Councillors had a delicate discussion yesterday about how they might change the Dunedin City Council’s code of conduct.
Issues explored at a preliminary workshop included what the complaints process should be, the length of time for proceedings, cost, whether investigator findings should be binding on the council and who should recommend or determine penalties.
Cr Lee Vandervis was concerned about the code being "not a proper process" and his experience was that proceedings resembled a kangaroo court.
Consequences included negative publicity, he said.
Cr Vandervis observed the code seemed to require a higher standard of behaviour from elected representatives than what was expected of regular citizens.
Anyone found guilty of a "real transgression" could expect to suffer at the ballot box, he suggested.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines a kangaroo court as any proceeding that attempts to imitate a fair trial or hearing without the usual due process safeguards.
Cr Christine Garey disputed Cr Vandervis’ characterisation of the code and said breaches needed to have meaningful consequences.
"If somebody is going to go through this [as a complainant], there has to be some worthwhile conclusion," she said.
Cr Garey, who had been a complainant when Cr Vandervis was found to have behaved in an intimidating way in 2020, said the length of the process was problematic.
It was also unfair the respondent could speak at a council meeting to defend themselves while a complainant had no similar opportunity, she said.
Cr Bill Acklin felt the code was too weak and existing penalties were like being slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket.
He wondered if leaving an independent investigator to determine penalties might serve as a better deterrent.
Cr David Benson-Pope said the council had been tripped up concerning the most recent code breach by Cr Vandervis, relating to comments about Māori, as it could choose one penalty only.
In-house counsel Eleanor Bunt said the council lacked a process for distinguishing between serious and trivial complaints.
Some support emerged at the workshop for a two-step process that would bring in an investigator once an "initial assessor" had looked into the validity of a complaint.
This would likely be less expensive and some complaints might be resolved through mediation.
