Deputy Mayor Donal Smith has accused Ombudsman Arlene Brock of acting outside her remit and basing her investigation on stolen documents, while at the same time calling on her to include past admisitrations in any inquiry.Mr Smith has also pointed the finger at Charles Gosling, the former Mayor of Hamilton, suggesting that Ms Brock might want ‘reach as far back to at least two recent administrations in order to get some perspective on where things are today’.Of particular interest, Mr Smith said, in yesterday’s statement, would be a Democratic Trust, set up by the previous administration which held all land assets and ‘taxpayer funds for the questionable purpose of defending itself legally against the previous government initiative to amend the Municipalities Act, 1923’.Mr Gosling, last night, dismissed those claims and said it was nothing more than ‘an attempt to pull the focus away from a much-needed investigation’.“When the news was released that the Ombudsman was going to be doing a review of City Hall, I sent an e-mail to her stating that I was more than happy to participate in any manner,” said Mr Gosling.“I feel that the time that myself and my team were there in the Corporation that we showed ourselves to be stewards of good governance.”Mr Gosling also revealed that following the last municipal election he met with Mr Outerbridge and a lawyer to explain the trust and its history.“Approximately five, possibly six, months ago the Mayor, Graeme Outerbridge, advised the Trustees that he wanted the Trust dissolved,” Mr Gosling said. “This is what has happened. All the leases have been released and monies returned to the Corporation.”In a staunch defence of Mayor Outerbridge’s administration, Mr Smith, speaking on behalf of the City of Hamilton Council, went on to accuse the Ombudsman of using ‘purloined documentation’ and acting outside her remit. The Corporation, he said, had retained legal council to address these concerns.“It is clear that the Ombudsman is proceeding on prior purloined documentation and information spirited away from the Corporation of Hamilton by some malcontent.“Though the investigation must go on, it must not do so if its intent or by-product is to undermine the authority of this Mayor and Council or impugn or malign, inadvertently or otherwise, the character or professional competencies of same. This Council will not tolerate such action.”And while Mr Smith said he welcomed the ‘long overdue investigation’, he suggested the Ombudsman might be better suited to shining ‘her lamp of scrutiny’ on the day-to day administration and management of the Corporation, rather than ‘the overall policy and supervisory functions of the Mayor and Council’.The main target of the statement however was past administrations, and in particular the last one, which Mr Smith accused of maladministration.“Of particular interest to her in the inquiry of the last administration should be the existence of a trust by the name of the Democratic Trust and all land assets which, among other matters, held taxpayer funds for the questionable purposes of defending itself legally against the previous government initiative to amend the Municipalities Act, 1923,” he said.“The past Mayor should be extremely helpful in this regard in the interests of transparency and clarification.“These anomalies and others have engaged the bulk of this present elected Mayor and Council’s time in its own efforts to right the maladministration and unaccountability of the past and to put in line-management structures and best business practices that it found wanting upon its arrival some eight months ago.”Asked about the “Democratic Trust”, Mr Gosling said that “The Democracy Trust” was formed by a unanimous decision by the Corporation’s board when Government was discussing winding up the municipalities.“It was formed as a Trust, held in benefit for the residents and taxpayers of the City of Hamilton,” Mr Gosling said. “Members of the board served as trustees — no member of the Board could or would have benefited from the Trust.“In some respects similar to some of the corporate poison pills to discourage asset raiders and hostile takeovers. There was no transfer of property to the Trust, the Trust simply received a 30-year lease on all the properties, which was then re-leased back to the Corporation.”A legal fund was also set aside in the trust, with $1 million placed in an interest bearing escrow account overseen by the law firm handling the trust.During the two-and-a-half year the trust existed, Mr Gosling said it was mentioned in the Corporation’s audited financial statements and auditors notes, which were released to Ministers responsible for the municipalities and others.