Livingstone councillors Mather, Eastwood and Belot found guilty for meeting with developers Roebucks

Three Livingstone Shire councillors have been found guilty for misconduct for a meeting with a developer. Two of the councillors are fighting the charges. Full story here.

The independent body that deals with complaints of conduct of local government councillors has found three Livingstone Shire Council councillors guilty of misconduct.

Councillors Glenda Mather, Adam Belot and Pat Eastwood have been found guilty of misconduct by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal for attending a meeting with developers alone at a property for a live development application that hadn’t yet been voted on by the council.

The meeting was found to have been held on August 29, 2019, with developers Colin and Monica Roebuck for their Bungundarra Road subdivision development application.

Colin and Monica Roebuck after a meeting at Livingstone Shire Council.

It is also alleged this meeting was organised by Cr Mather, who along with Cr Belot, is fighting the charge.

The complaint was first referred in 2019 to the Office of The Independent Assessor (OIA) and the councillors were cleared of any wrongdoing.

However, the complaint was then referred to the Councillor Conduct Tribunal (The Tribunal).

Former councillor Tom Wyatt, who stepped down in March 2020 after more than 50 years of involvement with Yeppoon and Rockhampton councils, was also at the meeting.

He was involved with the initial OIA investigation however was not involved with The Tribunal investigation and there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on this part.

The Tribunal determined the councillors had engaged in misconduct of the Local Government Act 2009 and the conduct involved a breach of trust placed in the councillor, inconsistent with the local government principle “transparent and effective processes and decision making in the public interest”.

The actions which were the subject of the misconduct findings in question were the attendance at the meeting prior to it being voted on by the full council and without a council officer, the mayor or the CEO present.

The developers involved in the meeting were also involved in legal action with council in the Planning and Environment Court regarding a previous development action which council had refused.

Councillor Mather and Belot declared at a special council meeting held on January 7 they planned to fight the charges while Councillor Eastwood has accepted the charge.

“In Local Government we have a tremendous amount of oversight: the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC), Office of the Independent Assessor (OIA) and the Ombudsman’s Office,” Mayor Andy Ireland said in opening the special meeting.

“No other level of government has the same level of oversight as local government in Queensland.

“From time to time, councillors in Queensland may find themselves reported to one of these bodies for alleged breaches of conduct, misconduct or corruption.

“The above organisations then deliberate on the allegations, and make a determination on whether there is a case to answer by the councillor, and what the penalty, if any might be.

“As Cr Belot and Eastwood will declare in a moment, they have been referred on a matter, and part of the requirements of the oversight body is that they make a public declaration on this.

“We have had to convene a special meeting so that their declarations can be received.”

The Tribunal summary of decision and reasons for Councillor Eastwood’s complaint states Cr Eastwood was aware of the legal action the developers had against council for a previous development application.

Councillor Pat Eastwood.

Cr Eastwood told The Tribunal he did not believe his attendance at this meeting was misconduct and he was unaware of a council policy which was established to regulate interactions between councillors and development applicants.

The Tribunal accepted that Cr Eastwood acted in “good faith” however “a meeting between developers of a property and selected councillors in the absence of any oversight is not behaviour which encourages transparent or accountable decision-making which is in the public interest”.

The Tribunal declared Cr Eastwood “behaved recklessly, as the meeting was not transparent, was against council policy, and that he undertook no enquiries nor availed himself of any alternatives to conducting a meeting with the developers without a council officer present.”

Cr Eastwood was ordered to attend training on the local government principles and make a public admission that he engaged in misconduct in a public council meeting, which he did so at the special council meeting on January 7.

“The Office of the Independent Assessor has investigated and the Council Conduct Tribunal have found me guilty of engaging in misconduct along with two other councillors and I hereby admit that I have been found guilty of misconduct,” he said.

He went on to say the other councillors were disputing the charge and he had intended to as well.

“As the verdict was handed down at the busiest time of year as a councillor and business owner along with other personal reasons I missed the 28 day deadline of appeal,” he said.

“I would like the public to know that everything I have done and will do as a councillor is always undertaken with the interest and benefit of my community at heart.

“I can’t and won’t go into the details of the complaint as I don’t wish to jeopardise my colleagues appeals.

