The Ombudsman also met with some councillors and third parties mentioned in Mr Butler's LGOIMA request. During the meeting, similar requests the council had rejected from Hawke's Bay Today and Fairfax were also discussed.
The situation has sparked a debate about the limits of LGOIMA and the implications releasing such information could have.
Weighing in on the debate was University of Canterbury's Dean of Law Professor Ursula Cheer.
Although she did not want to comment on the specific situation, she said in general terms there had to be valid reasons to withhold information under the Act.
"[Both the OIA and LGOIMA] have the presumption that you've got to think first 'well yes we should disclose', and then you're supposed to look for reasons why you might want to hold some or all information," she said.
"Whereas there is a strong suspicion that in government, and also in local government they tend to think 'right, what reasons can we think to withhold', instead of thinking 'let's let it all go, but there might be something we need to hold back'."
The regional councillors have stated that releasing the information could set a harmful precedent and affect their ability to have "free and frank" discussions with constituents.
When asked for her opinion on this, Ms Cheer said she thought it could only set a precedent if it was wrong to release the information.
It could be decided - either by a local authority, or the Ombudsman - on a case-by-case basis whether information was able to be withheld under the act.
"In that respect most decisions are not precedents, they're very individual. They depend on the facts that are relevant to the reasons to withhold in that particular case," she said.
"You've got to go and look at the whole context. The fact that they let one go, or part of some discussion between councillors doesn't mean that they're going to do it next time or that they have to."
Concerns about the privacy of elected officials has also been raised. When asked to comment on this yesterday, an Office of the Privacy Commissioner spokesman said they could only the highlight the Ombudsman process as it involved them.
In situations like this the Office of the Ombudsman has to consult with the Privacy Commissioner.
"In the consultation, our office would consider and advise on a case-by-case basis whether the withholding of the information was necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons," the spokesman said.
The Ombudsman is expected to release a provisional opinion on Mr Butler's request soon.
According to a spokesperson from the Office of the Ombudsman, no one can be fined, charged, or punished for a breach of the LGOIMA, as the Act itself does not create any offences.
In terms of official information requests, the Ombudsman ensures accountability through the recommendations he can make to a local authority.
If the Ombudsman believes a request should not have been refused, he can "make such recommendations as he thinks fit" - when a request for information has been refused, the Ombudsman's recommendation would generally be to release that information.
After this recommendation has been made, a "public duty" is imposed on the local authority under LGOIMA to observe that recommendation within a set time frame.
They can decide not to comply with the recommendation but have to record this decision - as well as the reasons behind it, and the grounds to support those - in writing.
The spokeswoman added it was rare for a local authority to pass a resolution not to accept the Ombudsman's recommendation.
However, if they do the original requester has the right to apply to the High Court for a review of this decision.
If the High Court decides the local authority's decision not to comply with the Ombudsman's recommendation was valid, the court can order that costs be paid by the local authority - unless it considers the application for review was not reasonable.
Yesterday Hawke's Bay Today editor Andrew Austin said the regional councillors should do the right thing and open their correspondence to public scrutiny.
"We have asked for correspondence on the dam and we believe it is in the public's interest for the councillors to show us what they have been talking about.
"We are hoping that the Ombudsman will rule that they need to reveal their discussions. If he does, then the councillors need to comply. We hold the Ombudsman's office in high esteem and we hope the councillors in question do too."
Mr Austin said the issue at stake was transparency and the accountability of elected officials.
"They are elected to public office, so the people who voted them in have the right to know what they think and how they reached the conclusions they did."
