Cr Michael Laws has now walked out of two consecutive closed-door Otago Regional Council meetings — this month and last — and the veteran politician says he will "die in a ditch" protesting what he sees as a lack of transparency at the council.
The council yesterday rejected Cr Laws’ claim it was acting illegally — and although interim chief executive Pim Borren said he had sympathy for Cr Laws’ views, he said the council’s executive leadership was now "more open and transparent than ever before".
Cr Laws’ protest began last month after he questioned why the council would discuss Ngai Tahu committee nominees, lifting bus driver wages, and allowing Port Otago access to a local government line of credit (to pay for the new Otago Regional Council headquarters) in secret.
After he lost his bid for the matters to be discussed in public, he said he believed councillors had made a "dreadful error" and he could not take part in a meeting in which the council was hiding information that belonged in public.
He stood up and walked out as the public-excluded session began.
Now, this week, he walked out again as councillors went into a public excluded session at a meeting in Balclutha — this time largely only to discuss the minutes of the previous meeting.
"I think there needs to be a much more robust system before we keep putting stuff in confidence," Cr Laws said.
"It shouldn't go into confidence unless it's serious and none of the things — with the possible exception of an appointment of an iwi representative — are."
Speaking to the Otago Daily Times yesterday, he said there were generally far too many items on the confidential agenda that should not be.
The issue was widespread in local government, he said, calling the present state of affairs "Kafka-esque".
"On the one hand you profess to be open and transparent and yet in practice you practise exactly the opposite."
The Local Government Act said a council must conduct its business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner, he said.
"Are we?
"The answer to that question is ‘clearly not’."
Still, Dr Borren said he was comfortable that only council business that needed to be discussed in public excluded was.
Staff only recommended going into a non-public session on matters required to be in public excluded under the definitions required by Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) and prescribed through the Local Government Act, Dr Borren said.
"Ultimately, it is up to elected members to agree or disagree with that advice on an issue by issue basis.
"In my time here as interim chief executive, it is my view that our executive team has been more open and transparent than ever before.
"I have strongly encouraged our senior managers to ‘tell it exactly the way it is’ and to be completely open in their answers and most especially when we have made a mistake."
Having a discussion about transparency was healthy, but criticism the council was acting illegally was unfair, he said.
Chairwoman Gretchen Robertson said the council had a robust system for assessing what was discussed in public or not.
"It goes to a legal team who assess against the LGOIMA tests for confidentiality.
"There are legitimate reasons why some information is held in private, such as commercially sensitive contracts or employment processes.
"Once the reason for holding a meeting in private becomes no longer valid, information is released.
"The CE (chief executive) has delegation to make this call, or council can decide through resolution."
Cr Tim Mepham said he believed nothing was being deliberately withheld from the public, "but there does need to be a review of the process for management recommendations for public exclusion".
Cr Elliot Weir said the council had been working hard on matters related to transparency.
"In particular . . . the proactive release of information, engagement with rural and urban communities, and fronting up to issues and concerns headfirst."
