‘‘I find it more likely than not that Cr Ong acted in retaliation,’’ independent investigator Steph Dyhrberg said.
She found his behaviour was a very serious breach of the council’s code of conduct and his attempt to discredit the witness was particularly egregious, she said.
Cr Ong had complained about fellow councillor John Chambers — a complaint since thrown out, as it was found to be without substance — and a witness essentially corroborated Cr Chambers’ version of events.
Cr Ong sent an email to council chief executive Sandy Graham and to the Otago Daily Times on February 4 about the witness, who is a council staff member, and Ms Graham lodged a complaint the next day.
In her complaint, Ms Graham said Cr Ong had likely breached the council’s obligations as a good employer and possibly exposed the council to civil liability.
Ms Dyhrberg first made a preliminary assessment and then carried out a full investigation.
‘‘No-one should be victimised or discredited for agreeing to participate in a code of conduct complaint process,’’ the investigator said.
Her report is to be considered by councillors on March 25.
If they agree Cr Ong breached the code, councillors may then decide on sanctions, such as requesting an apology, having a vote of no-confidence or asking him to consider resigning.
Cr Ong has said previously he would not resign. Asked again by the ODT yesterday, he did not answer the question, but said he had ‘‘made no attempts to discredit a witness’’.
He did not co-operate with the investigation.
In an email to Cr Ong yesterday, Ms Graham said he could address the council about the investigator’s findings if he wished.
‘‘You will be provided with additional time to speak if required,’’ Ms Graham said.
Cr Ong — who has previously arrived at a meeting with tape over his mouth and was then escorted from the Civic Centre after having privileges revoked — indicated he may be silent at the March 25 meeting.
Both Ms Graham’s email and Ms Dyhrberg’s report were provided to the ODT by Cr Ong.
The ODT was quite prominent within the report, as Cr Ong has tended to share emailed correspondence with journalists.
Ms Graham alleged copying reporters into the email Cr Ong sent her on February 4 was a direct contravention of the code of conduct.
Ms Dyhrberg said Cr Ong’s email to Ms Graham about the staff member came 90 minutes after he had received the witness transcript that did not support his complaint against Cr Chambers.
The witness expressed concern Cr Ong was known for sharing information with media and he could breach privacy, she said.
She was concerned Cr Ong’s behaviour ‘‘may have been a deliberate attempt to retaliate’’ against the witness.
She found he had breached requirements to ‘‘treat all employees with courtesy and respect and avoid publicly criticising any employee’’ and not to ‘‘disclose confidential information, criticise, or compromise the impartiality or integrity of staff’’.
Cr Ong had been put on notice several times about the importance of maintaining confidentiality, she said.
Ms Dyhrberg said it was ‘‘reasonable to infer Cr Ong knew what he was doing was inappropriate’’.
Her finding of a very serious breach of the code posed a serious risk to the reputation and integrity of the council and to Cr Ong as an elected member, she said.
Cr Ong behaved as the witness had feared.
