The Bulletin can reveal a key allegation is “an extraordinary set of circumstances” in which the CEO was having his contract renewed by the Mayor when responsible for the sale of council land to Cr Tate’s development group.

The latest allegations surrounding the Gold Coast City Council claim conflicts of interest, misuse of authority and making false and misleading comments.

The Bulletin on Saturday detailed how the Crime and Corruption Commission was investigating council’s decision to fill in Black Swan Lake, and a report yesterday confirmed Cr Tate and Deputy Mayor Donna Gates were under scrutiny for allegedly not declaring racehorse ownership.

The latest complaint by Save Surfers Paradise — a group of leading lawyers, a retired judge and businessmen — includes a 49-page dossier that tracks council minutes, includes transcripts of recorded chamber debates, business searches and reports by the Bulletin about land deals.

The central allegations regarding Cr Tate cover council meetings and closed-door deals from November 2013 through to late last year and include:

● Failing to disclose a material personal interest involving his proposed Waterglow tower development on land at the Surfers Paradise Bowls Club opposite the Bruce Bishop car park.

● Making statements he knew to be false and misleading in support of the sale of one of the city’s largest assets – the car park and Surfers Paradise Transit Centre.

● The Mayor was “completely and irredeemably compromised” by his commercial need to acquire the bowls club land.

QUESTIONS PUT TO THE MAYOR AND CEO

● Misusing his authority by nominating himself, during a closed council meeting, to negotiate Mr Dickson’s new employment contract while the CEO had the sole responsibility for dealing with the sale of council land to his development group.

● Failing to update his Register of Interests within the time frame after accepting “sponsored hospitality benefits” from his lawyer Tony Hickey, who was the representative for the Chinese developer building the 88-level, $1.3 billion Spirit development on the old Iluka site.

In the complaint, submitted by lawyer Deborah Kelly on behalf of Save Surfers Paradise, it is alleged Mr Dickson had been negotiating with Tate partners on the sale of the bowls club parcel since the tender for the ratepayer-owned land closed on October 6, 2016.

“Cr Tate took control of the negotiations for the renewal of CEO Dickson’s contract in June 2017, and presumably had ongoing discretion in monitoring performance criteria he negotiated with the CEO Dickson on a one-to-one basis, behind closed doors,” the submission to the CCC said. “This is an extraordinary set of circumstances.”

The CCC confirmed: “The CCC considers that it is appropriate for the CCC to deal with (investigate) your concerns”.

In response to the accusations, Cr Tate provided a one-sentence comment: “I respect the confidentiality of the CCC”.

Mr Dickson said: “I welcome an independent investigation regarding my personal conduct by the CCC, Queensland Ombudsman, Office of the Information Commissioner or any other relevant external body.

“The claims are not new, and have been the subject of consideration as part of the City’s response to the legal proceedings initiated by Save our Surfers Paradise Inc, which will shortly be dealt with by the Supreme Court.”

Approached for comment, Ms Kelly, as the group’s secretary and steering committee co-ordinator, said: “It is in the public interest for the CCC to undertake this investigation.

“The issues that we referred to the CCC concern very serious alleged breaches of the Local Government Act and Public Sector Ethics Act, including conflicts of interest, material personal interests, misuse of authority and making false and misleading statements.

“It is imperative that these matters be rigorously investigated and that appropriate disciplinary actions and/or prosecutions follow, if public confidence in our local government processes is to be maintained.

“However, it is important to remember that at this stage, the allegations that we have made are under investigation and not yet proven. Those named in the investigation must have the opportunity to respond to the allegations and be afforded the benefit of the presumption of innocence until the investigation and any disciplinary or prosecution processes recommended by the CCC are complete.”