By CAMERON LUCADOU-WELLS
A RESCISSION motion has been launched against last night’s council resolution to restrict access to an investigation report into councillors Peter Brown and Maria Sampey’s conduct.
This morning, Cr Sampey lodged the motion, effectively putting the resolution on hold until 28 October.
The resolution had restricted councillors to view a redacted version of the report.
Cr Sampey, who has argued for access to the full report, told the Journal she would also inform Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell about the “denial of natural justice”.
“I have been accused over such a trivial thing as hurting someone’s feelings,” Cr Sampey said.
“I ask what’s in the council’s procedures when someone makes that complaint.”
If successful, Cr Sampey’s replacement motion would be for councillors to be provided with an “unredacted” report “to be able to make up their own minds” on whether the legal professional privilege covering the report should be “continued”.
She said last night’s resolution was put on the agenda yesterday afternoon as an urgent business item, denying councillors “time to think about it and discuss it among ourselves”.
“We look at confidential reports all the time but here we’re not being trusted to read this unredacted report.”
After the meeting, chief executive John Bennie said the council, under legal advice, would not publicly release the report in any form.
He said the aim of the approach was “risk management”, to “protect council staff”.
He didn’t comment on why mediation or a more informal investigation wasn’t pursued, nor whether a formal complaint was lodged.
During the urgent business item last night, Cr Brown said it was unusual that it was he and Cr Sampey – the accused councillors – that were trying to make the report public and were being resisted.
He said councillors were asked to vote against seeing “a report to which you’re entitled but not allowed to read in its entirety”.
“The ownership of the document is the council’s, not the CEO or the mayor.
“We have a right within us whether the report should be made public. That’s our decision.”
Cr Sean O’Reilly, in supporting the restrictions, said it “isn’t realistic or practical” for all council reports to be open to the public.
“What this motion seeks to do is to bring this to finality because most councillors aren’t preoccupied by these things.
“Residents can be assured… that the council has got its eye on the main game.
“This is becoming a distraction.”
Cr Matthew Kirwan, who opposed the motion, said he was happy that the report was kept confidential but not that it was redacted.
“It leaves it open to be redacted to the point it loses all its meaning.
“I’m all for protecting privacy but it has to be understandable.”
