REDLAND City councillors who voted against approving Mayor Jos Mitchell’s absence from Wednesday’s General Meeting say their concern is not that she needs leave — but that she continues to receive full pay while away from the role.
The 5-4 vote approved leave for Mayor Mitchell from the August 19 council meeting.
Council has been advised her medical leave has been extended until October 31.
Councillors Peter Mitchell, Paul Gollé, Rowanne McKenzie and Jason Colley voted against the motion.
Cr Colley said he had supported leave for the mayor on eight previous occasions, including at five of the past seven meetings, but believed the prolonged absence required a different response.
“It’s one thing to need leave, as was the case previously,” he said.
“However, she does not have to take the pay. That is purely down to her.”
Cr Colley said councillors did not have the authority to compel the mayor to take leave without pay, but she could choose to do so.
The Local Government Act provides that councillors on extended leave remain entitled to remuneration unless they notify council in writing that they wish to take leave without pay.
Cr Colley said the mayor had now missed five consecutive meetings and councillors were effectively being asked to continue approving leave month after month, while the community continued to fund the position.
“Continuing to take $4.5k a week off hard working Redland ratepayers for the foreseeable future doesn’t pass the pub test,” he said.
Acting Mayor Julie Talty, who voted in favour of approving the absence, said it was important to distinguish between leave and remuneration.
She said the current circumstances — a mayor taking an extended period of leave while continuing to receive full pay — were not anticipated when the legislation was written.
“It is important to differentiate between the two matters of leave, and remuneration,” Cr Talty said.
“[The mayor] has the opportunity to consider the community’s sentiments and personally consider her position with regard to continuing to take full remuneration while on leave.”
Cr Talty said councillors had received advice about the scope of matters they could consider when casting their vote, and each was entitled to vote independently “as their conscience required without fear or favour”.
While supporting the leave application, she said the remuneration issue had become a significant factor in community sentiment.
“I believe if the remuneration was not a factor, the community would be more forgiving of the time taken away from the role,” Cr Talty said.
Cr Mitchell said his vote was not a judgement on the mayor or her personal circumstances but was based on accountability to residents and the lack of certainty around the role.
“With that responsibility comes an obligation to provide certainty, accountability, and leadership to both Council and the community,” Cr Mitchell said.
“Extended absence from duties, combined with ongoing uncertainty regarding future participation, creates operational, strategic, financial, and reputational challenges for our organisation.”
Cr Mitchell said ratepayers reasonably expected elected representatives to remain accountable for the duties entrusted to them.
“While elected office is unique, community expectations regarding fairness and accountability remain relevant considerations,” he said.
Cr McKenzie said medical certification did not remove council’s responsibility to determine whether further leave should be granted.
“A medical certificate explains the reason for an absence,” Cr McKenzie said.
“It does not remove Council’s responsibility to decide whether further leave should be granted.”
The motion was supported by Cr Talty and Councillors Wendy Boglary, Shane Rendalls, Tracey Huges and Paul Bishop.
