By CAMERON LUCADOU-WELLS
A REPORT into the conduct of two Greater Dandenong councillors should be made public, according to a parliamentary governance expert.
Associate Professor Ken Coghill of Monash Univesity’s school of management said the public should view at least a redacted version of the report, which is believed to have been handed to the council in July but is yet to be read by councillors.
He said if the council wanted to protect the privacy of staff, it could “redact” any parts that identified them.
“I’d have thought if the investigation had been completed and there’s no more investigation to occur, they’d make the report available.”
Mayor Angela Long and chief executive John Bennie jointly launched the “private and confidential” investigation by consultants CT Management in May.
They alleged Crs Peter Brown and Maria Sampey caused council staff to feel “hurt and distressed” over what was ultimately found to be a botched footpath in Noble Park.
Since then, councillors have not read the report but have received its findings – none of which has been publicly released.
The saga is believed to have cost ratepayers nearly $70,000 – the original footpath cost $39,251, its rectification is estimated at $15,000 and the investigation so far between $12,000-$14,000, according to Cr Brown.
The council has declined to confirm the cost of the investigation.
For the past month, Crs Brown and Sampey have pushed for the release of the report.
During a tumultuous meeting last Monday, a majority of councillors resolved that only councillors could view a redacted version of the “legally privileged” report in a “designated place” and “designated time”.
Mr Bennie told the Journal after the meeting that no version of the report would be made public.
However, the next day Cr Sampey launched a rescission motion that put the resolution on hold until further debate on 28 October.
The decision came after a month’s open acrimony between councillors.
At Monday’s meeting Cr Brown tabled copies of emails he sent to councillors and council staff during the footpath saga, thumping down the paperwork dramatically in front of Cr Long.
“I challenge anyone in this room to formulate in their mind why a private investigation was initiated.”
Questions on the matter were then forbidden during councillor question time when Cr Sampey tried to ask why informal mediation wasn’t used to settle the dispute instead of a private and confidential investigation.
Cr Roz Blades advised that the council was “better discussing (the issue) in private in an open and honest manner”.
“So we can be accused, hung, drawn and quartered and no one gives a shit,” Cr Sampey said.
Later during debate of the urgent business item, 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.
“The ownership of the document is the council’s, not the CEO or the mayor.”
Cr Matthew Kirwan, who opposed the motion, said he was happy that the report was kept confidential but not that the councillors’ version would be redacted.
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.”
Last Thursday, Cr Long said she couldn’t comment on the report because it was still confidential.
“I haven’t read the report. I haven’t seen the report at all.”
Should the report be made public? Let us know at journal@starnewsgroup.com.au.
