This open letter to Greater Dandenong Council by a former Councilor and a lawyer that the Slug Gate issue may cause Administrators to be appointed. and the Council dumped.

Recall could allow ratepayers to challenge arrant councilors rather than them all being dumped and democracy suspended for years.

Open letter

Good morning Councillors

I find it quite disturbing that a current Councillor and former Mayor is using his position to defend a legally indefensible position taken where evidence gained for the purpose of a prosecution was tampered with by the Council  staff engaged to provide evidence to support a prosecution of ICook foods. VicPol have body cameras and the law requires the totality of the recorded material to be provided. The Evidence Act Vic has expectations in relation to similar evidence. To assert that "personal conversations" were excluded is inexcusable. What is relevant in the totality of a tape of record is for a court to determine. In VicPol taped records of interview there is a second by second time and date stamp which is essential to the veracity of the investigation. Under oath, two witnesses I observed during my observation of the Parliamentary Inquiry stated under oath that sections of the body camera footage were deleted as being "private". That constitutes an admission of tampering with evidence. For Councillor OReilly to purport to speak as an Officer of Council and assert that all evidence had been provided, when he is in a position to know otherwise, and from sworn evidence including that of the CEO, that it was not provided, is of grave concern.

What is before the CCP, Patton, reflects a potential exposure of Council to multi millions of dollars in compensation and the risk for some individuals for criminal sanctions as well as a class action by all 40 plus ICook employees for loss of income actionable against both Council and the Vic Health Department

All Councillors need to seriously consider the prospect that this debacle is occurring on their watch and has been so for two years. When Councillors are publicly prepared to deny the veracity of sworn evidence in an effort to defend an indefensible act reflects on all Councillors and implies that other Councillors are supportive of that position.

Councillors need to be mindful that what is unfolding before them is a distinct possibility of Council being sacked and Administrators appointed.

This whole debacle must be brought before a Court with all evidence examined and cross examined. 

Regretfully yours

Peter Brown