REDLAND City Council has descended into dysfunction after a marathon general meeting intended to progress a conduct complaint against Mayor Jos Mitchell instead spiralled into legal mayhem, bitter accusations, and procedural chaos.
Last week’s nine-hour meeting, punctuated by four adjournments and disputed votes, failed to deal with the central complaint –item 13.6 – regarding the Mayor’s controversial Facebook post from February.
Instead, it became consumed by a last-minute legal letter tabled by Mayor Mitchell, accusing six councillors of having a declarable conflict of interest in the matter.
The letter, circulated only hours before the meeting, triggered a chain of dramatic events, including multiple failed motions, legal wrangling, and mounting tensions in the chamber.
At the heart of the saga was the Mayor’s claim that six councillors – Deputy Mayor Julie Talty and Crs Peter Mitchell, Paul Golle, Shane Rendalls, Rowanne McKenzie and Jason Colley – could not impartially participate in determining the conduct complaint against her.
The complaint stems from a post the Mayor made while overseas, sharing an article that included allegedly misleading claims about a new councillor portfolio system.
Cr Talty, who was cleared of any conflict earlier in the day, hit back forcefully.
“You’ve said I have a conflict because of comments made on your Facebook page – comments I couldn’t even see because you blocked me,” she said.
“You’re using a post from February – before you were even elected – as evidence.
“That’s not a conflict. That’s a reach.”
She warned the Mayor that singling out councillors who had previously found against her in an earlier Office of Independent Assessor (OIA) complaint “could be seen as retribution”.
“Are you attempting to influence public perception of your behaviour by attacking those who’ve previously found against you, while remaining silent on others who’ve made similar comments?” Cr Talty asked.
Cr Golle was similarly incredulous, alleged to have a conflict simply because his name appeared in a Facebook comment on the Mayor’s page – one he did not post or respond to and could not even view due to being blocked.
Cr Shane Rendalls described the Mayor’s move as “retaliatory behaviour” in response to past complaints made against her through the OIA.
Despite the explosive nature of the allegations, all councillors accused of conflict were ultimately cleared after hours of confusion, abstentions and inconsistent legal interpretations.
Several councillors expressed concern over the Mayor’s sharing of confidential documents with her legal representative and the lack of time to properly absorb legal advice.
“This is extremely stressful,” Cr Wendy Boglary said.
“The community is still waiting for us to get to anything of substance.”
Tempers frayed throughout the session, with the Council eventually limping to a vote on Cr Talty’s alleged conflict.
That motion failed, and a follow-up motion from Cr Talty to defer all conflict determinations and the central complaint was finally passed – more than five hours after the meeting began.
Only later – after mounting criticism and legal clarification—were the remaining five councillors formally cleared of having any conflict of interest.
Even Mayor Mitchell eventually admitted to the chamber: “This has taken an extraordinary amount of effort and energy. I am embarrassed by how much time has been consumed.”
The conduct complaint itself – concerning the Mayor’s February Facebook post – remains unresolved and has been deferred to a future general meeting.
Observers from the Department of Local Government were present in chambers during the meeting, which one councillor later described bluntly as “bloody embarrassing”.
Another added: “This is not ‘city first’ behaviour by those driving this matter.”
