Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs Scott said he only planned to abstain from voting on issues that directly impacted his business and would not abstain from voting on broader issues involving the market.“I’ve sought governance advice from City of Melbourne on that, and it’s really up to me to navigate,” he said.“When issues are of material financial impact to me personally, then I’ll need to recuse myself. But for example, if we were to come up with a traffic management plan for improving customer access to the market, which was one of Nick’s pledges, then there’s no material impact on my business.”Scott said he would abstain from voting on freezing fees for traders as that would have a direct financial effect on his business, but he would not abstain from voting on the $1.7-billion Gurrowa Place redevelopment of Queen Victoria Market. The City of Melbourne and Lendlease project involves building three high-rise towers and transforming the car park into a public square.Queen Victoria Market trader and City of Melbourne councillor Mark Scott donated $2500 to the Team Nick Reece election campaign. “I think whether Gurrowa Place goes ahead or not … the governance ruling wouldn’t say that I would have a conflict of interest around that,” he said.Mary-Lou Howie, head of the Friends of the Queen Victoria Market group, said “it is a given” that Scott must recuse himself from decisions directly related to the market.“What is completely apparent is that clarification and electoral reform is long overdue around conflict,” she said. “It has an insidious impact on decision-making by councils everywhere.”Reece is also under scrutiny after accepting tens of thousands of dollars from donors with property interests in the City of Melbourne.Dr Colleen Lewis, of integrity group the Accountability Round Table, said that when looking at donations to election campaigns, who benefited and how they benefited needed to be considered. “We need to ask who benefits from funding and why do people donate to campaigns.”LoadingLewis said whether a councillor should recuse themselves from voting when they had received a donation depended on the size of the donation.“If it is for $200 probably not. If the donation is going into the thousands then yes they must recuse themselves because there is a perception of a conflict of interest and perceptions can be as important as the reality,” she said.Lewis said Reece, Scott, Campbell and Louey should not vote on any decisions relating to the market.“Then there can be no accusations of a conflict of interest.”Campbell and Louey were contacted for comment but did not respond.Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
