Councillors sought and were granted an injunction preventing the

1 D Boyle (M inister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women), State puts Johnstone Shire Council on

notice, media statement, 2 August 2006.

2 D Boyle (M inister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women), State puts Johnstone Shire Council on

notice, media statement, 2 August 2006.

3 A Fraser (M inister for Local Government, Planning and Sport), Seven day notice given regarding Johnstone Shire Council:

Fraser, media statement, 9 October 2006.

Prepared at client request. The responsibility for the use of the contents of this report or its further distribution either in whole or port lies with the Member. This paper hos been prepared to support the work of the Queensland Parliament using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect on officio/ position of the Queensland Porliomentory Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Queensland Parliamentary Library and Research Service

Research and Information Service Page 1

Ministers show cause notice by the Supreme Court.4

• •

February 2007 -The application by the councillors was dismissed by the Supreme Court.5

February 2007 - Following the court's decision, Andrew Fraser brought before Parliament

the Local Government (Dissolution of Johnstone Shire Council} Regulation 2007. The council

was dismissed on 8 February when the regulation was ratified by Parliament.6

Please feel free to contact the Library for further information or research on this issue.

Kind Regards,

Research and Information Service

QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE

Queensland Parliamentary Library & Research Service

Parl iament House

4 A Fraser (M inister for Local Government, Planning and Sport), Statement on Johnstone Shire Council, media statement, 6

February 2007.

5 A Fraser (M inister for Local Government, Planning and Sport), Statement on Johnstone Shire Council, media statement, 6

February 2007.

6 A Fraser, 'Local Government (Dissolution of Johnstone Shire Councill Regulation2007', Queensland, Debates, 8 February

2007, p 252.

Prepared at client request. The responsibility for the use of the contents of this report or its further distribution either in whole or port lies with the Member. This paper hos been prepared to support the work of the Queensland Parliament using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Queensland Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professionol legol opinion.

Queensland Parliamentary Library and Research Service

Research and Information Service Page 2

State puts Johnstone Shire Council on notice - The Queensland Cabinet and Ministeria... Page 1 of 2

• Qlllfi SJ;llfd 601m~111

Media release Minister for Environment, Local Government,

Planning and Women

The Honourable Desley Boyle

State puts Johnstone Shire Council on notice

Local Government Minister Desley Boyle today asked councillors of Johnstone Shire Council to "Show Cause"

why the council should not be sacked.

Ms Boyle said an investigation into the Council had found a serious breakdown in the governance and operational

functions of the Council.

"The investigation into the council has identified major concerns including:

• a culture of bullying and intimidation by some councillors against other council lors and staff;

• repeated breaches of the Councillor Code of Conduct;

• breaches of proper meeting procedures;

• poor staff morale;

• the interference of councillors in operational decisions;

• a lack of objectivity in decision making; and

• a lack of proper financial and other planning for the future.

"The investigator said the Council was dominated by a group of council lors known as the 'gang of five' and found

there is an atmosphere of shouting, aggressive behaviour, swearing and threats of violence aimed at other

councillors and staff.

"Because of this female councillors felt intimidated and reluctant to speak out in meetings.

"There are claims that certain councillors have entered worksites without safety induction or protective equipment

and threatened and abused staff when this was pointed out.

"There are also claims that certain councillors attack and humiliate staff in public meetings to justify altering the

recommendations of those staff.

"The investigator found a growing turnover of key staff with senior officers highly anxious about giving 'frank and

fearless' advice lest they suffer further harassment or dismissal.

"He raised serious risks that councillors disregarding professional advice from senior staff could result in liability for

damages through lack of diligence in decision making.

"With the Council already in a 'parlous financial position', with staff leaving or looking elsewhere, the investigator

raised concerns about the Council's capacity to manage the extensive program of cyclone recovery works

required.

"The investigator also found that the sort of planning for the future required by any council was either poorly

developed, incomplete, or missing altogether.

"He heard evidence that meeting procedure was ignored by councillors and not enforced by the Mayor.

Substantive motions were dealt with without notice in closed session. Councillors in the minority group were

denied information and given no warning of important matters to prevent them preparing for debate.

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/Jd/47579 2/08/201 4

State puts Johnstone Shire Council on notice - The Queensland Cabinet and Ministeria... Page 2 of 2

"The investigator also had concerns that evidence indicated some councillors made decisions based on

motivations other than the public interest.

"For these reasons I have serious concerns about Johnstone Shire Council's ability to provide the region with an

effective, stable and solvent local government.

"I have given Council 14 days to respond to my concerns, outlining why it should not be sacked and have an

administrator appointed.

"I am expecting a thorough response from the Council to all the issues and governance problems.

