Councillor Brooke Patterson apologises but denies conduct breaches at View Tax meet

Council has handed down its verdict to Gold Coast councillor Brooke Patterson on claims of conduct breaches. FULL DETAILS

Councillors have found three of four allegations of conduct breaches against colleague Brooke Patterson were substantiated and given her an “order of reprimand”.

Ms Patterson will be given a “letter of reprimand” to be made available to City officers, must attend training at her expense and must make a public apology.

Further conduct breaches would be considered as misconduct, rather than the less serious ‘conduct breach’ category, councillors said.

Their findings will be referred back to the Office of Independent Assessor.

The unanimous vote by councillors was reached around 3.30pm on Tuesday at a full council meeting after Ms Patterson had earlier defended her alleged behaviour.

Ms Patterson said she was not guilty of several conduct breaches and had attempted to protect City officers at an explosive town hall meeting on the so-called ‘View Tax’.

After a referral back to council from the Office of Independent Assessor, an independent assessor had found three of the five instances of alleged conduct investigated were substantiated.

Cr Brooke Patterson. Picture: Glenn Campbell.

Ms Patterson was found, by the independent investigator, to have:

• While hosting a town hall meeting on the ‘View Tax’ on August 22 last year, made factually incorrect, misleading and harmful statements about council officers. She had said she was “persuaded by officers” to support the View Tax rate rise and “we got it wrong”. She allegedly removed key slides underpinning the reason for the changes.

• A day later telephoned and spoke in an accusatory, agitated and dismissive manner in relation to an officer’s role and advice given about the meeting.

• On October 29, prior to a committee meeting, behaved inappropriately towards a staffer in council chambers. She allegedly “snatched” a draft resolution, and in a loud and aggressive manner directed them not to distribute it.

Ms Patterson told councillors she was passionate about advocating for her community, and had “grown and developed” in her elected position and had completed training to be a better communicator.

The incidents being presented were before a January meeting when council requested the councillor to undertake training.

“At that council meeting, I recommitted to treating council officers with courtesy and fairness, and I stand by that today,” Ms Patterson said.

She said the investigator was given a full video of the town hall event but that was not included in their final report.

Ms Patterson said she had been asked “from the floor” at the town hall meeting about “who came up with this idea” of the tax.

“I stated and I quote, ‘In relation to officer recommendations, the buck stops with the CEO (Tim Baker), but in relation to the decision-making that is the sole responsibility of council’. That is verbatim and I said it clearly,” she said.

Council CEO Tim Baker and Councillor Brooke Patterson.

Ms Patterson disputed the allegation that she had said officers failed to properly present rating information.

She said she had arranged for officers to sit at the back of the meeting, realising it was a hostile crowd.

“In fact, I went to great lengths to protect officers as much as possible. That an officer experienced emotion and distress witnessing a town hall as an anonymous observer is not a breach, by me, of code of conduct,” she said.

Regarding the “snatching” of papers, Ms Patterson said the document was an officer’s recommendation to committee to stop accepting cash as payment at aquatic centres.

She had proposed a “changed recommendation” to accept cash.

“Simply, I found the officer approach to influence debate, seconds before I was to open the committee meeting, most irregular and I attempted to address it the best way I saw fit,” Ms Patterson told councillors.

“I have already learned from this situation and I do not feel it would be repeated again. I apologise to the officer for the disrespect she experienced for this matter and I apologise for any offence taken.”

Ms Patterson questioned why the investigations had taken 11 months. Costs had increased to $142,000.

“I’m a reasonable person and recognise I am not without flaw – but this costly process does not serve anyone,” she said.

“It actively precludes the opportunity for a standard mediation process and instead, places prolonged legal costs on our ratepayers whilst showing alarming gaps in delivering natural justice.”

Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel. Picture: Glenn Hampson.

Following the meeting at which three of the alleged conduct breaches were substantiated, Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel said the process had created discomfort for councillors, but local government representatives needed to be held to a high standard.

