Port Otago hoping for timely rule change

PORT Otago is in a race against time to change an antiquated rule which could force it to get rid of a valued board member.

The port is working remove an ‘‘outofdate’’ rule in its constitution which means board members have to be removed when they turn 70.

While Otago regional councillors unanimously approved the revised constitution during its full council meeting on Wednesday, the changes might not come into effect early enough to allow one board member who turns 70 at the end of the year to be reappointed.

That was because it now has to be approved by the transport minister, before it can be filed with the Companies Office.

The Otago Regional Council asked the port to review its constitution earlier this year, asking for a number of areas to be looked at, including the age limit.

The port chose to remove it and instead introduce a maximum of three terms (nine years).

If it was accepted in time, that would mean board director Tom Campbell, who has only served one term, would have the chance to be reappointed.

‘‘I have no reason to retire, other than the fact that all directors know that they serve three year terms and at the end of [each term] you either get reappointed or you don’t.’’

He said the rule was not changed for him, but rather because it was antiquated.

Chairman Paul Rea said Mr Campbell was highly valued by the board, management and shareholders.

‘‘We were resigned to the fact that we would lose him at the end of the year, but without any prompting from us, [the council] asked to review the constitution and they included the review of the 70 limit.’’

The port was ‘‘quietly confident’’ it would be approved by the transport minister, who had already received the report, but recognised the possibility of delays with the upcoming election.

A council spokesman said the age limit predated council staff.

‘‘We can’t speak to the precise reasoning for it, but understand it is a relic of older constitutions of this sort.’’

The council’s finance committee identified the age limit as an item for review due to it being out of date, he said.