He had a slate of issues with the policy which had "significant weaknesses" - including that it did not recognise that during the LGOIMA process "people have rights, there's no mention of that at all".
"This is a serious piece of work, this is a serious issue and it needs to be written to the highest standard and [in my view] this fails significantly on all fronts," he said.
"So I would think it needs to be reformed and written to a way that fits the standard we think is appropriate."
Others spoke out about the LGOIMA being outdated, as it had not been anticipated how much information the 1987 act could capture - such as emails, and texts.
Committee chairman Tom Belford said a basic one-word search had returned more than 800 emails in his email inbox alone, and judging if each email fitted within the request was "pretty daunting".
"Some of these requests create really ludicrous situations and I would feel ... it would be prudent on my account to say no thank you, I'm not going to provide this information because I simply have a life.
"We can expand on the policy ... but in the execution of it we're still going to have very significant problems if this remains the way we deal with these kinds of fishing expeditions."
Although the extension given by the Ombudsman ended on July 21, on Wednesday councillors agreed to defer adopting the policy until their meeting on July 26.
It was discussed that a small extension from the Ombudsman could be requested, during which time the policy could be amended to reflect concerns raised by councillors.
The policy - first introduced in 2014 - defines "official information", outlines council process for registering, and answering such requests.
It states any request for councillor correspondence is to be forwarded to the council's governance manager, which would be passed to the chief executive. They would then request "affected" councillors provide "in confidence" any communications they had, in their official capacity.
The chief executive would make an initial assessment of whether there were grounds to withhold any material under the legislation. Then, after consulting with the councillor, the chief executive would make a final determination.
It noted if a councillor chose not to comply with LGOIMA, they "will be personally responsible for responding to any subsequent requests or complaints in relation to the original request".