City of Hamilton Mayor Graeme Outerbridge has denied claims that City Councillor Larry Scott was denied access to documents on the waterfront redevelopment project.“Councillor Larry Scott has been given the opportunity to review any and all documents concerning the Hamilton waterfront with the understanding that due to the sensitive nature of the information, the papers must be viewed in the Mayor’s Parlour. However Councillor Scott has declined this access,” Mr Outerbridge said in a statement issued by the City’s communications manager.“The refusal to give permission to remove sensitive information from City Hall, especially for a project such as the Hamilton waterfront, is not unprecedented.”Mr Scott has criticised some of his colleagues saying they had been overly secretive about the waterfront project. He said he had made his views clear to his fellow councillors and he had “no idea” why only a handful had been allowed to see the documents.“I got tired of asking because it seemed to have its own narrow quorum of thought and they did not need my input,” he said. “And what input I had to give was often rebuffed.”Told of the Mayor’s response to his allegations, Mr Scott said: “Once I was refused sight, except in the Mayor’s Parlour, and not in the Council Board Room as I requested — and after he instructed the Secretary/CEO not to let me have sight of the lease in particular, I decided that I no longer wished to have sight so that my advice could be ignored.”He said the City’s managers had taken the same position. “They don’t want to be involved, and have not been, in this cloak and dagger behaviour.”Mr Scott added that he did at one point attempt to access the lease in the Mayor’s Parlour but was told it was not there but with another Council member.“So I said that is enough, this document must have some very confidential and damaging stuff in it to get such secrecy.”He said he had a duty as a lawyer to advise the council or he could be found negligent by the Bar Association.“I also have a duty as a councillor to say ‘listen colleagues let’s not make ourselves look silly. At least, consider this.’ But, more importantly, as well, is that we had a duty to our managers who are more experts than we are,” he said.“Our managers could have guided us through the process a lot easier without the confrontation that has arisen between the City and the Government and the business community.“I am too old in the tooth to have my character besmirched by ill advised actions. I feel duty bound to speak against it and I have.”Asked why he had not resigned from the Council in the light of his concerns, Mr Scott said he felt duty bound to protect the interests of the professional staff.“I needed to have been there to have protected the interests of those persons I thought were the most vulnerable. And I did. I also think that vulnerability stretched out to the larger community. I wanted to be there so it was at least said, and heard, ‘don’t do that.’“And, in fact, I enjoyed the challenge of serving my community in that narrow capacity as a councillor.”We asked Common Councillor Carlton Simmons whether he had seen the waterfront documents, but he did not respond, referring this newspaper instead to the Mayor or the communications manager.But there was no response to an e-mailed request seeking to know which of the City Council members had seen the documents.Nor did the Mayor respond to claims that the professional staff at City Hall were not involved in the waterfront development selection process.In January, Mr Outerbridge told a press conference that they had been involved. That press conference, to announce the selected waterfront developer, went ahead against the express wishes of the Government which had yet to conduct its due diligence on the project.