Councillor Paul Gleeson was recently found to have engaged in misconduct for sending a text message to a person which “was intended to intimidate her”. The Councillor Conduct Tribunal found this was a breach of the trust of the community in him as a Councillor.
The Tribunal’s decision, made on 15 December 2019, includes orders that Cr Gleeson must make a public admission that he has engaged in misconduct. He has also been fined $700.
In its decision the Tribunal stated: “It is, important to note that the Tribunal considers that the conduct of the Councillor in this matter, is entirely unacceptable, and suitable measures must and will be taken as necessary to ensure that the conduct is not repeated by the Councillor or engaged in by other councillors.”
The Tribunal said that “serious consideration” was given to recommending that the Minister for Local Government dismiss Cr Gleeson. But the Tribunal’s view was that “On balance, it is not considered that such action is appropriate in the circumstances of this matter, particularly where a period of suspension has not previously been ordered.”
“However, the Tribunal considers that the voluntary leave of absence taken by the Councillor is appropriate and demonstrates some insight (albeit late in these proceedings). A further period away from the needs of his constituents would not necessarily be in the public interest.” said the Tribunal.
Statement from the Independent Assessor Kathleen Florian
The following statement was issued by the Independent Assessor on 6 January 2020.
“Redland City Councillor Paul Gleeson has again been found guilty of misconduct after sending an intimidating text message to a woman who was both a complainant and a witness in previous misconduct proceedings against him.
The woman had made a complaint to the Office of the Independent Assessor (OIA) about the councillor’s online abuse of her which included publication of her photograph and personal details.
The OIA subsequently referred the case, amongst other matters, to the Councillor Conduct Tribunal to determine if Cr Gleeson had engaged in misconduct.
In June 2019, Cr Gleeson used his council-listed mobile phone to send text messages to the woman and her husband threatening to take legal action for slander and defamation against her, based on comments made in her complaint.
At the time the text messages were sent the woman’s complaint was before the tribunal.
On 16 August 2019, the tribunal found Cr Gleeson had committed misconduct as a result of his online conduct. In addition, he was found to have engaged in three other instances of misconduct, also relating to his online conduct as well as threats made to another councillor.
The tribunal reprimanded Cr Gleeson and made an order requiring him to pay fines of $2,100 over a six-month period.
On the 15 December 2019, the tribunal sustained a further misconduct finding based on the threatening text messages sent to the woman and her husband during the previous proceedings.
The tribunal found the message was intended to intimidate the woman from making any further complaints or disclosures to the OIA, which investigates councillor conduct and refers serious matters to the tribunal.
It found the messages could also be seen as an attempt to interfere with a witness.
The tribunal took into account the purpose of disciplinary proceedings, the councillor’s disciplinary history, his escalating conduct, lack of remorse or insight into his own conduct, and his decision to voluntarily taking leave of absence from the council.
The tribunal fined Cr Gleeson a further $700 and ordered him to make a public admission he engaged in misconduct after finding his conduct constituted a breach of trust placed in him as a councillor, either knowingly or recklessly.
The tribunal noted that had Cr Gleeson not decided to take a leave of absence, a recommendation by the tribunal to the Local Government Minister “ for a period of suspension may have been considered appropriate in order to ensure that the Councillor took the time needed to obtain any support necessary to develop greater insight into his past behaviour, and how such behaviour should change if he were to continue in the role of a Councillor”.
According to the Redland City Council’s Councillor Conduct Register, Cr Gleeson has now accrued 17 sustained allegations of misconduct and inappropriate conduct since the last election, while a further inappropriate conduct claim was part-substantiated.
The Councillor Conduct Tribunal decision can be found here.”
Cr Paul Gleeson’s leave of absence
Cr Gleeson sent an email to the Tribunal on 14th November 2019 that he had requested a leave of absence from Council to allow him to deal with personal matters that are affecting his health.
Since that time Cr Gleeson has missed three council meetings.
At each of these meetings there has been a motion to grant Cr Gleeson a leave of absence without any reason being provided.
