As a contributing editor with Tasmanian Times, I have been reporting on the events surrounding Jason Browne from within days of when information was first leaked to me about him being on the shortlist of candidates for the position of General Manager with the Huon Valley Council.

We broke our first story 16 July 2021, which was just three days after the first round of video interviews.

Joanne Inches, the Managing Director of Red Giant executive recruitment agency facilitated the interviews. It was later revealed Inches was, and perhaps still is, the romantic partner of Browne.

Browne has again popped up as the preferred candidate for the plum job as General Manager of the shared Latrobe and Kentish Councils. We have recently published another article on this somewhat similar, if not extraordinary, series of events.

There is now some mystery surrounding the agency LG NSW Management Solutions, an executive recruitment specialist based in Sydney.

Public questions on notice to the 23 April 2024 ordinary meeting of Kentish Council are asking if due diligence has been undertaken to ascertain if there are any links with Inches and Red Giant; and asking why only one candidate out of 17, that being Browne, has been put forward for consideration by the full council.

Enter the Ombudsman

On 30 October 2023 I submitted a right to information (RTI) request to the Huon Valley Council over the matter of Browne’s ‘golden handshake’ ratepayer funded payout following his departure 3 October 2023.

When the controversial Browne departed the Huon Valley Council GM’s position on 3 October 2023 Mayor Sally Doyle issued a media release stating in part:

“The Huon Valley Council will be farewelling Jason Browne following his resignation from the position of General Manager, after two years in the role. Mr Browne’s last day with Council will be Tuesday 3 October 2023.”

Pointedly there was no mention of a reason, however Tasmanian Times had previously reported that following an unsatisfactory GM performance review, Jason Browne was given the option to resign or to be dismissed.

Council refused my Right to Information request citing clauses in the Act.

To whit: information disclosed in Closed Council is exempt, and information requested in an RTI which will be revealed within 12 months of the application date is also exempt.

A follow up internal review of their initial decision was made and it was subsequently upheld by HV Council’s Director Legal and Governance Matthew Grimsey. Then followed an application to the Ombudsman to consider my RTI for their review. This was eventually accepted by the Ombudsman 17 January 2024 with the following advice from the Ombudsman;

“The external review process can be quite complex and take some time to complete. Ombudsman Tasmania also has a historical backlog of external review requests, which has caused significant delays to the finalisation of previous applications. We are actively working to eliminate the backlog, however, and will endeavour to finalise your review as soon as practicable. Thank you in advance for your patience.

“If there is a compelling need for your application to be expedited, the Ombudsman has a Priority Policy and you may make an application under that policy for your new review request to be given priority over older requests.”

We didn’t cause the ‘historical backlog’, so it seems unfair to wield it upon a matter that is of public interest now.

I pursued an expedited request on the basis this information is in the public interest now. I also advised the Ombudsman that the details of Browne’s payout was not known to all councillors, and therefore could not have been a matter of Closed Council.

The Ombudsman folded on that one and subsequently advised that the only grounds for HV Council not to provide this information related to the 12 month window. This meant the information needed to be made available on or before 30 October 2024.

“Mr Lachlan Kranz, Chief Executive Officer of the Council, responded on 20 March 2024. Mr Kranz confirmed that the information would be contained in the Council’s 2023/2024 annual report, and the draft annual report would be approved at a meeting of the Council on 30 October 2024.”

I then pointed out to the Ombudsman the HVC Draft Annual Reports that have been published in the past three years have not included financial information because the financials first needed to be independently audited, and the financials are not published until the December AGM’s. I added that even then, I believed it highly likely that Council would obscure the details of the termination payout information within the financials.

The Ombudsman again wrote to Council expressing my concerns and responded to me 12 April 2024 saying in part;

“Mr Matthew Grimsey from the Council responded to this Office on 5 April 2024. Mr Grimsey confirmed that there is one outstanding cost amount that has not already been disclosed, and this will be separately itemised as a ‘termination benefit’ in the financial statements.

“Accordingly, the Ombudsman is satisfied by the Council’s confirmation that the information will be published in the 2023/2024 draft and final annual report and will be ascertainable as distinct from other financial information reported on. Due to this, a refusal under s12(3)(c)(ii) of the Act is a decision open to Council.

“The Ombudsman has considered your concerns raised in paragraphs 3 and 4 of your submissions surrounding Council’s actions in relation to Mr Browne’s employment and subsequent resignation, and, in particular, Mr Browne’s potential future employment in a similar capacity.

“Please note that the Ombudsman has no power to consider or investigate these matters as part of an external review under section 44 of the Act.

“However, the Ombudsman may investigate the administrative action taken by public authorities under section 12(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1978 (the Ombudsman Act) to ensure this is lawful, reasonable and appropriate. You may wish to consider making a complaint to the Ombudsman outside of the right to information external review process if you consider that there has been improper administrative action by the Council or any other public authority.

“Alternatively, complaints about public sector misconduct can be made to the Integrity Commission. Please contact the Integrity Commission directly for further information on its Council requirements and procedures.”

In any case, if HV Council subsequently does not release the information in the form and within the timeframe promised, what sanction might we expect? You probably know the answer to that one: very little, very late.

As a ratepayer in the Huon Valley, and as a journalist with Tasmanian Times, the question remains:

Why is this council playing hardball in not disclosing the amount of the ratepayer funded kiss goodbye afforded to Browne on his termination from the Huon Valley Council?

It does not appear that Browne had much if any leave up his sleeve. If he did, that would be a pretty innocent explanation, so why not give it?

If an employee resigns, and certainly if an employee is terminated, then according to the most basic of employment agreements, they should not have received any benevolent baksheesh at all.

When was the last time you got paid handsomely for not doing your job?

Browne, who appears to be coated with more teflon than a set of TV Shopping Channel frying pans, is now the nominated candidate for another shared General Manager job split between Latrobe and Kentish councils. It’s under another dark or at least brown(e) cloud of suspicion and a lack of transparency, with a formal hiring decision imminent.

This is a matter that is of great concern to a number of people in these communities who have since contacted Tasmanian Times.

The Huon Valley Council, in not making public the amount of the Browne payout, indeed in delaying as long as legally possible the disclosure of same,

is to any reasonable observer being somewhat opaque in the use of our public monies.

The HV Council have not explained why the information sought can not be released now.

My RTI has so far revealed the costs of his flawed recruitment amounts to a total sum of $66,598.

  • Recruitment fees Red Giant $25,703.40
  • Legal fees Edge Legal $18,293
  • Legal fees Simmons Wolfhagen $7,273.20
  • Conflict of Interest training for councillors provided by WLF Accounting and Advisory $7,920
  • Simmons Wolfhagen were again engaged to provide legal advice on the termination/resignation of Browne at an additional $7,408.50.

If the Browne payment was an insignificant figure, and somehow justified in the circumstances, then why all the secrecy?