After the Huon mayor walked out . . .

Huon Valley Guessing Games

Was it a slip of the tongue when Cr Mike Wilson responded to a question from the public gallery by saying, yes, he would support release to the public of the board of inquiry’s report to the Local Government Minister, as well as “any other reports”?

Or were those quoted three words designed to hint to the 30 or so in the gallery that there is another report (or reports) in addition to the BoI report that council management and the six Heart of the Huon councillors are considering behind the scenes?

Wilson’s words at Wednesday evening’s 6pm Huon Valley Council monthly meeting, and the Mercury’s report the following morning that Mayor Peter Coad and Councillors Ian Mackintosh and Liz Smith had removed themselves from an earlier (5pm) special council meeting have heightened public intrigue about an organisation that appears to have been in lockdown, possibly squirming, since receiving the BoI report from Local government Minister Peter Gutwein.

What is it that is in a report that has brought into the open the rupture in the fabric of council that moved Gutwein last September to order an inquiry into HVC?

Being even-tempered and always polite, it’s unlikely that Coad, Mackintosh and Smith left that meeting in anger or frustration. My reading is that they were probably more concerned that, had they stayed in it, they might have felt that, ultimately, their political integrity could be open to question. None is saying anything.

The Mercury’s Jessica Howard reported on Thursday that Coad said that, before leaving the meeting, he had “read a prepared statement based on legal advice he had received”; and “I don’t know what happened after that”. It must be assumed that Deputy Mayor Ian Paul then chaired the special meeting, if indeed it proceeded.

All so very mysterious. It was not until I’d read Howard’s brief article the following day that I found myself seriously pondering Wilson’s “I would like to see any other reports that are being done released at the same time”.

“Any other reports”? I was under the impression that Gutwein ordered only one report. Seems Wilson knows something we ratepayers don’t?

Wilson’s “other reports” moment came when replying to a question from ratepayer Robert Durand, who had addressed his inquiry to all councillors. He had asked each to say whether they would support a motion requesting the minister to release in full the final report of the board of inquiry.

Five councillors — Coad, Eastley, Heron, Mackintosh and Smith — were unequivocal: they would support release of the BoI report in full.

Clockwise around the table, this is what all nine councillors said:

Coad — “I certainly fully support the release of all the details of that report to be made public. And I think it’s a very good report.”

Deputy Mayor Ian Paul — “I think we should delay any information until the actual report has been released . . . [unclear] in due course, mayor, if that’s appropriate then I would support.”

Wilson — “And again, Mr Mayor, I support it being released once the minister has made the decision on what he intends to do, and I’d like to see any other reports that are being done right at the moment being released at the same time.”

Studley — “Once complete, the minister has made his decision, I would support any release of any information that he [the minister] feels fit to release.”

Mackintosh — “Likewise, as soon as the minister has made his decision, I’d support the board of inquiry report to be released in full.”

Pav Ruzicka: “There is no chance that it will not be made public — it will be made public anyway — so it is not really an issue.”

Eastley: “Yes, I would support the information being released in full.”

Smith: “I would also support the information being released in full.”

Heron: “I don’t have a problem with that. I would expect the report to be released in full.”

(Minister Gutwein is on record as saying he will eventually release as much as he can of the report, which is a softening of what he said in an email to a valley ratepayer early this year: “I will once I have considered the report be making it available publicly.”)

So, that’s where the matter stood — wherever it had got to — on Wednesday evening. One can only guess that the 5pm special meeting had been arranged to consider council’s official response to the BoI report. It might also be reasonable to assume that those councillors who wanted to respond personally to the report had met the original deadline set by the minister. Mayor Coad, in the Mercury report, is quoted as saying he had already submitted his response.

And, so, the public remains almost completely in the dark, but it’s not unreasonable to imagine that secret manoeuvrings were (probably are still) going on behind the scenes — a situation that should be entirely unacceptable to Huon Valley ratepayers and residents.