Normally, such motions are approved unanimously but it seems that not all councillors have been convinced that Cr Gleeson deserves an extended leave of absence, with the number of councillors opposing a leave of absence increasing at each meeting:
- 18 December 2019 the vote was 5/4
- 4 December 2019 the vote was 6/3
- 20 November the vote was 8/2
Cr Gleeson has been a repeat offender this term
Cr Gleeson was found by the Tribunal to have engaged in four counts of misconduct and fined a total of $2,100, in August 2019.
Prior to the Councillor Conduct Tribunal being responsible for disciplinary matters, its predecessor, the Local Government Remuneration and Discipline Tribunal made three findings of misconduct by Cr Gleeson since the 2016 elections.
These include two instances where Cr Gleeson’s misconduct was for engaging in inappropriate conduct on three occasions within a year.
Details of complaints against councillors can be found in Redland City Council’s Register of Councillor Conduct Complaint Outcomes.
Will Paul Gleeson be a Williams “team” candidate in 2020?
When running for re-election in 2016, Cr Paul Gleeson was acknowledged by Mayor Karen Williams as a member of her “team” who supported her seven election “pledges” as shown on her How to Vote card.
But now three candidates have nominated for Division 9 including (in date of announcement order) Adelia Berridge, Allison Wicks and James Farrell.
Paul Gleeson was first elected to Redland City Council in 2012 after campaigning to address residents’ concerns about high rise developments, in Capalaba.
At the 2009 Queensland elections he was the LNP’s unsuccessful candidate for the seat of Capalaba, being defeated by the Labor Party’s Michael Choi.
Redlands2030 – 23 December 2019
Statement by the Independent Assessor
This story was updated on 6 January to include a statement by the Independent Assessor Kathleen Florian.
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
5 Comments
Read the seven points, as promoted on Karen Williams’ How To Vote card in 2016. Only one of those pledges was kept, the one to keep the dumps free. Three different councillors have informed me this year that our dumps are not free at all and none of these councillors appear on the Williams’ Team above. Every single rate payer is slugged $30 on their rates notice for dump fees, including old age pensioners, who do not have car licences and never go to the dump. So much for free dumps. Traffic congestion has become markedly worse over the last 3 years and while there is lots of talk, nothing has been done to address it. Now various real estate development companies are squabbling over who will rip out more mature bushland to place a housing development between Double Jump Road and Bunker Road in Victoria Point. Imagine the extra road congestion that will cause yet still we have mostly single lane each way traffic along Cleveland-Redland Bay Road.
Paul ain’t no angel, or even competent, but at least he ain’t as bad as the ones who are trying to shift him out so they can install another puppet.
… and who do you see as the ‘new’ puppet masters oh wise one Peter? Do tell.
Only one comment is reasonable regarding this individual… Why is he still there?
In my opinion he has demonstrated over and over again that he is not there to represent the electorate (including dissenters) but rather his own ego and lucrative career.
Peter, I’m sorry but your logic is well fatally flawed. In truth, The ‘puppet masters’ should go too.
Then again Being apprenticed/(part of ) to the Secombe Six one could hardly expect anything different than the magic pudding ponzi mindset….. Redlands need more housing development money to pay for infrastructure necessitated by the previous (er um ..development?) ad nauseum.
But of course you are well aware of that aren’t you?
NB I’m not opposed to development rather it should be only when we have (in advance) the infrastructure to support it. Not the nonsensical quasi ‘ponzi’ unsustainable endless growth , congestion all in favour of developers etc and the phoney notion that it benefits the Redlanders. Take a walk through the shopping precincts/ centres, one will note endless empty shops , lack of choice ( only big chains with same ole same ole Corporate ( non Redlanders) profit maximized fare ), very little small medium mum and dad enterprises.
Don’t run away with the idea that developers are all local. They buy their major materials elsewhere and hire the cheapest subbies regardless of where they live, and spend their money. Studies show that the aim of business is to reduce the human recurrent cost ( most often the largest item on a balance sheet) read jobs for the majority of folks. Not every one is a major exec or retired.