Council meets over conduct complaint

Stephen Woodhead
Stephen Woodhead
A move requiring council chairman Stephen Woodhead to make a written defence against a code of conduct complaint was clearly defeated at the extraordinary council meeting yesterday. 

On November 11 last year, Cr Gerry Eckhoff complained to council chief executive Peter Bodeker over a code of conduct matter, involving Mr Woodhead, apparently linked to Dunedin harbourside development issues.     

This complaint became public only this week after the Otago Daily Times learned of yesterday's 8.30am extraordinary council meeting to discuss procedures for later hearing the complaint.

The substantive matter is to be heard at a council meeting on February 10.

During yesterday's council discussion, Cr Eckhoff said that in some court proceedings, written material was presented by both parties before a hearing, and fair play meant new material could not be raised at the hearing itself.

‘‘I need to be very clear that if a complaint is filed, then there should be a statement of defence filed,'' he said.

He had needed to provide written support for his complaint, and believed Mr Woodhead should also give his response in writing through Mr Bodeker before the February meeting. This would promote ‘‘clear understanding'' for all councillors, he said.

He moved an amendment requiring a written response to an earlier proposed motion on the preferred procedures.

But several other councillors then took a different view.

Mr Woodhead raised a point of order about whether Cr Eckhoff's amendment was a technically valid, and several other councillors made similar points.

Council deputy chairwoman Gretchen Robertson, who chaired the discussion, ruled Cr Eckhoff's suggestion could be accepted as an amendment because ‘‘my feeling is it's part of the process'' for the later code of conduct meeting.

Cr Trevor Kempton urged councillors to be ‘‘very careful'' over the process.

Cr Eckhoff had chosen to outline his views in some detail, as he was entitled to, in respect to his complaint, but there should be no requirement for Mr Woodhead to do the same before the next meeting, Cr Kempton said.

Councillors voted down the amendment on voices, and then endorsed, with only two votes against, the original motion, involving a set of procedures outlined in a written report by a council lawyer.

Information tabled at yesterday's meeting did not fully clarify the nature of the complaint, earlier received by Mr Bodeker, but referred to ‘‘harbourside issues''.

Council officials yesterday declined to provide a copy of the written complaint, and Cr Eckhoff also declined to provide details, referring to requirements in the complaints process.

It is understood the complaint and related concerns by Cr Eckhoff focus partly on recent talks between Mr Woodhead and Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull to identify a way to advance Otago Harbour development in the area south of the inner harbour Steamer Basin.

It appears at issue is the way Mr Woodhead responded to comments by Cr Eckhoff in an Otago Daily Times article published on November 5.

That story said a ‘‘fresh push to develop Dunedin's harbourside'' had triggered a ‘‘war of words'' between Mr Woodhead and Cr Eckhoff.

The story said most regional councillors welcomed the initiative, but Cr Eckhoff had contacted the ODT to criticise the ORC's approach and to accuse Mr Woodhead of overstepping his authority by initiating talks with Mr Cull without previous endorsement from ORC councillors.

Mr Woodhead had replied that any harbourside decisions would actually be made by regional councillors, and it was not ‘‘enjoyable normal practice'' to discuss matters with ‘‘fellow councillors'' through the media.

- john.gibb@odt.co.nz 

Add a Comment

 

Advertisement