You are not permitted to download, save or email this image. Visit image gallery to purchase the image.
Councillors at Tuesday’s full council meeting voted 13-0 to censure Cr Vandervis, after an investigation concluded he had been "loud, aggressive and intimidating" towards a Dunedin City Council staff member.
Cr Vandervis has continued to dispute the investigation’s findings, saying the complaint was "trumped-up" and politically motivated.
He also told Tuesday’s meeting his legal adviser, Len Andersen QC, had "advised me that I have good grounds for applying for a judicial review of any adverse decision made by the council".
That was because of "the failure of the investigator to adhere to the basic principles of natural justice".
It was a view rejected by council legal representative Michael Garbett, who was "satisfied that the process has been fair and consistent with the code of conduct".
Cr Vandervis did not respond to a request for comment yesterday and neither did Mr Andersen.
Council chief executive Sue Bidrose said she had seen "no sign" of a judicial review since the meeting.
The incident occurred on September 13 when Cr Vandervis spoke to a staff member at the customer services desk.
The report by independent investigator David Benham concluded he was in breach of the code of conduct on three counts.
Legal representatives for Cr Vandervis had raised "a number of procedural issues" after the investigation was completed, the report said.
That included that the "principles of natural justice" had not been adhered to, as Cr Vandervis had not received copies of the staff member’s complaint, or her name, and was unable to "correct or contradict" details he felt were incorrect.
Cr Vandervis had engaged with Mr Benham on the understanding it was an initial discussion, to be followed by a more detailed defence once details of the complaint were received, his representative claimed.
That was despite Cr Vandervis already having been told, by email, that the initial investigation was over, that it had concluded there was a material case for the complaint, and that a full investigation was under way, the report said.
Cr Vandervis’ representative suggested the only remedy was a new investigation by a new investigator, but that was rejected by the council.
The representative also suggested the complaint against Cr Vandervis might be in retaliation for him having complained to Dr Bidrose about the staff member days after the incident, but that was also rejected.
Cr Vandervis’ representative also claimed his privacy had been breached, and his election campaign compromised, when details were leaked to the media.