Naïve at best. Appalling at worst …

So it transpires that Mick Newell has come into possession, from an unidentified source, of a document prepared by lawyers for “the Council” in response to the BOI Report. For convenience, I will refer to this document as the “Lawyers’ Response”.

The Lawyers’ Response surely would have been subject to reg.15(9) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures ) Regulation 2015. This means that it ought not to have been leaked to the public.

It has nevertheless made its way into the hands of a patently-partisan commercial radio personality.

I will now touch on the issues that I believe are within my area of expertise …

The Lawyers’ Response is not “independent”. As a lawyer myself I know that lawyers are never independent. Their client retains them to defend his/her interests, within the parameters of the law.

From the radio broadcast it is readily apparent that the lawyers in question have been retained by one faction in the Council, against the interests of another.

They speak for one section (albeit a majority) of the Council. No “independence there”.

Mick seems to have not known that the Mayor had no role in retaining the “independent” lawyers, to whom he refers (incredibly) as the “independent umpire”.

Naïve at best. Appalling at worst.

Secondly, the Lawyers’ Response contains recommended courses of action to the Minister which may not necessarily accord with those made by the Minister’s independent Board of Inquiry. Logic compels this conclusion.

Why else would the Board of Inquiry Report itself not have been leaked to Mick?

The only way to end the misrepresentation and subversion of the Minister’s Board of Inquiry process is to release the Board of Inquiry Report itself.

This is a statutorily-mandated independent report prepared after months of investigation by individuals not in any way aligned with individuals in Council.

As a strong supporter of transparency, the Mayor is strongly in support of its release.

Let’s hope that it is made public soon, to end the circus that is seemingly trying to pre-empt and influence a Ministerial decision.

• Listen to Mick’s Interview: HERE

• Bob Hawkins in Comments: Nicely put Linda Poulton. Mayor Peter Coad has been very wise not to get his fingers stickied by partaking in the highly questionable behaviour of the Huon Valley Council majority that are doing their best to keep the council mired in the mess that is its history since the amalgamation of the Port Cygnet, Huon and Esperance councils back in 1993, and especially since the turn of the century …

• Cr Ian Mackintosh in Comments: … The circus that has followed and the apparent release of the ‘Lawyers Report’ is appalling. It is an abject failure of leadership. Ultimately, the BOI was well underway before I joined Council. It’s not a perfect document either IMHO. But the opportunity HVC has is to go through it blow by blow, in finding and recommendation to see what we as an organisation can learn from it. The state of Tasmania spent a fortune on this inquiry, HVC in my view owe it to the people of Tasmania to make adjustments in response. It might be too late to provide sensible feedback to the Minister on the BOI, though those radio interviews should tell him everything he needs to know! But it’s not too late for HVC to implement some positive change in response to the findings.

• Sleepless in Franklin in Comments: #5, 7 & 9 … Hi Mickey Mouse – love your stuff. I’m wondering if you know Mick Newell? … You both have a similar turn of phrase, and often make statements posed as questions, so perhaps you went to the same school? If you do know Mick, could you please relay my questions about his recent radio interview with Peter Coad? 1. Mick, publicly available info (as of 9 April 2016) shows you have lots of Facebook friends, including Huon Valley Councillors Wilson, Studley, Heron and Ruzicka. Did the so-called independent report on the BOI process (or bits thereof) really land in your letter box, or did one of these friends just hand (or email) it to you? …