The SRRC released the following media statement on the 17th October 2023:
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS SURROUNDING COUNCIL STAFF ABSENCES

Scenic Rim Regional Council is concerned by allegations that groups within the community are spreading salacious stories that call into question the integrity of Council and its officers.
Many other organisations, on many occasions, have found themselves in similar circumstances in which staff members have been unable to perform their duties for a range of reasons.
The Council officers who are currently on leave, and who are facing the same challenges as the rest of us, are human beings who are simply not able to perform their respective duties at this present time.
When situations like this arise, Council’s job is to support valued team members in their personal journeys, and has put measures in place to ensure that Council can continue to deliver services to our community whilst protecting the wellbeing of its officers.
Council asks that our communities please respect these individuals, their privacy, and allow them the rest and space to deal with their personal circumstances. This request extends to online platforms.
Council has a continued focus on delivering the many exciting projects currently in the pipeline and a demonstrated commitment to delivering a sustainable future for our region.
On 5th October the SRRC held a Special Meeting motioning the appointment of Oliver Pring as Acting CEO from 7th October 2023 to April 2024 should the CEO be absent or unable to perform his duties. Discussion surrounding the motion of his appointment was held in session closed to the public. All councillors voted in favour of the appointment with one exception, Councillor Hay, Division 1.
Talking to the motion, the Mayor stated, “this is something we had in history, had available of preapprovals to provide this insurance cover for the Chief Executive Officer and thank you that we have now been able to put this in place.”
If it was not for the action of Councillor Hay, this Special Meeting may not have generated the interest from the media it has since been afforded.
The CEO, David Keenan, did not return to work on the 7th October, and has been absent since.
Word on “the street” is that the Mayor has suspended the CEO. If this rumour is true, this action poses a number of questions and concerns:
Does the Mayor have the power to suspend the CEO?
Under the Local Govt. Act 170(2)(a) the Mayor cannot give direction to suspend the CEO if it is inconsistent with a resolution, or a document adopted by resolution, of the local government.
In this instance, the resolution to appoint David Keenan as CEO by the elected council, under a binding contract.
In addition to that, I note the following extract from a blog by Patrick Quinn of Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice dated May 25, 2020, titled Mayor and councillor responsibilities and obligations (Queensland)
Section – Mayor’s dealings with the CEO
Two of the additional responsibilities ((c) and (d)) of the mayor surround the mayor’s dealings with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Recently there have been a number of investigations into mayors (and in some cases, councillors) in Queensland relating to their relationship and interactions with a Council’s CEO.
Section 12(c) of the LGA gives mayors powers to direct the CEO and to conduct the performance appraisal of the CEO. However, it is important to recognise that those powers and responsibilities have limits placed upon them, including the power of direction in: providing strategic direction to the CEO in order to achieve the high-quality administration of the local government; and/or directing the CEO in accordance with a resolution or document adopted by resolution of the Council.
In relation to the employment of the CEO:
the Council is the entity that is charged with appointing the CEO and as such, Council has the power to remove and suspend the person in that role.
The appointment, removal or suspension of a CEO is not a power that can be exercised by a mayor without a decision of Council;
whilst the mayor has the additional responsibility of conducting a performance appraisal of the CEO, the mayor’s power is not absolute and must be done in the way decided by Council.
The blog does make the following disclaimer: This blog is of a general nature and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you require further information, advice or assistance for your specific circumstances, please contact us.
·      How is it that the elected councillors have not acted and nipped this in the bud?
·      If the Mayor had suspended the CEO on his own volition, he in turn had a serious conflict of interest at the 5th October Special Meeting, and should have not been able to participate in the discussion or been able to vote.
·      Why did the councillors not introduce the status of the CEO as a motion, given this is allowable under standing orders as the matter relates directly to the special purpose matter being called via a Special Meeting?
·      The notice of the meeting did not take place as required by the rules, which essentially makes the special meeting null and void.
·      How did the councillors not know the meeting notification was not in accordance with the rules?
I ask this question. Is the media release, stating that council is concerned at allegations that groups within the community are spreading salacious stories, a form of gaslighting?
If any of the above is true, people have every right to be concerned about the performance and delivery of services and projects by this council.
If any of the above is true, where is the honesty and transparency?