A QUESTION over whether a councillor’s publicly expressed views could create a perception of bias was raised at the opening of today’s Redland City Council general meeting.
Acting Mayor Julie Talty initially advised that no councillors had indicated they wished to declare an interest in matters before the meeting.
Cr Paul Gollè then sought guidance about another councillor’s potential interest, referring to an email he circulated to all councillors yesterday concerning the Birkdale Community Precinct.
In the email, Cr Gollè said he had been advised during discussions with local State MPs that Cr Wendy Boglary had expressed strong opposition to the precinct proceeding and may have written directly to the Deputy Premier.
He asked whether those reported views could give rise to “an apprehension of bias”, a perception the matter had been predetermined, or affect public confidence in Council’s decision-making.
Cr Gollè said councillors were entitled to hold and express views on matters of public interest, but said Council’s forthcoming decision should be made after considering the information, evidence and recommendations before councillors.
“I raise this respectfully and in the interests of maintaining public confidence in Council’s governance processes and the integrity of the forthcoming decision,” he wrote.
Cr Boglary responded that her correspondence was not opposition to the Birkdale Community Precinct, but related to the future Olympic program and whitewater rafting.
“I had written a letter to the Premier and Deputy Premier,” Cr Boglary said.
“Once [they] said that rafting wasn’t going to be an ongoing Olympic sport, I said if, at this stage, the State Government was considering what sports were going to go into the future Olympics, now would be the opportunity to make a change.”
Cr Boglary said whitewater rafting was not an agenda item at the meeting and she did not believe she had a conflict of interest.
Cr Talty said the Local Government Act 2009 no longer required councillors to report a potential conflict held by another councillor.
Council legal counsel Andrew Ross confirmed the former provision had been removed from the Act.
“There’s no requirement to notify a council of a potential conflict of interest,” he said.
No councillor made a formal declaration of a material personal interest or conflict of interest, with the meeting then proceeding to its next item.