As with many previous council issues, the public have again been left in ignorance about the machinations of their secretive council. It’s OK for bureaucrats to say nothing — they are paid to do their jobs and (unless a reasonable whistle-blowing situation arises) to keep their mouths shut; but we don’t want elected representatives, cowed by regulations, keeping us in the dark on decision-making that does not warrant confidentiality — especially when it is the behaviour of council itself (management and elected representatives) that is in question.

MEANWHILE, in the council chamber from 6pm on Wednesday, it was largely sweetness and light around the table. Even debate over Ian Mackintosh’s second (again unsuccessful) sally into the credit-card saga was conducted with a fair degree of decorum. (This must surely have had something to do with the fact that the March meeting was council’s first to be audio-recorded. The view from the public gallery of councillors co-operatively sharing microphones was touching to watch. And, for the first time, we were able to hear fairly well almost every word. As I write, I am listening to a replay of Wednesday’s proceedings, and it’s comes across clearly. Well done HVC.)

At council’s February meeting, Wilson successfully moved what he disingenuously described as a “compromise” motion (16.004/16) that restricted a review of credit-card details to between November 1, 2014, and February 29, 2016. Mackintosh, on March 30, moved that the Wilson resolution be rescinded and that the general manager provide to the April 2016 meeting of council copies of council credit card statements back to July 1, 2012, in accordance with council’s January resolution (13.002/16) that had been neutered by Wilson’s “compromise” February motion).

It was all a bit complicated. Basically, Mackintosh was asking to sight four years of council’s credit card statements, something that any bank would be willing to produce with a few taps on a keyboard (and, of course, a fee).

Once again, the six-strong Heart of the Huon team stood solid — those credit statements, they determined, were not for sighting. Quiet murmurs of “Shame” emanated from the gallery when Mackintosh’s motion went down 6-3.

Consequently, suspicion continues to intensify in the minds of observers that council has something to hide: if Mackintosh’s wish could be met at a cost of a mere handful of dollars, what on earth was it that the Heart of the Huon was insisting on keeping from public view?

Throughout the credit card motion — thanks probably to the presence of an array of microphones, and a hugely impressive sound desk — debate was conducted with acceptable decorum.

As were Smith’s two “questions on notice”, in which she was asking why council could spend $10,000 on “reviewing and updating” past reports on benefits of various types of boundary adjustments, approved in April last year, but couldn’t find a slightly larger amount to conduct the credit card review approved at the January meeting this year. A few swift words from GM Simone Watson soon put Smith straight: the boundary adjustment issue did not require a review, whereas the credit-card issue did. And that was that.

VERY impressive during council’s “economic development and advisory committee” debate was Ken Studley (sans safari suit) proudly, loudly, arguing his grand vision to push the already existing track from Farmhouse Creek on to Lake Geeves, where walkers would be able to view the sheer cliffs of Federation Peak — six times higher, he said, than Sydney’s harbour bridge — from a position as close as the distance between Sydney’s opera house and its bridge. (Observations on Studley’s vision are to be found at http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/a-lake-geeves-walking-track-more-i/.)

Mayor Coad, appearing to be especially impressed by the project, allowed Studley extra minutes to extol the virtues of his dream (covered in the Mercury of March 23 under the heading ‘New Huon track hailed as hero destination by local councillor Ken Studley’).

Though Studley’s motion to press federal and state governments to pay for an “up to $250,000 feasibility study” of the project got unanimous support, Liz Smith did suggest that, first, a study should be made of the prevailing weather patterns of the area. No one was listening.

So — though the Heart team continues to stand solidly in the way of access to those credit-card details, and something possibly most unusual is going on re the board of inquiry report — audio recording of council meetings looks as though it will help keep council’s monthly meetings fairly civilised.

It is unlikely closed meetings will be audio-recorded, so what goes on at them is unlikely ever to be found in council’s archives. But at least the awfulness of some of what, down the years, has been said at ordinary meetings, is now unlikely to be repeated.

That likelihood alone might just qualify as a mark of progress for a council that some observers believe ought to be sacked, lock, stock, and barrel. Minister Gutwein’s decision, after considering all the evidence, on Huon Valley Council’s future is eagerly awaited. — Bob Hawkins