Dear Mayor Mitchell,
Having had close family members and friends endure long and protracted medical conditions that left them unable to work — and having lost people close to me in those circumstances — I have genuine appreciation for the stress this places on a person, their family and their friends. The desire to return to work, particularly to a role one loves, can be an important driver of recovery.
Throughout my life — as an employee, an employer, and a union advocate — I have believed strongly that an employer should, wherever possible, keep a position open for an employee returning after a serious medical condition.
However, your current continuous period of fully paid absence — now 31 weeks — is far beyond what most people in the community would be entitled to receive. A Council employee is eligible for three weeks of paid personal leave per year of employment. To receive the amount of paid leave you have now taken, an employee would generally need more than 10 years of service and would have had to preserve that leave without drawing on it. You have held the office of Mayor for two years.
While what you are doing may be lawful, I am aware of no comparable Federal, State or Local Government representative who has ever considered it acceptable to continue receiving full public remuneration for such an extended period while unable to perform the duties of office. Most elected representatives, faced with such circumstances, would either step aside to focus on recovery or allow the community the opportunity to elect someone able to actively represent them.
You could choose to take unpaid leave, as the previous mayor did when she stepped aside. You could also choose to return some or all of the salary received during this extended absence to the ratepayers of Redlands. That is not an extreme proposition. It is a well-understood political principle that elected representatives may be legally entitled to a benefit, but still obliged to consider whether accepting it meets community expectations.
Everyone understands that people get sick and may require time away from work. What many people are outraged about is the extent of fully paid leave now being taken from public funds. I now find myself in the extraordinary position of being criticised and threatened for having agreed to your leave of absence at the last Council meeting, despite the fact that only months ago one of your Leading Change Team campaign workers and a staunch public advocate for you was prosecuted by Police and found guilty of making death threats against me.
There is also the broader impact your absence is having on the organisation. While your day-to-day mayoral workload is being covered by the Deputy Mayor, myself and other councillors, the deeper and longer-lasting damage is to organisational culture, public confidence in Council, and trust in local government itself.
Bob Garratt famously used the phrase “a fish rots from its head” as a leadership and corporate governance metaphor, one taught in governance training such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors course — a course Council paid for you to attend. The point is simple: culture, ethical behaviour and organisational standards are set from the top. Accountability does not begin with frontline staff; it begins with the boardroom, the executive and elected leaders. If a frontline work crew were seen to be shirking responsibility, avoiding the job and still expecting full pay, there would rightly be consequences, management action and public criticism. Yet here, the same behaviour is being excused from the highest elected office in the city. That double standard is indefensible. The same standard — indeed, a higher standard — must apply to the Mayor. How can we expect staff to show responsibility, diligence and commitment when the public example from the highest office is prolonged, fully paid absence without sufficient clarity to the community?
Madam Mayor, councillors have received no contact from you and no advice about your medical condition during your absence. That is entirely within your rights. We respect your right to privacy and do not need to know the specifics of your situation. We have, however, been advised that a medical certificate has been received requesting leave until the end of October — a further eight weeks.
Even so, given this is now your fourth requested period of medical leave, and given that each previous expected return date has been followed by a further extension, the community is entitled to direct answers to direct questions:
- Do you genuinely believe you will be fit to return to your full duties on 1 November 2026?
- Do you genuinely intend to return to work on 1 November 2026?
- Do you intend to continue accepting full pay from Redland ratepayers while you remain on leave?
On 16 September, councillors must again vote on whether to approve your leave of absence for a Council General Meeting. It would assist us in making that decision if you could provide clear answers to these questions and, while respecting your privacy, a general indication of your capacity to return to duty. If necessary, that information could be provided during the confidential component of the meeting. What is not acceptable is for councillors and the community to be asked to keep approving extended paid absence without meaningful accountability.
Madam Mayor, as I do not have your personal contact details, I call upon Cr Boglary and Cr Hewlett, your friends and Leading Change Team members on Council, as well as Kim Richards, Don Brown and your other prominent Leading Change Team supporters in the community — including those who have publicly protested in support of you outside Council — to counsel you to make the right decision for the residents of Redlands. This is no longer simply a private matter. It is a question of public trust, political leadership and whether the ratepayers of Redlands are entitled to expect accountability from the person holding the highest elected office in this city.
Mayor, please demonstrate the leadership your Leading Change Team claimed to represent: fairness, honesty, integrity and value for our rates. Where you are leading us now is not where our city wants to be.