Noosa News reported on October 19th that ‘Two councillors declared in breach of conduct‘ and ‘Cracks showing in Noosa Council‘. (Image: Noosa News article P.8)
Open Noosa was founded in part because of the lived and observed experiences of attempts to discredit, sideline and silence progressive women. I am glad, therefore, that a string of complaints against Cr Ingrid Jackson from two fellow Noosa councillors has been dismissed in its entirety. I believe it is a win against a broader toxic undercurrent which is largely hidden yet has been so corrosive to our community.
I am standing in solidarity with women and men who refuse to be controlled by special interests. And I am looking forward to a time when we can discuss real issues affecting our community instead of having to spend resources ‘navigating’ this murky undercurrent.
Open Noosa’s first post ‘Let the light shine in‘, which I later withdrew from publication. was triggered by – and contained passages from – an email written by Cr Brian Stockwell containing a lengthy attempt to discredit Cr Jackson. What he had to say was in my eyes inappropriate, and my reservations were later substantiated by the CEO who found the contents of the email to breach the Council’s Code of Conduct.
We all make mistakes and things could have been managed and improved and moved on to focus on the substantive issues in our community. But unfortunately, in what seemed like a backlash, seven Code of Conduct allegations against Cr Ingrid Jackson were filed by two fellow councillors, which have been seen to be desperate and petty attempts to undermine her.
Ingrid’s husband Keith Jackson put it on Facebook: “The string of complaints about her from two councillors was dismissed in its entirety following an independent investigation. In three specific cases, the complainants received warnings they should not pull the same stunt again.”
A cloak of anonymity
Anonymity is a provision to protect complainants in situations where an accused organisation or person may wield coercive power over the well-being of the complainant. I don’t believe this to be the case here. I view the cloak of anonymity used to shroud the complainants as cowardly and disingenuous.
In addition, the behaviour of these councillors, of which the complaints constitute only one part, seem to have been tolerated – and certainly not counteracted – by Noosa Mayor Cr Tony Wellington. This does not come as a surprise to me. In my own observation and experience, his past behaviour has at times contributed to the cultural petri dish that have enabled these latest manoeuvres to grow and manifest themselves.
Our regular reports from council by John Lobb have drawn attention to some of the unfortunate behaviour within public council meetings. We can only guess what occurs in the many meetings held behind closed doors.
The complaints register
The publicly available Councillor Complaints Register, in accordance with Section 181A of the Local Government Act 2009, does not record complaints the CEO has assessed as frivolous, vexatious or lacking in substance.
It is clear that the dismissed allegations in relation to Cr Jackson were assessed as such and hence will remain off the public record. So there are no direct consequences for these two councillors in making complaints that are unsubstantiated, lacking in substance or frivolous. So no cost to them if their names are kept secret. But there is a personal cost to the subject of this desperate mud slinging, and the Council’s resources and ratepayer funds are also wasted. That said, the CEO was wise in engaging an independent third party to investigate and assess the seven – now dismissed – complaints. This put the judgement beyond reproach.
In three cases, the complainant councillors received a stern warning to not wield the same accusations again or risk consequences and I hope this will give Cr Jackson some assurance that her good work to inform her electorate freely, accessibly and openly about Council activities and that her struggle for greater transparency and better governance can continue unimpeded.
A culture change is urgently needed
I believe the behaviour of these two councillors is part of a bigger issue: which is the culture of this Council. It seems to be an oppressive culture, where staff, community and suppliers keep their heads down for fear of repercussions. It simply doesn’t get the best out of people.
Council’s serious gender imbalance, lack of diversity and evidence of group think can cause friction and inhibit fresh ideas and good projects getting off the ground. If all the people sitting around the table are for the most part of similar age, same sex, same ethnic background (and have probably been spending too much time together for way too long), the group will have a limited understanding of issues not within its experiential framework. If only their ideas are seen as worthwhile, then their ideas get funding and other public resources. Simple as that.
I believe as a community
- we are stronger together;
- intimidation should not be tolerated;
- a culture of openness, kindness and valuing difference of opinion are key.
For the culture to become more productive and harmonious, Noosa Council desperately needs a shake up and I hope to see a groundswell of women candidates gearing up for the next election in March 2020.
Looking forward to interesting times
Bettina
For the record, I add the following media statement from Noosa Council together with the latest update of the Councillor Complaints Register 2017-18.
Statement from Noosa Council’s Acting CEO Alan Rogers:
In order to assess the complaints against Cr Jackson Noosa Council’s Chief Executive Officer chose to engage an independent third party to provide advice in relation to these matters.
