GAWLER Council chief executive Henry Inat has labelled claims, made by a Gawler councillor, that he and mayor Karen Redman interfered with a vote relating to car parking at The Exchange hotel as “outrageous”.
In July, councillors considered a request from publican Damian McGee to increase the patronage at his Murray Street venue by 120 people, to 350, on Friday nights.
To do this, council stated Mr McGee would need to pay nearly $300,000 into its car parking fund, in lieu of creating new spaces, to cater for the extra visitors.
Mr McGee countered with an offer of $20,000 – more than the average yearly amount that has been added to the fund over the past nine years – however, this was rejected by elected members,
who voted 4-3 against it.
Last Tuesday night, councillor Ian Tooley – who was overseas when the item was debated – said the mayor and CEO, as detailed in emails circulated to elected members, had contacted Cr Nathan Shanks hours before the July 23 meeting advising that he may have a material conflict of interest in the matter and should consider not voting if this was the case.
Cr Tooley alleged this was done to “influence the outcome of the decision and to have the proposed parking fund offer rejected”.
Cr Shanks sought legal advice after being contacted by Ms Redman and Mr Inat, which stated he did not have a material conflict of interest.
At the meeting, Cr Shanks conveyed this information to Mr Inat, and indicated he would be voting.
Mr Inat told Cr Shanks he may need to report him to the SA Ombudsman should he be found to have a material conflict.
Subsequent legal advice obtained by Mr Inat weeks later supported Cr Shanks’ initial position that he was entitled to vote.
Speaking to The Bunyip, Mr Inat said he was in no way instructing Cr Shanks on how to vote in the chamber.
“What I referenced to Nathan is that I, as a public officer, have a responsibility that if the nature of the conflict is material, then I have obligations,” he said.
“The nature of the conflict has not been determined to be material, based on the information that has now been provided.
“The conversation at that time with Nathan was to assist and clarify, and for him to consider his position just before the council meeting.
“Nathan has confirmed to me that he saw those conversations as being constructive and supportive, not of a threatening nature at all.”
Cr Tooley’s recount of the saga at last week’s meeting was cut short by Ms Redman, who deemed him to be making “derogatory” comments towards her and Mr Inat.
A motion was passed, as a result, to suspend the meeting for 30 minutes.
Speaking to The Bunyip, Cr Tooley said the original motion to reject The Exchange’s proposal should be rescinded and revisited in light of the recent revelations.
“Councillors are required to come to the council meeting with an open mind,” he said.
“Who else on council was influenced in their voting on that item by the…wrong advice of the mayor and CEO?”
The Bunyip can confirm Cr Paul Little also received a call from Ms Redman prior to the Exchange Hotel vote regarding potential conflicts of interest.
Cr Shanks, who was absent from last week’s meeting, said while it was disappointing he had been put at the centre of Cr Tooley’s address without being present, he hoped it would change the way advice is delivered to councillors in the future.
“The silver lining for this particular issue, if anything, is that it’s shown you can question that advice given,” he said.
“I like to think it (the advice) is coming from the right place…at this point in time it needs to be given the benefit of the doubt otherwise we have no chance of moving forward.”
Ms Redman said she would not be making any comments about “individual councillors”, and stood by the decision to suspend last week’s meeting during Cr Tooley’s address.
