By Dominique Tassell
Southern Downs Regional Council (SDRC) had a special meeting today to decide whether or not to appeal a recent decision made by the Development Tribunal, resulting in a discussion over their levels of transparency.
The tribunal supported an appeal made by McNally Constructions regarding a planning application they lodged for a property in Dalcouth.
The application was first brought to an Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 November 2021. It has since been brought back multiple times.
In the meeting, Cr McNally declared a prescribed conflict of interest due to being a shareholder in McNally Constructions and stated she would leave the room for the item.
Cr McDonald raised concerns about going into a confidential session, asking if the public had access to the tribunal’s report.
Chief Executive Dave Burges stated he did not believe so.
Cr McDonald said she did not see anything in the report which would lead them to go into a confidential session.
She said as a Council, they pride themselves on being transparent and effective in their processes and making decisions democratically in the public interest.
“I would like to see this debated in the public forum no different to the manner in which it has been debated previously,” she said.
Cr McDonald stated she couldn’t see any reason why they should close the session when they were only deciding whether to contest the findings of the tribunal.
“The concern I have also is as councillors we are charged with managing council resources effectively, efficiently, and economically,” she said. “Why shouldn’t it be transparent for the public to see how we spend ratepayers’ money?”
Mr Burges stated that their conversation would discuss potential legal action and costs, as he’d outlined in an email yesterday.
He said it is “absolutely normal” for that to be in a closed session but said it was “up to the room” whether they went ahead confidentially.
Mayor Pennisi stated that in 18 years, he’s never discussed a legal matter in an open session.
Cr Gale stated he would support it going into a confidential session.
He stated he thought it was a “fairly basic legal principle” that anything they discussed could prejudice their position.
He said another of their duties was to best look after the community’s interests.
“I think we’ve shown we’ve been one of the most open and accountable councils in the state,” he said and referenced their live-streaming the meeting.
Cr McDonald responded that “when you’re talking about transparency, Cr Gale, if you’re only airing the first two minutes of the session and closing the rest of it down, I don’t think that that demonstrates any level of transparency from my perspective.”
She asked if there was legal advice in which they had been directed to discuss the topic confidentially.
Mr Burges stated they have not sought legal advice.
Cr McDonald again questioned why they were “closing it down”.
Crs Gliori and Windle supported Cr McDonald’s sentiments.
Cr Windle said she had raised questions yesterday about why the matter was being discussed confidentially.
She stated she did not know what information prevented them from having an open session.
“Why are our ratepayers not entitled to know what the costs are?”
“Why do we need to do that behind closed doors if we’re going to be open and transparent?
“If there are costs related to this, then our ratepayers have every reason to know what those costs may be,” she said.
Cr Tancred agreed that the details of the application and tribunal decision were available to the public, but said they would be able to come out of the confidential session and discuss them.
Cr McDonald said they would not be able to go into any depth in a post-confidential discussion.
“I don’t like to have a discussion with my hands tied behind my back,” she said. “I like to be open and transparent and lay it all out on the table.”
She said she believed they had always tried to be open and transparent.
Given a councillor is involved with the application, she said she thought it “even more important we have it out in an open session”.
Cr Gale then moved to go into a confidential session, with Cr Tancred seconding.
The motion was successful, with a division called.
Crs Bartley, Gale, Tancred, and Mayor Pennisi voted for the motion, while Crs McDonald, Windle, and Gliori did not support going into a confidential session.
Cr McNally then left the room, and the meeting remained closed for over 50 minutes.
After reopening, the meeting was formally closed less than four minutes later, with no discussion regarding the matter.
Cr Tancred moved a motion to proceed with an appeal of the tribunal’s decision, seconded by Cr Gale.
Crs Gliori, Windle, and McDonald did not support the motion.
The live stream of the meeting received a large amount of attention, leading SDRC to turn off comments.
When asked why this decision could not be made at next week’s Ordinary Council Meeting, a Council spokesperson stated this was due to the time in which they had to appeal the tribunal’s decision.
When asked how much has been spent on legal fees for this matter so far, the spokesperson stated that “expenses to date have been minimal given the representations at the tribunal proceedings have been undertaken within existing staff resources”.
When asked how much pursuing an appeal might cost, they stated “Council is yet to engage legal counsel and expert witnesses, and costs remain unknown at present”.
When asked if this would factor into the draft budget, set to be released for consultation next week, they stated “Council ordinarily provides for some legal expenses each year and this is unlikely to have a material impact on the budget in its entirety”.
