NCC review ‘a waste of time’

The ‘‘toothless’’ review of a Nelson city councillor’s ‘‘harassing’’ behaviour has become an incompetent waste of time, some councillors say.

Six months on from Cr Mike Rutledge’s outburst at colleagues who voted to reduce potential funding for Natureland, his wife’s zoo, the code of conduct review triggered by Nelson Mayor Rachel Reese has yet to yield results.

A number of councillors were accosted by Rutledge during and after a full council meeting on May 17, either seeking support for the funding or berating councillors for voting for less than requested.

It is understood that the code of conduct review process included an independent reviewer interviewing those involved to get a detailed account of what happened.

Cr Mel Courtney said the length of time was his main concern, saying it showed ‘‘incompetence’’ and a lack of appreciation for ‘‘acceptable standards of workplace behaviour’’.

Courtney said he was ‘‘harassed’’ in a lift by Rutledge after the meeting.

‘‘In any other workplace in New Zealand, it would not be acceptable to correct something like this six months later. Someone has to be accountable to that. Why it wasn’t addressed sooner?

‘‘I’ll say it over and over again – it should have been addressed immediately, and it doesn’t reflect well on the mayor or the chief executive, unfortunately.’’

Cr Tim Skinner said he hadn’t heard anything from the review so far, and if he didn’t hear something soon, he would be ‘‘following up’’.

‘‘I’m not going to let what has or hasn’t taken place take any focus away from my role and work on behalf of residents,’’ he said. ‘‘In one sense, I’m interested to see what happens, but in another, I don’t really want to be distracted by it.’’

Crs Matt Lawrey and Kate Fulton, who both expressed concerns with the process in May, said their fears had been affirmed by the process so far.

Fulton said she was not satisfied with the review’s effectiveness, as she had other code of conduct reviews which went ‘‘nowhere’’.

‘‘One was supposed to result in an apology, and there’s been nothing,’’ she said.

‘‘The length of time, and the consequences . . . there’s no consequences even if you go through the process.’’

She said a ‘‘bullying culture’’ was still apparent at the council, and there had been no consequences for a ‘‘very serious breach’’ of conduct.

Lawrey, who said Rutledge swore at him after the meeting, said he had heard nothing about the process since it was initiated.

‘‘I said at the time that the process was toothless and a waste of time, and that seems to be what’s happening here. Nothing has happened. The lack of process to date confirms what I was saying before.’’

He said his understanding was that ‘‘something is on the way’’, but there was no indication yet of what that would be or when it would occur.

Cr Stuart Walker, who Rutledge approached before the meeting to say he was ‘‘relying on [Walker]’’, and again after the meeting to say he hoped he was aware of ‘‘the implications’’ for Natureland, said the process was still ongoing.

‘‘The process has been followed, it’s confidential, and I’m not aware as to whether a final decision has been made.’’

Cr Brian McGurk, who was with Walker when Rutledge approached him, said he could not comment due to the confidential nature of code of conduct reviews.

Contacted for comment, Rutledge said only that the review was ‘‘still in progress’’.

Asked to comment, council CEO Pat Dougherty said he had requested an update on the process. ‘‘An external investigator was commissioned to undertake this review. Council has been assured the report on the review is imminent.’’