“I am very concerned at the time this process took to come to a conclusion with the allegations dating back to August 2019 and I personally found it very stressful having it ‘hanging over my head’ and hope that this is something that can be improved into the future.

“There is a legal principle that states, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.”

Cr Eastwood has had no prior misconduct complaints.

Councillor Adam Belot LSC

The Tribunal summary for Councillor Belot’s complaint stated he denied the meeting was misconduct but he attended to gain further information about the development application.

The Tribunal stated councillors must “ensure that their legal obligations remain in the forefront of their minds in their dealings not just with development applicants, but constituents and ratepayers more generally.”

The Tribunal gave the same reasons for Cr Belot as Cr Eastwood, in that he “behaved recklessly”.

Cr Belot was ordered the same punishment as Cr Eastwood, to apologise and attend training however he has lodged an appeal with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), and this has put a pause on his punishment.

Cr Belot, of his volition, told the council table of his involvement in the matter and stated “it is a very challenging landscape we walk through as councillors”.

“Whilst I am respectful of the legal processes to date, and the entities that have made this initial determination, additional evidence – that was not previously submitted – has now been provided to QCAT in accordance with their appeals process,” he said.

“This same respect for the The Tribunal legal processes affords me the opportunity to now wait for the outcome of my applications, including the application to stay the initial orders.”

He stated if QCAT or The Tribunal determined the initial orders must still be met, he would comply.

Councillor Glenda Mather.

Councillor Mather was given a harsher penalty on the basis she was a very senior councillor, having served more than 30 years and “should have been well aware of the general risk” of meeting with developers without council officers, especially when she was aware of legal action between the developers and council.

In The Tribunal summary, Cr Mather claimed that the meeting was not premeditated nor expected and was spontaneous however this did not match email evidence that had correspondence with the developers over a period of three days prior.

“There was substantial evidence to suggest that the respondent (Cr Mather) led and organised the visit, despite her suggestions that the visit was “spontaneous” and “unexpected”,” the summary report read.

The Tribunal stated the councillors could have made further enquiries with the mayor or CEO about the appropriateness of the meeting or organised a deputation at a council meeting.

The developers did hold a deputation at a public council meeting in the following month.

The Tribunal described Cr Mather’s conduct as “utterly careless of the consequences of action; without caution” and that she “acted recklessly by not turning her mind to the application of the local government principles”.

It was found she did not give due attention to the Tribunal’s direction and additional costs were incurred because the meeting had to be rescheduled and additional time for the Independent Assessor to file submissions.

“These costs were directly attributable to the respondent’s misconduct, and so ought to be repaid to the local government,” the summary read.

The Tribunal ordered Cr Mather to attend training and reimburse the local government $1,000.

“I thought long and hard about making a comment but it needs to be said and it needs to be acknowledged that the two councillors that have previously spoken are not the only councillors involved in this matter,” Cr Mather told the council table at the special council meeting.

“I am the third councillor that was referred to and I have been found guilty of misconduct and in doing so I reject that outcome and have also applied for a hearing under QCAT, seeking also an extension of time and a stay of the orders provided to me.

“I was not required to make comment here today as a direction of The Tribunal.

“I think in the public interest they need to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so we need to show the public what is going on here and why their councillors have been suppressed, in some degree, in doing their duties.

“It becomes very difficult at times. I don’t believe that the two officers who were named should be the ones to have their names exposed and I think it’s only fair to say that I was the third person and need to also be exposed.

“At this point in time in the interests of justice and the interest of common law, that we are not allowed to elaborate any further on the details surrounding those allegations and conduct.”

The outcome of Councillor Belot and Mather’s appeals are expected to be handed down after January 20.

The development application by the Roebucks in question went back and forth with council for more than two years, with concerns about the vegetation and bushfire risks for the development.

It was initially approved in October 2019 however in the coming weeks, five councillors, including Councillors Eastwood, Mather, Belot, Wyatt and former Mayor Bill Ludwig, had to declare conflicts of interest.

This meant the conditions of the approval had to be delegated to the then-CEO Chris Murdoch.

A negotiated approval was reached on December 12, 2019, and another changed decision notice was handed down on July 31, 2020.