Councillor Brooke Patterson reveals details of her mystery inappropriate conduct

A Gold Coast City Councillor found guilty of inappropriate conduct has elaborated - twice and in more detail the second time - on what she did. Read her updated admission.

Action in the Gold Coast City Council Chambers for Council budget day 2022. Cr Brooke Patterson and Ryan Bayldon-Lumsden. Picture Glenn Hampson

UPDATED: An under-fire Gold Coast councillor has revealed her mystery “inappropriate conduct” - “entering” a development complex with no invite and comments on an engineer’s report.

First-term city councillor Brooke Patterson was recently found guilty of inappropriate conduct but exactly why was not made clear when it was debated by the recent full council meeting.

However, after publication of the circumstances on the Office of Independent Assessor’s public website, Ms Patterson has also sent the revelations to the Bulletin.

In a letter to the Bulletin on Friday morning, she wrote: “In commitment to transparency, please note, I have been found by my peers to have engaged in inappropriate conduct for: 1. Entering a driveway of a new development complex without providing notice or receiving an invitation;”

She added: “2. Making comments regarding the quality and reliability of a professional engineer’s report.

“The independent investigator recommended in his Statement of Findings to council that ‘should council determine a finding of inappropriate conduct, in light of the mitigating factors, an order that no action be taken against the Councillor be made’.

“Council followed this advice,” Ms Patterson wrote.

She lated texted the Bulletin on Friday to elaborate even further and recount in more detail what she did.

She texted: “Two separate residents who lived either side of a new corner development in suburban Southport asked me to go into bat for them regarding their concerns on stormwater flooding that had occurred only after the new townhouse development had been constructed. I did.

“During that process of standing up for their concerns (which resulted in a show cause notice being issued to the developer to rectify the retaining walls), I did engage in two inappropriate actions: “One. Entering the driveway of the new development without the owner’s consent

“Two. Commenting on the quality and reliability of the developer’s engineering assessment of the stormwater impact.

“That is all I was found guilty of: walking on a driveway and sharing my thoughts on an engineer’s report. That is why the independent investigator urged councillors to not take further disciplinary action.

“The innocent parties in all this were the new home owners who had bought into the townhouse development unaware of the construction concerns and neighbour dispute. I feel deeply for the stress this situation caused them through absolutely no fault of their own.”

EARLIER: A Gold Coast City councillor has been found guilty of inappropriate conduct. No action will be taken. The conduct, what it was, how it occurred – none of this is public yet.

During debate at the last full council meeting the final item was on a “councillor” being investigated for inappropriate conduct. No report was available.

But Councillor Brooke Patterson declared a conflict of interest. “My conflict is I am the subject of the relevant investigation,” she said.

The first-term Southport councillor offered to take questions, there were none, then left.

Councillor Brooke Patterson at the recent budge meeting. Picture: Glenn Hampson.

Donna Gates as Acting Mayor had organised for a review by an independent investigator.

Councillors get to make the final judgment on an 80-page report and recommendation.

And this is where it becomes a farce – for councillors, staffers and ratepayers funding the legal investigation.

The recommendation was “there was sufficient evidence to make a finding of inappropriate conduct”. But the recommended order was “that no action be taken”.

William Owen-Jones as the city’s governance chair was acutely aware of other disciplinary options. He put forward an amended recommendation.

While admitting “it brings me no joy” - he wanted the councillor to make a public admission they had engaged in inappropriate conduct.

He went further, and lost support on this second part. If the same type of conduct occurred again, it should be treated as misconduct, he argued.

Councillor Peter Young, who made a public apology after a similar situation, believed the finding of inappropriate conduct was enough.

“I believe the councillor will and has acknowledged the nature of this problem. I believe the councillor will self-regulate in the future,” he said.

Robina councillor Herman Vorster spoke strongly against Cr Owen-Jones’ recommendation, saying “it makes my blood run cold”.

Cr Hermann Vorster — it makes my blood boil. Picture: Jerad Williams.

Any future similar conduct would automatically be judged at a higher level, and a councillor could be at risk of losing their job if a State Minister intervened.

“We are playing with live ammunition,” he said.

Cr Owen-Jones only got support from Glenn Tozer, Mark Hammel and Pauline Young. The majority of councillors backed the finding — no apology, no disciplinary action.

Cr Gate told colleagues: “This is never easy for us. We hate having to consider and judge our own. We do try to work cooperatively as a team, as best we can.

“I don’t think you can dispute that it is a really thorough report. I equally don’t think we can say the behaviour was good. But it might be in my view a rookie error.

“I don’t believe that the councillor would have deliberately attended the site in any way other than her very best efforts to address a concern in her community.”

Cr William Owen-Jones and Cr Donna Gates at the recent budget meeting. Picture Glenn Hampson.

Your columnist has asked the council what was the inappropriate behaviour.

A City spokesperson said: “The report will be appropriately redacted in due course to ensure confidential information is not disclosed. The Councillor Conduct Register will also be updated.”

Cr Patterson has declined to comment but her reason is to protect the complainant who wants the matter to remain confidential.

Dig a bit and this appears to be about a developer and a stormwater issue impacting on nearby residents - and from there the sewerage with all parties involved hit the fan.

But asking councillors to play judge to their colleagues – well, it only adds to the stink.

Follow @PaulWestonGC