Apology ordered by Ombudsman
The chief ombudsman has directed Christchurch City Council to apologise to four local politicians over its ‘‘unreasonable’’ response to their accusations of staff tampering.
The decision has left the four politicians feeling vindicated for the ‘‘bullying’’ behaviour they say they were subjected to in the aftermath of the allegations, aired in 2018.
David East, a then city councillor, and community board members Kim Money, Tim Sintes and Darrell Latham accused council staff of deliberately removing a clause in Christchurch’s district plan that would have helped residents in coastal areas rebuild and repair earthquake-damaged homes.
The absence of that clause was devastating to some because it made it nearly impossible to build new homes in coastal areas or extend existing buildings, and it wiped potentially millions of dollars off property values.
A review into the process, conducted by then Environment Canterbury councillor and former Environment Court judge Peter Skelton, found there never was a ‘‘missing policy’’ so there was nothing for them to delete.
But, the four politicians were never asked to contribute to that review and a full independent review was never conducted, despite being promised by mayor Lianne Dalziel.
East apologised and the four faced disciplinary action under the council’s code of conduct, but all measures were eventually dropped after they withdrew from the process following legal advice.
The council agreed to add a clause to the district plan to make building easier in coastal areas.
Latham made a complaint to the ombudsman about the council’s handling of the issue.
In a finding, released in late July, chief ombudsman Peter Boshier said the council acted unreasonably by not properly addressing the fairness concerns raised by the four.
He also ruled the decision to publish the Skelton report without input from the four was unreasonable. Boshier recommended the council apologise to East, Latham, Money and Sintes for its lack of engagement with them.
Public law specialist Leo Donnelly, a principal at law firm ChenPalmer, said if adverse findings or comments were likely to be made about individuals, they should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond and be heard before those comments were confirmed and published.
‘‘That did not happen in this case. If procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice are not followed, there is a real risk of outcomes that are unreasonable and unjust.’’
Donnelly said the apology from the council needed to be genuine, transparent and delivered in a manner appropriate to remedy the potential prejudice that resulted from the council’s unreasonable actions.
Council chief executive Dawn Baxendale sent a letter of apology to the four yesterday, a day after receiving questions about the issue from Stuff. However, Latham said they were seeking an apology from Dalziel at a full council meeting and he rejected the letter from Baxendale, who he pointed out was not even employed by the council at the time. ‘‘We were humiliated and shamed and that now needs to be addressed.’’
Latham said Boshier’s report was a condemnation of the council’s actions surrounding the Skelton report.
‘‘They acted unreasonably, they were prejudicial and they lacked engagement.’’
He said they felt like they were hung out to dry by the former council chief executive Karleen Edwards and Dalziel. ‘‘What happened to us is evidence that the council also needs to clean up its act.’’ Latham described the council’s behaviour as a ‘‘subtle form of bullying’’.
‘‘Blocking criticism and denying procedural fairness and natural justice is tantamount to undermining the democratic process.’’
East said after several months of endless pursuit by the council he felt vindicated for the position he and his colleagues took.
Money, who is standing for council in the coastal ward, said she and her colleagues were denied natural justice and she was pleased that had finally been acknowledged. ‘‘We must ensure that this never happens to our elected members again.’’
The four still ‘‘unequivocally’’ stand by their original claim.