Redland City Council has voted to seek consideration of an independent review into concerns raised by Mayor Jos Mitchell about her treatment at a meeting in April, despite debate over whether the matter should wait until the Mayor returns from leave.
The notice of motion, moved by Cr Shane Rendalls at Wednesday’s general meeting, was ultimately passed after councillors spent considerable time debating the appropriate process for responding to allegations publicly raised by the Mayor.
The motion reaffirms Council’s commitment to fostering a respectful and professional culture and requests the chief executive officer write to the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, Water and Volunteers seeking consideration of whether an independent review is warranted.
The motion stems from public comments made by Mayor Mitchell on April 29 regarding an alleged incident at a meeting on April 27.
In her statement, the Mayor said she had been “treated in a way that is entirely unacceptable” and described behaviour that she characterised as “rude, disrespectful, belittling, threatening, intimidating, bullying and harassing”.
Speaking in support of the motion, Cr Rendalls stressed that councillors were not being asked to determine facts or assign blame.
“At the outset, I want to be very clear about what this motion does and does not do,” he said.
“This motion does not ask Council to make findings, determine fault or reach conclusions about any person.
“It asks for a proper, measured and independent consideration of whether a review is warranted in response to serious concerns that have been raised publicly.”
Cr Rendalls argued that leaving the matter unresolved was unfair to all parties.
“It is not fair to the Mayor, to councillors, to staff or to the community for serious claims to remain unresolved in the public domain without an appropriate and independent authority considering whether further review is warranted,” he said.
He also drew on his own experiences of receiving threats while serving in public office, saying institutions had a responsibility to respond when allegations involving intimidation or bullying were raised.
“If this happened to one of our outdoor staff, or a junior employee working at the front counter, we would certainly intervene,” he said.
“We would not simply say, ‘It’s up to you to decide whether to take action.'”
Cr Tracey Huges supported the motion, saying the issue extended beyond a single incident.
“This is not about one person or one incident. It’s about the broader issue and whether we can make change,” she said.
Cr Huges said she and other councillors had experienced threatening behaviour while serving in public office and described the impact such conduct can have on elected representatives and their families.
Opposition to the motion focused largely on process rather than the substance of the allegations.
Cr Paul Bishop said he supported respectful conduct and appropriate standards of behaviour but questioned whether Council should proceed while the Mayor was on leave.
“The motion before us is substantially based upon statements made by the Mayor regarding an alleged incident,” he said.
“However, the Mayor is currently on leave and is not present to indicate whether she supports the specific action proposed.”
Cr Bishop suggested consideration of any request for an independent review should be deferred until the Mayor returned and had the opportunity to express her views.
Cr Lance Hewlett also expressed reservations, arguing the matter should be left for the Mayor to pursue when she returned.
“I know what this incident is about and, in my opinion, it is something for the Mayor to pursue when she comes back,” he said.
“This is a very delicate political issue and, given that the Mayor is currently on leave, I don’t know what her feelings are towards this motion.”
Cr Wendy Boglary said she agreed with the sentiment behind the motion but questioned whether the proposed process was appropriate given no investigation had yet occurred.
“My concern is whether this is the appropriate process for Council to follow,” she said.
“There has been no investigation and therefore no determination of whether any inappropriate behaviour occurred or otherwise.”
In his closing remarks, Cr Rendalls said the motion was designed to balance the seriousness of the allegations with procedural fairness.
“Council is not attempting to determine facts,” he said.
“We are not attempting to decide whether something occurred or did not occur. We are not seeking to determine who said what.
“All we are saying is that serious concerns have been raised publicly and are now in the public domain.
“That leaves a cloud hanging over Council and a cloud hanging over the community.”
The motion was carried, meaning the chief executive officer will now write to the Director-General seeking consideration of whether an independent review is warranted.