"I will then assess Council's submission and make a decision on the future of the Council.

"The residents of Johnstone Shire are trying to get back on their feet after Cyclone Larry and they need the

leadership and support of a strong council.

"It is important to stress that this in no way reflects on the staff of the Council, who have been doing their best in

trying circumstances," Ms Boyle said.

The special hotline and email used during the investigation will remain open for residents and staff of the Council

who have questions about the Show Cause Notice - phone 1800 030 114 or email [email protected]

( mailto:[email protected] ).

Ends

Media contact: 3227 8819

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/Id/47579 2/08/2014

Seven day notice given regarding Johnstone Shire Council: Fraser - The Queensland ... Page 1 of 1

(lU.MHWld Gawm~nl

Me1dia release Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport The Honourable Andrew Fraser

Seven day notice given regarding Johnstone Shire Council: Fraser

Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser today formally gave notice that he intends to take action on the Show

Cause Notice issued to the Johnstone Shire Council in seven days time.

Mr Fraser said Legal action commenced by two Johnstone Shire Councillors to stop the Show Cause Notice

process required him to formally give notice of his intention to make a decision.

Mr Fraser today met with the Johnstone Shire Council in Cairns.

"This is a most serious matter and it is vital that I had the opportunity to discuss these matters directly with Councillors and the Mayor," he said.

"Before I can move to formally make a decision I am required by the court to give notice of my intention to formally

begin deliberating on the Show Cause Notice.

"As the incoming Minister I was briefed on the status of the investigation into Johnstone Shire Council.

"Now that I have had the opportunity to discuss with council their response to the Show Cause Notice I believe I

must now prepare to make my decision.

"I need to enable myself to receive and deliberate upon the recommendations of the Department. The legal action

by the two Councillors has prevented this from occurring to date.

"I must emphasis that this step is not a normal step in a Show Cause process.

"It is only required because of the legal action against the Show Cause Notice taken by two Councillors at the

Johnstone Shire.

"It is my view that this matter is to be resolved and I have therefore formally issued notice.

"In practical terms this means that after the seven day period, the Director General will provide me with the formal

recommendations of the Department and I must then consider those recommendations and make my decision.

"Depending on what is formally submitted to me in seven days time, I expect to make my decision soon after

receiving the report."

Mr Fraser said he felt heavily obliged to make a decision in the best interests of the community.

"All communities deserve a local government capable of providing effective local services and governance.

"The task for Johnstone Shire Council is all the more important given the rebuilding required because of Cyclone

Larry."

Media Contact: C hris T aylo r 3227 8825 or 0419 71 O 874

October 6 2006

http://statements.qld.gov .au/Statement/2006/10/9/seven-day-notice-gi ven-regardi ng-joh... 2/08/2014

Witnesses / Characters

Category Examples

A Public / submitters / Ratepayers Ratepayers, individuals not otherwise categorised below.

B White Collar Staff CEO’s, GM’s, Team Leaders, officers.

C Blue Collar Staff Depot / outdoors / field operators.

D Councillors Past & present LG Councillors

E Other Public Officials Members of Parliament / State Govt officers & bureaucrats.

F Contractors & Consultants

Contract service providers & consultants eg cleaners / lawyers.

G Deceased / Suicide Victims Death at or from work at TRC including Suicide

H Developers / applicants Tableland Investments / APA.

Category Examples

A Public / submitters / Ratepayers Ratepayers, individuals not otherwise categorised below.

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15

Category Examples

B White Collar Staff CEO's / GM's / Team Leaders / Officers.

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15

Category Examples

C Blue Collar Staff Depot / Outdoors / Field Operators

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena C01 C02 C03 C04

C05 C06 C07 C08 C09 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16

Category Examples

D Councillors Past & Present LG Councillors

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 D11 D12

Category Examples

E Other Public Officials Members of Parliament / State Govt Officers & Beaurecrats.

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E10

Category Examples

F Contractors & Consultants Contract Service Providers & Consultants eg Cleaners / lawyers.

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena F01

F02

F03 F04

F05 F06 F07 F08 F09 F10

Category Examples

G Deceased / Suicide Victims Death at or from work at TRC including Suicide

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena G01 G02 G03 G04 G05 G06

Category Examples

H Developers / Applicants eg Tableland Investments / APA

ID NAME TYPE of Evidence Direct / Stat Dec / Audio / Subpoena H01 H02 H03 H04 H05 H06 H07 H08 H09 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18

' VJ Confidential:- Summary of Matter Precis of Evidence ...€¦ · Confidential:- Summary of...

Documents

Transcript of ' VJ Confidential:- Summary of Matter Precis of Evidence ...€¦ · Confidential:- Summary of...