This advice indicated that the complaints were ‘not substantiated, lacking in substance or frivolous’.
In accordance with section 176 of the Local Government Act 2009, the CEO then reviewed this advice and agreed that the complaints could not be substantiated. Therefore no further action was required. All parties have been informed of this decision.
ENDS.
Please find attached a copy of the publicly available Councillor Complaints Register. The register is current as of 15/10/2018 and its contents are in accordance with Section 181A of the Local Government Act 2009:
181A Records about complaints
(1) The chief executive officer must keep a record of—
(a) all complaints received by the chief executive officer under this part; and
(b) the outcome of each complaint, including any disciplinary action or other action taken in relation to the complaint.
(2) The chief executive officer must ensure that the public may inspect the part of the record that relates to outcomes of complaints—
(a) at the local government’s public office; or
(b) on the local government’s website.
(3) However, subsection (2) does not apply to the record of a complaint that—
(a) the chief executive officer or the department’s chief executive has assessed as being about a frivolous matter, having been made vexatiously or lacking in substance; or
(b) is a public interest disclosure within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010.
There are clearly clashes of personality and approach within our council, and while I think these may be related to gender I doubt that that’s the whole of the story. Our councillors are supposedly elected as independents, and differing approaches and opinions should be accepted an integral part of how Council operates, but it appears this is not happening. While I don’t always agree with Ingrid’s decisions or approaches I have great respect for her commitment to inform the community, the way she researches and informs her own decision making, and the way she is prepared to engage with the community in less ‘safe’ and less traditional ways, and am appalled by what appears to be bullying tactics used against her.
I would like to see more women stand for Council, but even more I would like to see more councillors who are independent thinkers, who embrace new ways of doing things and new ways of engaging with the community, who are willing to listen to and respect others, and who can discuss and accept different opinions without having to attack others personally. I agree it might be time for a change, but change requires not just one but many new and different people to step up to the challenge and stand for Council. I hope that happens in our next local election, otherwise we have more of the same. Ingrid has been a voice for change, a new way of doing things, but she’s pretty much a lone voice and that can take its toll. If ‘success’ on Council is measured by how well you fit in and agree with the old boys who’ve been there a while then we are not going to see change.
Like you I think councillors hiding behind anonymity provisions when they have brought complaints against another councillor is a cowardly act. It also potentially reflects badly on other councillors, as the community discusses and second guesses who made the complaints and imagines the divisions and animosity and who said what.
There are clearly some issues within the elected Council, but you go on to extrapolate from that to suggest this ‘is part of a bigger issue, which is the culture of this council, saying: This seems to be an oppressive culture, where staff, community and suppliers keep their heads down for fear of repercussions’. While this may be the case I am wondering where you find the evidence for this statement.
Finally, while I agree with much of what you have to say I am wondering who constitutes the ‘we’ you write for. As a contributor to and supporter of Open Noosa I’d like to think we all are able to put forward our own opinions, not speak for others, or that if we do they are identified.
Thank you for your comment, Judy. Much appreciated. And you made a good point re who is speaking, and since it is not the royal ‘we’ I will correct and change the ‘we’ to ‘I’.
Agree with Judy, about the “we” and pleased to have Bettina clarify this.
If more women are to be on council, and I think this would be a good thing, then more women need to nominate and more people need to vote for female candidates.
In any case, while Cr Jackson is a fine addition to the councillor lineup, I don’t think she brings a female perspective, whatever that might be, to the table and hence the debate. Ingrid has proven to be a contrarian, but often it has been to push for projects that I don’t think Council should be approving. This is neither here nor there, since there are seven councillors that get the final vote on applications that come before council and there are many factors that come into play such as planning knowledge, inherent biases, ideology, and insider connections. While all or any of these don’t come to the surface during all deliberations, they are nevertheless in the backgrounds of each councillor. For this reason, I think a diversity of councillors is a good thing and I don’t see group think causing friction or inhibiting fresh ideas and good projects getting off the ground. In fact, I hardly know how gender could affect decisions when looking at most of the material that comes up for discussion.
After sitting in on a few meetings of this council, I’d suggest disingenuous behaviour is not restricted to any one councillor and often it appears in many instances from many councillors. Perhaps this is what you’d expect from a group of independents.
