Councillors should be logical
When an organisation has acted unreasonably, there is an expectation it will either be penalised or it will volunteer to put things right. An apology may not be sufficient. In Horowhenua District Council’s case, councillors should consider whether an apology from chief executive David Clapperton is enough to restore faith in an organisation that flaunted poor judgment.
As chief ombudsman Peter Boshier observed, council staff intercepted emails and took a cavalier approach to passing them on.
Strange elements of the saga have included the council’s inept defence of its practices and its failure to grasp obvious realities. Councillors took a long time to come to their senses and change their policy.
Worse, their antipathy for mayor Michael Feyen seemed to cloud their judgment.
Councillors were aware Feyen and councillor Ross Campbell’s emails would be vetted as early as April 30, 2015.
That’s when the mayor at the time, Brendan Duffy, said he arranged for all messages coming into the council from the pair to be screened and ‘‘approved for release’’ by either himself or the chief executive.
As we now know, many emails from people on a blacklist did not get to their intended destinations and Boshier determined there was no discernible reason for them to be blocked. This is an intolerable injustice. The full extent of the scandal has not always been evident, but the picture has been clear enough for more than a year.
Yet, on July 17, 2017, nine councillors issued a joint statement backing Clapperton.
Subsequently, councillors said it was OK to intercept emails if this protected staff from abuse. It turned out that many blocked emails were not abusive.
Clapperton also confirmed emails from ‘‘flagged’’ external addresses to councillors were redirected to him.
That means it should have been clear to councillors since July last year that lines of accountability were hopelessly out of whack.
Councillors have had many months since then to consider their role in the fiasco.
What did they do about council policy and practice being nowhere near appropriate?
The council asked KPMG to review the findings of an internal auditor. Advised by KPMG to stop what it was doing, the council could hardly do anything else. Fortunately, complaints were also made to the ombudsman’s office.
Urged to apologise to Feyen and the four other complainants, the council’s chief executive could not seriously entertain refusing to do so.
The people who do have a real choice are the councillors.
They can accept they erred and make amends. Up till this point, nine councillors have backed Clapperton to the hilt. Having stood by him through the turmoil, there is one obvious way for these councillors to show they are reasonable – join him in apologising.
The people who do have a real choice are the councillors. They can accept they erred and make amends.