In my absence, Council resolved to make application to the Planning and Development Court to sue (or seek costs) from Amanda Hay and the Progress Association for representing the Tamborine Mountain residents to stop the inappropriate Eagles Retreat development.

Whilst I was away on leave in the past three weeks, on my return I was shocked to learn that your Christensen Council had resolved to make an application to recover court costs that could potentially bankrupt the 100-year-old plus Progress Association and/or Amanda Hay. Whatever the circumstances, no Council should treat any individual or Community Association this way, especially those whose only motivation is to benefit the community.

Between the Council and developer, both the Association and Amanda could be lumped with costs amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This could be a watershed case for all communities across Queensland, sending a message that lay persons are not welcome to represent their communities in the Planning and Environment Court (P&E). If the P&E Court is only the playground of the legally qualified, and super wealthy, then this message may soon reverberate across Queensland if a costs order is awarded.
The case is set down for December 2nd, 2022.

COUNCIL IGNORES CONCERNS OF TAMBORINE MOUNTAIN AND INCLUDES NEW SUBDIVISIONS POLICY IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
In a vote of 5/1, the policy was approved. A ratepayer described this to me as a “slap in the face of Tamborine Mountain” as it rejected the main concerns of 445 submitters. 

I consider this decision one of the most damaging made in this Council’s term, and shows that Council is not a good custodian of the future wellbeing of Tamborine Mountain.

This confirms the views of 65% of residents that we would be better served in the GCCC area.

A NEW CAREER HIGHLIGHT FOR ME
My first job in Local Government was in 1977 as a labourer in my university holidays. Later in 1979, when I graduated, I became a Trainee Local Government Clerk in the now-Ipswich City Council. A large part of my career since then has been oversighting and attending council meetings in four councils I have worked in.

Well, in the Growth Management Strategy (GMS) item on the agenda last week, Mayor Greg Christensen refused me the opportunity to move an amendment to a motion to delete further Tamborine Mountain subdivisions from the recommendation. He argued my motion contradicted the original motion. I found this fanciful. I moved a motion of dissent on his ruling, and after a very long heated debate ( if you call it that), it was defeated four votes to three, with Mayor Christensen, Cr Enright, and Cr West voting against. Never in my career attending thousands of council meetings have I ever come across such a bizarre ruling, designed to stop a councillor moving a minor amendment to a motion.

This wasn’t the only descent into dysfunctionality. The Mayor once again tried to deny all councillors a vote on the issue of my $1900 fine, for sending an email to a Council officer asking a question, claiming Cr Chalk, McConnell and McInnes all had conflicts of interest on the matter. He tried the same tactic when he disagreed with a majority vote on the renewal of the former CEO’s contract.

STATE GOVERNMENT TO EMBED ADVISOR INTO SCENIC RIM COUNCIL UNDER SECTION 117 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
The legislation gives this right to the Director General to appoint an advisor if they are of the belief that the local government is not performing its responsibilities properly, or not complying with applicable legislation, or it is in the public interest to make such an appointment.

This was very welcome news last week, and very long overdue. The DG should be applauded for taking this decision.

Let’s hope it brings some democracy, proper governance, and common sense back to your council.

INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT DECISIONS
I have appealed both decisions of Inappropriate development from the 8th November meeting.

We saw overreach in council, with Cr Enright moving a motion claiming that by sending a courteous email to a Council Officer asking for clarification of wrong advice given to a meeting, that “I harmed third parties”. Only on intervention by the State was the decision rescinded by Council. Cr McConnell led a successful move to extract an official apology for this overreach.

FOUND GUILTY OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT FOR ASSISTING A CONSTITUENT GET A CUSTOMER REQUEST ACTIONED AFTER POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE
The other “inappropriate” charge I was issued with two meetings ago was after a constituent in Curtis Road was repeatedly promised action by me, after promises made to myself by a responsible Council Officer on a drainage issue. Over a four-month period promises were made, and none followed through.

After my constituent’s many protests to me, I emailed the constituent an apology and said in an email that this was “appalling customer service”. I also told him I would refer the inaction to my fellow Councillors if it continued, for advice on how to deal with the issue, and I wrote this was “no way to run a department”. I sent a cc copy to the officer. Well next time I saw this person, an apology to me was offered, and action was soon taken to block off a drain that would have taken just a couple of hours to fix. The matter was finalised to my satisfaction, I accepted the officer’s apology given, and the reason being that the officer had been let down by a subordinate officer. The constituent was happy it had been resolved.

Word of this must have soon travelled up the corporate ladder and next, a complaint for a breach of the code of conduct was made to the OIA, who said it was possible inappropriate conduct. The complaint wasn’t from the subject officer. The OIA recommended to Council an investigation by a private investigator, at ratepayer’s expense. The investigator, who seemed not familiar with local government, concluded after lengthy submissions and my interviews in Brisbane, that my only option was not to resolve the issue amicably but, that I should have reported it to the CEO, and he quoted legislation that I knew for a fact wasn’t applicable. Against natural justice, my defence wasn’t allowed to be published along with the published allegations, and the Council merely adopted the investigator’s report; that cost nearly $4000.

I only give this story to help you understand the plethora and calibre of complaints I now have which have been internally generated, that in my opinion, are politically motivated and frivolous and vexatious. To date, Council governance seemed to have gone to a lot of trouble to make sure the public do not hear my defence of the complaints, only the allegations. I am hopeful that this will be one of the many governance things rectified in the months ahead.

Derek Swanborough
Councillor. Division 1
Ph 0436 351 567
derek.s@scenicrim.qld.gov.au