By CAMERON LUCADOU-WELLS
MOST Greater Dandenong councillors have gone to ground over the issue of publicly releasing a confidential investigation report into two colleagues.
Councillors Peter Brown and Maria Sampey – the subjects of the probe – have called for the public release of an edited version of the report, redacted only to protect the privacy of complainants, according to state whistleblowers’ legislation.
Their stand has been backed by Monash University governance expert Ken Coghill, who said there was “no reason” for the public to be denied access to a redacted version of the report. However, there seems to be council reluctance to share the report’s contents with the public.
Chief executive John Bennie told the Journal after a council meeting last month that the report, redacted or not, would not be publicly released.
Last week, Mayor Angela Long – who with Mr Bennie launched the investigation – and all but one other councillor, did not reply to a Journal email survey on the matter.
Cr Matthew Kirwan, the sole respondent, said the report’s findings and recommendations, as well as the reasons for the investigation should be made public. Howeve,r a redacted version of the report should not be publicly released, he said.
The investigation, secretly launched in May, looked into the conduct of Crs Brown and Sampey in their push for the council to fix a botched footpath in Noble Park. The footpath has been since fixed but the probe has fuelled ugly public spats among councillors.
Cr Kirwan said he backed Cr Brown’s alternative motion at last Monday’s council meeting for councillors to view the confidential report in a redacted form consistent with the state Whistleblowers Protection Act. That motion was defeated in favour of councillors viewing a redacted version of the report prepared by Macpherson and Kelley Lawyers, without specifying what would be redacted.
“As councillors we need to view confidential documents that have not been redacted in such a way as to lose their meaning but by keeping it confidential we protect those that gave evidence as part of the investigation,” Cr Kirwan said.
Cr Brown – infuriated by last Monday’s outcome – was contemplating an action against Cr Long and Mr Bennie at the state’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for denial of natural justice. He said he’d seek a public apology from the pair, rather than damages.
“I still think the report should be available for public scrutiny but with such redaction to have the privacy of individuals respected under the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
“My conscience is clear. If Maria Sampey and I had been implicated in the report, this [report] would have been given plenty of public air,” Cr Brown said.
A distraught Cr Sampey told the Journal she wanted to know how Mr Bennie’s inquiry into the blundered footpath project in April had turned into a “Star Chamber” investigation of her and Cr Brown in May.
“We still don’t know what the complaint was against us. The report’s not going to be made public because it’s condemning Angela Long and John Bennie for their stupidity of going down the path of a full-scale investigation of us.”
The council did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment by deadline.
