No apology required for mayor’s ‘niece’ remark
An investigation into a remark made by Invercargill mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt has cost ratepayers an estimated $9000 but has not led to the public apology a councillor was seeking.
In June, city councillor Lesley Soper lodged a Code of Conduct complaint following an exchange with Shadbolt during a public meeting.
Shadbolt raised a conflict of interest that Soper had declared at a previous meeting when she withdrew from voting on the controversial WasteNet recycling contract. She had said she had a close family member working at Southland disAbility Enterprises, which was at the centre of the debate.
‘‘Then there’s your case, the mystery niece or something that we don’t know, have any information on, and haven’t been told why you have this conflict,’’ Shadbolt said at the meeting.
The comment upset Soper, who made a formal complaint.
The council then engaged lawyer Robert Buchanan to conduct an investigation. His recommendation, which stated that Shadbolt should make a retraction and apology in the public session of the council meeting, was put to councillors at yesterday’s meeting.
Shadbolt did not agree with the recommendation of a public apology – and, as it turned out, he did not need to.
When it came to calling for a mover and seconder to adopt the recommendations, councillor Rebecca Amundsen moved it but no-one put their hand up to second it. This meant the motion lapsed and Shadbolt was not required to make the public apology to Soper.
Shadbolt and Soper had earlier vacated their seats at the council table as councillors debated the situation, with deputy mayor Toni Biddle chairing that part of the meeting.
When Shadbolt was asked to state his case, he said he had an unblemished Code of Conduct record during his 31 years as a mayor of two councils, and he asked councillors to ensure that record remained intact.
Biddle said she would not support the recommendation of a public apology. ‘‘I think his Worship has apologised [in private] and this is being used as a vehicle to discredit his Worship and I think it has failed miserably.’’
Councillor Ian Pottinger said he was not at the meeting when the remark in question was made. He added that he was ‘‘expecting to hear something far more dramatic’’ when he listened to the audio, given a Code of Conduct complaint had been lodged.
Amundsen said it was Buchanan’s independent report that councillors should be listening to and she felt that his recommendation of a public apology and retraction was a valid conclusion.
Councillor Darren Ludlow said that if someone had a crack at his family he would most likely be upset as well.
‘‘When councillor Soper pointed out that she felt aggrieved the entire issue could have easily been resolved, as in the report, through an apology in the same forum in which what was said was said.’’
Councillor Lindsay Abbott said family should be protected but he described the complaint as ‘‘nothing but trivial’’.