Councillors voted at Wednesday night’s council meeting to release the report into the alleged confidentiality breach widely known as Mullen-gate.
The report found that the documentation concerned was not confidential, and therefore that there had been no breach.
The report was a response to complaints by LEP working group member Russell Holden and Cr James Loneragan.
Mr Holden’s complaint said Tom Mullen had attended a meeting of council’s LEP working group, where he viewed “sensitive documents, including the proposed maps of the potential land zoning for the region.”
Stephen Flynn, independent member of council’s Code of Conduct Committee, examined the complaints and found that the working group’s activities and documents were never officially declared confidential, nor was there anything in their contents that automatically classified them as confidential.
“It is difficult to see how documentation which was in draft form, which was intended for public consultation, and which had been resolved by council to be placed before the public for consultation could be construed as confidential,” Mr Flynn said in the report.
Mr Holden remained unsatisfied with the report, as the concerned parties had not been interviewed, and he remained convinced that Mr Mullen should not have had access to LEP information before it was made public.
THE DISCUSSION:
Councillors voted on Wednesday night to release the report to the public, and to discuss its contents immediately.
The discussion led to the airing of many heated opinions, and culminated in three councillors walking out, until another councillor brought the exchange to a close by raising the next item on the meeting’s agenda.
Cr Max Walker, who raised the motion to make the report public, said ratepayers would be horrified to hear that council had paid almost $4000 for what he said had been only an election stunt.
Cr John Webb agreed that the matter would have been better resolved privately, which – although he admitted it would not have provided the same publicity for the involved parties – would have saved ratepayers’ money.
Cr James Loneragan was disappointed with the report, which he felt had not addressed the major issues of his complaint.
Cr Loneragan said the report disregarded LEP working group’s oral contract of confidentiality, and did not address Mr Mullen’s presence at the meeting, which he said should not have been allowed.
Cr Thompson said he had been advised by a local government lawyer that councillors had no right to stop Mr Mullen attending the meeting. He said members of the public could attend any meeting of council except closed session of council’s monthly meetings.
In spite of the LEP meeting’s minutes, quotes by Mr Flynn in his report, which said “the mayor indicated that he had invited Mr Mullen (sic) and that he should be allowed to stay,” Cr Thompson said he had not been aware at the meeting that Mr Mullen was not a member of the working party.
Cr Thompson called councillors’ attention to council’s anti-discrimination policy, quoted in the papers for the meeting because it had recently been revised. Other councillors attempted to interject as Cr Thompson argued that to disallow Mr Mullen from attending any council activity would amount to discrimination.
Crs Williams, Shelley and Loneragan left the room in close succession as Cr Thompson stated his case.
Finally, Cr Thompson spoke across the room to Russell Holden, sitting in the stalls, calling on him to apologise for his description of Mr Flynn’s report as a “snow job.”
Mr Holden stood and said, “No. In a single word, no.”
At this point, Cr Webb broke up the discussion by raising the next motion on council’s agenda, which immediately found a seconder. As another motion had been raised, the discussion had to be abandoned.
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff
Twitter