Cr Lee Vandervis was found to have breached the Dunedin City Council’s code of conduct in 2019 when he remonstrated with a staff member over what he believed was inadequate parking signage in the city.
The incident took place on September 13, 2019, after he received a $12 parking ticket, unaware he had parked in a 30-minute zone.
The customer-service staffer who dealt with Cr Vandervis emailed council’s then-chief executive Sue Bidrose the following day to make a formal complaint over his conduct.
That resulted in David Benham being brought in to independently investigate.
He decided after a preliminary assessment that the complaint warranted a full inquiry and he gave his results to council after interviewing all relevant parties.
The council opted to censure Cr Vandervis.
In 2020, he took the case to the High Court for a judicial review, which was declined.
In March, Cr Vandervis challenged that judgement with the Court of Appeal, which today released its ruling with an identical outcome.
“I’m disappointed in the appeal decision and we’ll consider our options when the detail [of the judgement] has been studied,” he told the Otago Daily Times.
Cr Vandervis argued the complaint made by the council staff member was invalid because only the chief executive could decide to do so under the Code of Conduct.
But Justices Jillian Mallon, David Collins and Graham Lang rejected that ground of appeal.
It was not Dr Bidrose’s job to consider the merits of the complaint, Justice Mallon said.
It was not inaccurate to describe the staff member as the complainant and as having made a complaint even though it was the chief executive who formally set the wheels of the investigation in motion.
Cr Vandervis also claimed he had been denied “natural justice” because he had not been given a chance to respond to allegations until after the preliminary assessment had been completed.
He said he was hamstrung too by the fact he was not given the original complaint or witness statements.
The court, however, stressed the preliminary investigation was simply to determine whether the complaint was frivolous and, as such, did not require input from Cr Vandervis.
Justice Mallon said while the councillor was not provided with specifics of the complaint, it was clear he knew enough.
“There is no doubt that Mr Vandervis knew the gist of the complaint . . . There is also no doubt that he knew that he was said to have spoken loudly and inappropriately to the staff member,” she said.
“We consider this was sufficient to fairly provide him with the opportunity to respond.”
The court, though, advised a change to the process in future cases.
“Investigators under this process might find it useful in the future to provide the written complaint to a person being investigated (with any necessary redactions) to avoid any later allegation that the person being investigated did not know the details of the complaint,” said Justice Mallon.
The court ordered Cr Vandervis to pay costs to Dunedin City Council and Mr Benham.
The full extent of the financial cost of taking the case was “yet to be determined”, Cr Vandervis said.
The entire fiasco has cost council more than $100,000 - $14,148 for the initial investigation; $56,678 for the High Court case and $30,856 for the Court of Appeal.
Council previously confirmed a third party had paid the $12 ticket.
