The vote was on a draft policy that would allow councillors to take part in potential investment negotiations for the shire.

Councillors were split on the policy draft, with the motion passing five votes to four – one saying it may open the council up to allegations of corruption. 

The vote was about council’s policy on Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) and could see councillors participate in negotiations with developers.

This is in cases where the developer agrees to fund public amenities or infrastructure, dedicate land at no cost, provide monetary contributions or any other material public benefit, for a public purpose.

Normally council staff such as the general manager carry out the negotiations on the council’s behalf.

Councillors Murray O’Keefe, Rob Hooke, Gae Swain and Jamie Chaffey wished for their votes against the motion to be put on record.

Owen Hasler spoke in favour of the motion, saying talks on developments in the shire required the best negotiation team available.

“This draft policy, like all draft policy, should be the best for the community,” Cr Hasler said.

“So regardless of what the proposed development is, it is imperative that our best negotiators take the lead for the betterment of our community.”

Ann Luke said the wording of the motion allowed for some flexibility for councillors.

“I think there are enough safeguards in place within our organisation to ensure intervention occurs before anyone reaches the stage of a potential conflict of interest,” Cr Luke said.

“The way the motion is worded, I think, allows for it to be occasional participation by councillors and I must say I agree with Cr Hasler and the motion.”

Rob Hooke did not share Cr Hasler’s view, saying he feared councillors may “cross a line” by taking part in operational duties.

“I must say that I sympathise with some of the points made Cr Hasler,” Cr Hooke said.

“What concerns me about the proposed policy is the role of councillors is not an operational role.

“We have a terrific team of staff to carry out those operational roles and I feel like for councillors to get involved may be crossing a line.

"By being involved in operational practices, I feel like we are setting a dangerous precedent.

“Most other councils in NSW either don’t allow councillors to be involved in negotiations or are silent on the matter, and I feel there is a good reason for that.”

Murray O’Keefe echoed those sentiments.

“In my opinion, we should hypothetically be looking at our organisation like a major company,” Cr O’Keefe said.

“As councillors we should act as the board of directors and allow our staff to act as executives and, in turn, allow them to bring negotiations that they – and they alone – have been working on to us, to make a decision as elected leaders on behalf for the community.

“I agree with Cr Hooke’s feelings about this creating a dangerous precedent.

“I can’t in good conscience support something that may lead to any sort of allegation or situation regarding corruption or even the possibility of corruption.” 

Read Also:

Gunnedah Shire Council general manager Eric Groth said the council would make the final decision but would consult the NSW Office of Local Government.

“[Its] policy is not designed to drive a wedge between councillors and staff,” Mr Groth said.

“We are a team and we are all working together to get the best outcome for the community.

“If this proposed policy does get the go-ahead, then my understanding is that [some] councillors involved with negotiations must claim a conflict of interest and abstain from voting on the matter.

“To my knowledge that would be consistent with regulations.”