I believe the constant battering of individuals and valorising of other individuals is both destructive and poor form. Knowing all those councillors, I can’t see the malicious intent, that is supposedly common, in any of them. They may bumble along on occasions, they may make poor decisions (to my mind), they may even create unnecessary red tape, but they are doing their best and mostly succeed. I mean, they were voted in a couple of years ago and they can be voted out, just as easily. It’s the residents that will decide their fate, not commentators on the side.
Ingrid being a woman brings a female perspective to the table, which is hers and somewhat different to my female perspective or that of a woman of colour or woman living in the outback. Being female is not all that we are.
Having experienced both crass sexual harassment and subtle discrimination there are unfortunately commonalities. You have obviously not seen this side of people here? I know of people having been buttered up while they appear to be useful. Due to my own bad experiences over the years with this quasi political group culminating in the workplace bullying I have been called an ‘unfortunate casualty’ of higher ambition by one councillor. I am forever grateful for the few people in the community, who have shown courage and integrity and stood up for me. So I know how important solidarity is. Even though we might not support the same policies or agree on everything, seeing our fellow humans and valuing each others contribution is a good start.
The struggle is not over by a long margin. I am looking forward to a time where discrimination rarely needs to be pointed out. In the meantime, showing solidarity with women might just be one way of encouraging more women to get involved in politics and that surely is a good thing.
Rod, having just read the latest installment of John Lobb’s serialised soap opera it’s hard not to laugh just a little at your fervent support of our councillors. We have a couple of idealistic councillors (including the would-be mayor) wanting lead us headlong into the planning courts in a dispute that even they admit we couldn’t win; a councillor who seems confused as to whether he’s a council member or a member of staff advising on planning matters; confusion about whether the Goodchap Street nursing home proposal is a retirement village for motorbike riding oldies or a high care nursing home facility; councillors wanting to redesign buildings and save mango trees against the advice of staff and engineers (one wonders why they bother having staff at all if they can do it all so much better) ; a pitiful budget allocation for sealing roads; and to top it all off a ‘gold plated’ playground that the community was never consulted about, that seems to be someone’s (a staff member or a councillor?) pet project inserted into the operational plan when everyone was asleep, that now seems set to bankrupt the shire, not just with its construction costs but forevermore with maintenance.
I do take issue with your comment calling Ingrid ”contrarian”‘. No more so than any other councillor I would contend.
Rod, you refer to me as a ‘Contrarian’. I’m wondering exactly what you mean and what evidence you have.
When in Council, I have voted hundreds of times with the majority of councillors. Does very occasionally voting differently make me a Contrarian? (Does it make colleagues who also, like me, from time to time vote against the majority, Contrarians?)
Does seeking to improve council transparency (which has great community support) make me a Contrarian?
Does giving voice to residents’ concerns about the governance of a council-funded entity make me a Contrarian?
Does supporting council staff recommendations to approve small business applications make me a Contrarian?
Or, perhaps instead of generalising that I am a Contrarian, you could present some specific evidence of my Contrariness.
By the way, here’s the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of Contrarian: “(noun) A person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing’.
Rod says he “can’t see the malicious intent”. He needs to look harder at the evidence revealed by the Councillor complaints process. There was malice all right.
Judy, one person’s “serialised opera” is another person’s important issue. For instance,
the discussion on the Wattle Street, Cooroy, development application that was reported on by John Lobb at the 15 October Planning Committee Meeting (and which continued at the Ordinary Meeting, 18 October, was about retaining the visual amenity of this part of town by preserving an old mango tree that was due to be removed to allow a driveway access. Once it was pointed out that the driveway could exit via Garnet St (an option rejected by planning staff in the original application) councillors could see an easy fix that was win-win, in that is saved the developer some money and kept those residents concerned about the issue happy. It may have taken time to reach this conclusion, but debate on applications is what councillors are elected to do.
And John, complaining, as a spectator, about lengthy deliberations is surely something that only councillors would be concerned about. A bit like complaining about a long cricket test match! I’d be keen to ensure that all development applications were thoroughly dealt with. And John’s complaint that Cr Stockwell was interfering with planning principles ignores the fact that he is, indeed, a planner and brings valuable skills to the councillor table. Far from him being “a councillor who seems confused as to whether he’s a council member or a member of staff advising on planning matters”, let’s appreciate these skills. Much of the confusion about development applications comes from councillors who don’t know much about planning law.
As to the Goodchap St development, I know little of the history about this application and since it has been approved, I don’t see much public protest to the decision. Could it be that councillors got this right?
