Council’s peculiar spin
Let’s hope Horowhenua District Council is trying to be ironic in its public utterances after it was chastised by the chief ombudsman for a lack of transparency. Otherwise, we’re left to conclude no lessons were learned from the sorry email vetting saga.
Between 2011 and 2017, the council blacklisted certain email addresses, including one belonging to now mayor Michael Feyen.
Until a policy change, emails from these addresses would only be sent on to their intended recipients after council chief executive David Clapperton or a staff member had read them – an obvious affront to democracy when elected members are involved.
‘‘On the basis of the information available, it is evident that there was a clear lack of transparency and accountability in terms of how the council’s previous email quarantining practice operated,’’ chief ombudsman Peter Boshier says.
For many of the emails he reviewed, Boshier could find no ‘‘discernible reason’’ for why they never reached their destination. He is particularly concerned about emails getting blocked from reaching elected representatives, and for two of the five people who complained to his office about being on the blacklist, there was no record about how this decision was reached.
‘‘Overall, I consider the council took a cavalier approach to forwarding quarantined emails to their intended recipients.’’
Announcing the news was a release from the council, headlined: ‘‘Email quarantine practices unreasonable, but interference claims quashed’’.
Further detail was highlighted: ‘‘Importantly, the ombudsman found that there is no basis to suggest [the] council used its email quarantining process to interfere with or obstruct iwi negotiations, Resource Management Act submission processes, local election processes or Environment Court proceedings – these were concerns raised by the complaints.’’ Quashed is too strong a term. Most of the emails had been archived and were not easily retrieved, so ombudsman staff had access only to samples of emails from 2015 and 2016.
Boshier’s report says only there is no evidence for the quoted processes having been interfered with. But it’s hard to grasp how the council can say interference claims were rejected by Boshier. They were not and his whole report chronicles six years of needless vetting – or interference – thanks to Clapperton and other staff’s snooping.
The most telling diversion between the council’s press release and reality is that not once does the council mention Boshier’s recommendation that it apologise to the five people who complained to the ombudsman – including Feyen.
Instead, the council undertook an exercise of cynical spin to gloss over the report’s findings. The council may have altered its email practices, but there’s little evidence its attitude to transparency has changed.
The council may have altered its email practices, but there’s little evidence its attitude to transparency has changed.