PHOTO
Students feel unsafe and uncomfortable around controversial Dunedin councillor Benedict Ong, he has been told as he faces a potential ban from the University of Otago campus.
He caused them distress, failed to respect their boundaries and did not listen when students expressed concern, it is alleged.
University registrar Dr David Clark wrote to Cr Ong on Thursday, inviting him to respond to allegations of inappropriate behaviour.
The university is considering serving Cr Ong a trespass notice covering university grounds and premises.
The Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) plans to issue its own notice concerning its premises.
OUSA had reported two alleged incidents in which the councillor’s physical proximity or contact was unwanted during a campus protest, Dr Clark told Cr Ong.
This had included after the students had asked him to move or they had expressed their discomfort, he said.
The matter had the attention of university vice-chancellor Grant Robertson.
“The vice-chancellor has seen a video in relation to one of these incidents which validates that two students asked you to move and appeared uncomfortable when you refused to do so,” Dr Clark said.
“He also spoke to the two students, who reiterated their distress and discomfort.”
Cr Ong had also posted on social media about being near the St David St building at 3am and at Ubar late at night and had taken photographs of students attending flat parties.
“Your behaviour towards students on campus within these contexts has led to them reporting that they feel uncomfortable and unsafe.”
Dr Clark said OUSA had advised complaints came from a variety of students this year.
“There is also a concern that you are interacting with students in contexts where they are vulnerable because they are consuming alcohol.”
Dr Clark told Cr Ong OUSA had expressed concern in general “you are not listening to our students when they express they feel uncomfortable or unsafe in your presence and that you are not respecting their boundaries”.
Cr Ong was given until 3pm on Monday to respond.
Cr Ong objected to the deadline.
“Since I am busy foremost relentlessly serving our Dunedin community, I will answer these at my own time and pleasure,” he said.
“I do not also believe it is appropriate that a deadline is imposed on my reply, at your discretion, since I represent and am elected by our Dunedin community, which has generationally subsidised our oldest university.”
Cr Ong has been consistently embroiled in controversy since his election on to the Dunedin City Council last year.
In March, his colleagues asked him to consider resigning over an email about a staff member. He refused to do so.
The previous month, his access to the Civic Centre was changed, as council chief executive Sandy Graham said she needed to ensure a safe work space for staff. Cr Ong rejected her comments.
He was asked to leave two public events in July — one of them the student protest — and was ejected from two council meetings last month.
Regarding allegations in the university trespass proposal, Cr Ong said he was invited to a flat party.
There had been “multiple requests I gladly obliged at the event of our students . . . for me to take photos and videos with them”.
Cr Ong said his visit to Ubar was well documented.
“I was immediately recognised by student supporters who requested to me that I take photos with them and their friends.”
Dr Clark said the university had responsibilities relating to the health, safety and wellbeing of students.
“The concern presently under consideration is whether your continued unrestricted access to university grounds and premises could cause students to feel unsafe or expose them to further unwanted interactions.”
Dr Clark said the university recognised a trespass notice would restrict Cr Ong’s ability to enter university grounds and premises.
“It will, therefore, consider whether such a restriction is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in light of all the available information, including any response you provide.”
Cr Ong was invited to comment on possible alternatives to a ban.
He could also provide any “correction, explanation or contextual information you consider relevant”.