“I stand strongly by the ideal that elected members of government be held at the highest account for their actions,” he said.

Mr Hammel said he did not accept some of the arguments made by Ms Patterson in her defence.

“The argument from Councillor Patterson that this is about being a passionate advocate for her community, and discharging her duties as an elected representative, and ensuring she fights a path for the area in her city – I don’t accept that argument from Councillor Patterson,” he said.

“I don’t accept it because I see all of the councillors in this chamber having strong debates. If we are all able to do it without leading to a series of allegations and now substantiations of behaviour then Councillor Patterson should be able to do it as well.”

EARLIER: COUNCILLOR FIGHTS BEHAVIOUR CLAIMS

Outspoken councillor Brooke Patterson will face a misconduct investigation if any of four conduct charges against her are found to be substantiated by council.

Her colleagues will decide her political future when all councillors vote on the alleged conduct breaches at a full council meeting on Tuesday. On the latest investigation, conducted by independent investigators, she denies acting inappropriately towards a staffer.

Ms Patterson has had two previous conduct breaches substantiated against her by council.

A councillor on a “third strike” must be referred to the Office of Independent Assessor for a misconduct investigation.

“If there are three (allegations substantiated) under the Local Government Act, they (the councillor) need to be referred back to the OIA,” a political source said.

“It will then be decided from the OIA whether they undertake a formal misconduct investigation or whether they proceed to the Councillor Conduct Tribunal.”

This masthead understands this process would be a precedent for a Gold Coast councillor.

Cr Brooke Patterson — facing conduct claims regarding staffers. Picture: Glenn Campbell.

Ms Patterson is currently facing four conduct allegations, with the latest incident involving her allegedly having “snatched” papers from the hands of a City staffer before a committee meeting in full view of “multiple” councillors and employees.

Councillor Patterson denies that her conduct was inappropriate or aggressive.

“She maintained that her concerns were procedural, valid and arose from what she perceived to be an attempt to influence councillors with new information immediately before a vote,” a report to council says.

“She asserted that her voice, while naturally louder under pressure, was not raised in a way that should be interpreted as aggressive.

“She rejected the term ‘snatched’ to describe her retrieval of the document, and insisted she acted to preserve the democratic integrity of the meeting. She believed her intervention was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.”

Independent consultants in their investigation advised councillors that they should take into account several factors if they believed Ms Patterson was guilty.

Mayor Tom Tate — he and other councillors will vote on Councillor Pattersons conduct investigations. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images for Cricket Australia).

Ms Patterson was an experienced councillor, had a previous record of conduct breach and co-operated with the investigation, they said.

But she “did not appear to demonstrate insight into the inappropriate nature of her conduct”.

The City officer report said councillors faced these options if the council finds the claims are substantiated:

* That no action be taken against Ms Patterson.

* An order that she make a public apology for the conduct.

* An order reprimanding her for the conduct.

* That Ms Patterson attend training or counselling to address the conduct at her expense.

* Ms Patterson be excluded from a state local government meeting.

* That she resigns from an appointment representing the local government on a State board or committee – Ms Patterson is chair of governance.

* That the councillor engages in the same type of conduct again, it will be treated as misconduct.

* Ms Patterson reimburse the local government for all or some of the costs arising from the councillor’s conduct breach.

The report says the cost of legal fees and investigations involving Ms Patterson for 2024-25 totalled $142,413. The reimbursement for her own legal costs totalled more than $10,000.

In February this year, councillors found two of four conduct allegations against Ms Patterson were substantiated.

The Southport councillor had to make a public apology and undergo training.

An independent investigator had found she was aggressive towards council staff and tried to influence a work experience selection process.

Ms Patterson had robustly defended her position during a full council meeting, claiming the real problem was that “new bureaucrats” had “a more delicate appetite”.

Follow @PaulWestonGC 

 

Originally published as Councillor Brooke Patterson apologises but denies conduct breaches at View Tax meet