There appears to be a stumbling block. But the truth about it too looks set to remain a mystery.

Despite Newcastle councillors unanimously voting to "proactively consider and seek advice" for the report to be made public under the GIPA Act back in December and Mr Bath agreeing, we are still none the wiser on what it contains or who is holding up the release.

To date, there are far more questions than answers.

The matter has been shrouded in secrecy since the Newcastle Herald revealed in July last year that dozens of letters and online comments have been published in media outlets over 13 years under the name Scott Neylon, which twist the truth, distort reality and follow Mr Bath's career progression, attacking his critics and supporting his employers.

We know that Mr Neylon is Mr Bath's best mate and has lived in Japan since at least 1998.

We also know that since the relationship was revealed, Wallsend MP Sonia Hornery, a major target of the nasty letters, has used parliamentary privilege twice to accuse Mr Bath of authoring them, claiming he has "shamefully abused" his $513,000 a year job funded by Newcastle ratepayers.

It's a claim Mr Bath has repeatedly denied.

The confidential investigation was carried out over several months by council consultant Pinnacle Integrity and was completed in December.

So far, all that has been released to councillors is a four-page summary that was initially provided for them to read and hand back in a confidential council session in December.

The summary letter was later placed on council's website, revealing the investigation "found insufficient evidence" that Mr Bath was involved in the letters.

But as Mr Bath celebrated clearing his name, victims of the Neylon letters began questioning the investigation process, saying the summary letter raised more questions than it answered.

The Herald reported last year that the investigator was severely constrained, with no power to compel witnesses to answer questions, produce evidence or even take part.

Ms Hornery, Newcastle Maritime Museum Society president Bob Cook and residents John Beach and Christine Everingham, all victims of the letters, have demanded to know the terms of reference for the investigation and why key evidence - including the letters themselves, many of which remain unpublished - were never examined.

Their concerns were compounded by the fact that the Herald and none of the victims of the letters, besides Mr Cook, were contacted by Pinnacle Integrity.

They believe that without access to the full investigation report, the public can have no faith in the investigation outcome and point to a precedent set in 2021 when councillors voted to release a confidential code of conduct investigation report into then Cr Allan Robinson.

The report, compiled by consultants Australian Workplace Training & Investigation, was proactively released by the council under the GIPA Act and sections were redacted to protect complainants.

Several councillors agreed this week that the investigation report into Mr Bath should be made public as soon as possible.

Cr John MacKenzie said it's in "everyone's best interest for the full report to be released as a matter of urgency".

"Right now, the councillors have had to make a leap of faith that the investigator's conclusions are supported by the evidence, but we don't have the visibility of what evidence was used," he said.

"I respect the process, and understand the need to protect the privacy of people who gave evidence on the condition of confidentiality. I'm very hopeful that those matters can be resolved quickly, by redaction or other protections, so that this investigation is fully brought to light."

What we know about the investigation is little compared to what we don't know.

What we don't know are the much deeper questions of exactly what the investigators looked at, who was interviewed and how, what evidence was examined, how the investigation was carried out and what the terms of reference were.

We also don't know how evidence was tested. It is not yet known if Mr Neylon was interviewed or simply provided a written statement.

A council spokeswoman confirmed this week that behind the scenes discussions were continuing in relation to making the report public.

She said the council was working "through its legal obligations in relation to the potential proactive release of the investigation report".

"It is a legislative requirement of the GIPA Act to consult with relevant parties when considering the proactive release of documents which contain the information of third parties," she said.

"This process does take time. Once the consultation process has concluded, City of Newcastle will evaluate whether the investigation report is able to be proactively released under the GIPA Act."

It is not known who, or how many parties, the council is consulting with.

Council's spokeswoman said it was "not appropriate" to reveal how many parties it was negotiating with.

This week the Herald contacted all parties it was aware of that might be involved.

Mr Cook, who lodged a code of conduct complaint against Mr Bath in relation to the letters back in July and was interviewed as part of the investigation, confirmed he gave consent for the report to be made public back in January.

"I'm not sure how much negotiation is needed," Mr Cook said. "It's a consent issue, a simple yes or no. Council can make a decision regardless of people's response, the entire decision rests with the council."

Mr Cook said he was puzzled by the repeated delays.

"It should have been resolved by now, I was contacted about it back in January," he said. "I'm very concerned about the reasons for this being delayed, because it just doesn't seem to make any sense."

It also doesn't appear that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which requested a copy of the investigation report, is the stumbling block.

A spokeswoman said this week that while the ICAC does not comment on specific matters, "whether any such report is made public is a matter for the body concerned".

An Office of Local Government spokesman also said the release of the report was a matter for the council.

"The Office of Local Government had no involvement in the investigation into allegations made against Mr Bath and has no role to play in the employment of council general managers," he said.

Echoing the same sentiments, a Pinnacle Integrity spokeswoman told the Herald this week that "all matters relating to the release of the subject report rest with council".

Mr Neylon did not respond to the Herald's questions about whether he agreed to make the report public.

Cr John Church said he believed it was "in the public interest" for the report to be issued "as soon as possible".

"The CEO wants it in the public domain and so do I," he said.

"It leaves us open to suspicion that there is something in the report that someone wants to hide."

Cr Callum Pull said he too wants to see the report publicly released.

"There is a lot of public interest in this," he said. "It needs to be released and the quicker we can do that the better."

Cr Katrina Wark said she believed an initial date for parties to respond regarding consent was January, which was pushed out to February.

"Under the GIPA Act the council has the ability to release the report now," she said. "My concern is why that hasn't been done. I can't understand what is holding up the process because we all, including Mr Bath, want this made public."

Lord mayor Nuatali Nelmes and her Newcastle Labor councillors issued a joint statement saying they had "initiated the proactive release" of the reports by "including the request in the motion" in December.

"Given there were no adverse findings against the CEO, it is normal practice that Code of Conduct reports about staff remain confidential," they said.

"All councillors should be mindful of the standard created by releasing Code of Conduct reports where no adverse findings have been made, including reports about councillor conduct which currently remain confidential."

Donna.page@newcastleherald.com.au