The Cooroy Playground can certainly do with financial scrutiny and ongoing costs should not be underestimated, since they are part of all council’s infrastructure. As a new project for Cooroy, despite the town having no say in the original idea, it could be a fantastic thing if it is built with the traffic implications in mind. I have to say that lot of new development is being proposed that impacts on the CBD of a town that is hemmed in on the west by the highway and the railway line. Again, ask the residents before making a final decision.
One thing’s for sure, if the Council goes broke, it won’t just be just due to this development, and it will include the $13 million spent on recent tourism infrastructure projects like the iconic walkway to Noosa NP and the sealing of Dr Pages Road (both of which will have ongoing maintenance issues). Plus the millions spent annually on keeping our beautiful shire up to the high standards expected by both locals and visitors alike.
Finally, a contrarian is “a person that takes up a contrary position, especially a position that is opposed to that of the majority”. Some of Ingrid’s decisions are certainly contrarian by this definition, but the descriptor doesn’t have to be pejorative, and Ingrid would likely agree that her opposition to other councillor’s decisions is well justified on the facts and her opposition is soundly based. And, yes, all councillors are contrarians at various times and on various issues. Could this be because they have all been elected as independents? Those wishing for something different better be careful what they wish for, since the outcomes could well be worse. I think we’ll see all councillors looking for points of difference as the next election draws closer.
Very concise comment Rodders.Have you ever thought of getting into the medieval fiction business?Its very lucrative.I can help.I have contacts at the coal face!
Thanks for the offer of contacts Bernadette, but I don’t write fiction. And, while I did enjoy coming to these pages for my dose of medieval fiction, the good news is that there’s still plenty of fiction here to entertain me.
Gosh Rod, I didn’t realise the walkway was also ‘iconic’. We are so fortunate.
Thanks for the lively debate- always good to hear from you. I think you need not worry about traffic in Cooroy. The shire ratepayers will probably end up forking out to move the highway and/or the railway line, or perhaps we could solve it all with a few free buses and extra scooter spaces.
I certainly agree Noosa needs a mix of councillors but surely there has to be eligibility and suitability criteria – perhaps voters need to apply more scrutiny; additionally there has to be protocol and ethical behaviour. Though this council has an environmental focus I don’t think there’s enough business management and I believe the fault lies with the management team who scheme and plot behind the scenes. Though a lack of resources is an inhibiting factor perhaps the management team has an agenda that may not be in the best interests of the community. There is no media transparency.
Expensive tourism infrastructure gets tagged “iconic” to deflect criticism of its cost. When the walkway project was announced, the “I” word was front and centre. This is a walkway that is costing $15,476 per metre. Sealing a rural road is estimated to cost $,1000 per metre ($1million per km). Haven’t seen any scooters around Cooroy, but certainly a few scooter parking spots would go a long way to solving traffic problems in town!.
As to the problematic intersections in Cooroy, ratepayers aren’t responsible for their redesign since they are state roads. And, believe it or not, the state has a policy of prioritising intersections with a strong fatality record. One of our intersections has a score of one, but no doubt we can improve on that as time goes on.
As to the selection of councillors, the current scheme of independent candidates self-selecting themselves and voters choosing them is a pretty standard method outside of the party system. And party politics doesn’t seem to very often intrude at the local government level, so likely this will continue. As to the role of management (both corporate and government) it is to scheme and plot behind the scenes, it’s just that it’s called planning!
As a proud and committed lifelong contrarian and co founder of the Kin Kin Contrarians Association. I must take issue with Rods assertion that Councillor Jackson is one of us.She is far too astute, well informed,hard working and community spirited to even qualify for a social membership.She also appears to be quite sane which disqualifies her further.I believe the term Rod is grasping for is”libertarian”
Hmmm, haven’t heard of the KKCA, but then the hills up that way are alive with contrarian thought and backwoods individualism, so it wouldn’t surprise me that political philosophy would be common in debates around the outdoor fire pits and at speak easies on the long tables at the Black Ant Gourmet. But alas, no, libertarianism would not be a term I’d grasp for in this case. Libertarians tend to believe in free will with limited government, so being a local government councillor backed by the laws of a state government would make you a pretty flakey libertarian. In fact, applying libertarianism to development applications would make decision-making fraught, since the liberty of all involved, developers and those affected by a development, would carry equal weight. And since Libertarians seek to maximise political freedom and autonomy, encourage freedom of choice, and promote individual judgment, planning decisions would be a free-for-all nightmare. That said, I am considering Ingrid’s objections to the “C” word, although I have explained above the definition I was using. I certainly I meant no offence.