By CAMERON LUCADOU-WELLS
AT LAST week’s council meeting, Councillors Brown and Sampey fired a series of a dozen questions from the floor at mayor Angela Long, CEO John Bennie and engineering services director Bruce Rendall in an attempt to uncover information about a confidential investigation.
Cr Long and Mr Bennie declined to elaborate on the investigation, claiming they were bound by confidentiality and legal privilege.
Cr Brown twice demanded Cr Long’s resignation, claiming she was wrongly claiming confideniality.
Cr Long replied to the final demand: “Definitely not.”
Crs Brown and Sampey revealed the mayor sent them a letter dated 14 May that they would be investigated over treating staff in an “inappropriate manner”.
The matter related to a botched footpath completed this year at Princes Highway and Racecourse Road, Noble Park.
In the letter, Cr Long insisted they could not discuss the “confidential and legally privileged” investigation with anyone. Crs Brown and Sampey claimed the mayor briefed “two councillors” on the probe the day after receiving the letter.
Crs Sampey and Brown also claimed Mr Bennie had confirmed no formal workplace safety complaint had been made by an employee against their conduct.
“I consider it counter-productive in terms of ongoing matters under investigation to provide answers to questions which will be shared in full detail in due course to councillors.”Mr Bennie replied to one of the questions.
Cr Long and Mr Bennie maintained their stance after the council meeting; Cr Long not fronting for a scheduled briefing with The Journal the next day.
In a statement, Cr Long justified her view that the matter was confidential.
“The basis for declining to comment in respect of the questions raised on Monday night are covered in council’s meeting procedure local law (section 35) which prohibits councillors from asking questions about matters that are confidential under the Section 89 (2) of the Local Government Act which includes (a) personnel matters and (g) legal advice.
“Accordingly council will not be commenting further on this matter at this point.”
Mr Bennie wouldn’t “confirm or deny” whether the probe was linked or separate to an inquiry he launched in April into the botched footpath project.
That month, Crs Brown and Sampey had stridently argued for the footpath to be fixed, contradicting council officers’ claims that the footpath met design standards.
Last week, Cr Brown said his and Cr Sampey’s views about the footpath were justified by the findings of an independent audit, attached in a council officers’ report in May.
The audit found the footpath’s gradient didn’t comply with disability standards, as well as a litany of flaws along other sections of the footpath.
Councillors that month voted for the demolition of a mound underneath the footpath at a cost of about $15,000.
