Northern Midlands Council lose RTI review

Now this story carries some baggage and it sets a precedent that needs to be tested. Councils rely upon the GM to declare all kinds of things 'confidential' and if needs be invoke Section 62 of the Local Govt Act to shut down unwelcome questioning. Typically the Director of Local Govt. will side with the GM and as likely as not send anyone who complains about ANYTHING to the Ombudsman knowing full well that the Ombudsman lacks the resources to deal with anything quickly.

Leave an issue alone long enough and it will just go away – time honoured technique. Sometimes it just will not as the Mayor here has discovered. Now that the Ombudsman has made a determination here, and set a precedent, Mayors, Councillors and GMs need to take heed and desist in their self-serving obfuscation forthwith. 

Likewise the Minister and the Director of Local Govt should be issuing directives to all councils saying that the lack of accountability on show here needs to stop.

Local Govt constituents actually do have a RIGHT TO INFORMATION!

Northern Midlands Council lose RTI review By Luke Miller June 27 2022 at 12:00pm 

Resident wins RTI review against Northern Midlands Council A council in the state's North has lost a right to information act review to a ratepayer after the foremost independent body in the state investigated the matter. Representatives from Ombudsman Tasmania directed Northern Midlands council on Thursday to assess the information requested for disclosure by a resident of the municipality, Andrew McCullagh. 

Mr McCullagh operates a Facebook page entitled Northern Midlands Council Watch and takes a keen interest in the council's fiscal management and operations. On May 26, 2020, he paid the relevant fees to make an application under the Right to Information Act regarding several projects being undertaken or proposed in the area. ............................ Mr McCullagh wished to obtain a progress report for the Launceston Airport court case; including all costs incurred to date, as well as a list of completed and planned works on the Longford Recreational Ground; also including spending details. ............................ Additionally, he requested all costs associated with the preparation of various properties on Norfolk Street in Perth be provided, as well as maps of and documents supporting the replacement of two bridges in the area. ............................ "As ratepayers, we have a fundamental right to know how our monies are being spent and whether it is being done wisely or simply being wasted," Mr McCullagh said. ............................ On June 19, Mr McCullagh was advised by a council representative Maree Bricknell, - who was acting as a delegate under the Act - that his request had been refused. ............................ Multiple reasons were provided by Ms Bricknell in order to justify the decision, including the requested information - in her opinion - being the same or similar to previous applications Mr McCullagh had made. ............................ She also stated a belief that, if provided, Mr McCullagh would use the information to further his alleged campaign of harassment, bullying, and "extremely disrespectful behaviour" towards the mayor, general manager, and councillors. ............................ Mr McCullagh then sought an internal review of the decision three days later, however, the principal officer and general manager of the council, Des Jennings, advised him in writing that he "could not act impartially". ............................ That conclusion was made due to a conflict of interest arising from an ongoing legal dispute between the men, in which Mr Jennings had claimed damages in the Supreme Court for defamatory comments Mr McCullagh allegedly directed toward him. ............................ Mr Jennings refused to delegate the internal review to another council officer and told Mr McCullagh he could apply for an external review instead. Mr McCullagh then contacted Ombudsman Tasmania, who directed the council to undertake an internal review. Council employee Samantha Dhilon was placed in charge of that process and released a decision on July 24. She said she had "no hesitation" in affirming the response made by her collogue Ms Bricknell earlier in the year, and cited the same reasons. ............................ After Mr McCullagh confirmed he wished to continue the external review, Ombudsman Tasmania's Richard Connock was tasked with determining whether the application could be refused on the basis that it was a repeat or "vexatious". ............................ Last week, he concluded that it could not. ............................ In response to the decision, Northern Midlands mayor Mary Knowles said the council would comply with the Ombudsman's directive. ............................ "However, we disagree with the Ombudsman's conclusions on this occasion and maintain that the RTI was substantially the same as an earlier request from Mr McCullagh," she said. ............................ Mr McCullagh said he was happy with the decision and questioned how there could be any suggestion that an independent arbitrator with no affiliation to either party could be incorrect. ............................ "The decision should've been handed down two years ago," he said. ............................ "Now after all of this, what's occurred has worked totally against them, because all the information is back in the public eye and available for everyone to see."