Dunedin city councillor Bill Acklin has lodged a complaint against Cr Lee Vandervis and would like him booted off the council. Cr Vandervis is unapologetic and has pointed out no-one has the power to do that. Mark Price looks at the limited powers councils have to discipline their members and where disharmony on council can lead.
But not meaning to spoil the fun, at what point does disharmony on council become dysfunction that costs ratepayers?
When approached by the Otago Daily Times, a senior council staff member pointed in the direction of Shellharbour, - a pleasant little city of 65,000 on the New South Wales coast of Australia.
Three years ago, Australia's Minister for Local Government sacked the entire Shellharbour council and replaced it with a commissioner.
It is the same thing that happened to the Canterbury Regional Council in March last year and what some people are calling for with the Christchurch City Council.
In Shellharbour's case, dysfunction cost ratepayers more than $1 million - although they were also saved $1 million by not having to pay councillors.
One of the people involved in returning democracy to Shellharbour is former Silver Peaks County Council manager Michael Willis.
Mr Willis left Dunedin after the county was amalgamated with the Dunedin City Council in 1989 and has been Shellharbour's general manager for about a year.
He was present two weeks ago for the first meeting in more than three years of a democratically elected council in Shellharbour.
Comparing what seems like a storm in a teacup in Dunedin with a major blowout in Australia might be a long bow to draw, but Mr Willis believes the Shellharbour experience contains lessons for all.
"The bitter experience here was that the council didn't take the opportunities it had to address the deterioration of personal relationships that was occurring between the councillors, and the councillors and staff.
"Looking back, what that probably meant was that those with the collective responsibility for leadership passed up the chance to fix things while they could, before it got to the stage where even if they had wanted to, they couldn't."
Mr Willis says the problems at Shellharbour began "behind closed doors" and because of that the city's new council is being encouraged to do as much of its business as possible in public.
One of the key issues in the demise of the Shellharbour council was the leaking by two councillors of confidential information about the chief executive's salary.
Mr Willis: "I wouldn't agree that leaking of confidential information is a little disagreement.
"In our case, and against a backdrop of dysfunctional relationships, it led to a court case that cost the council $1.2 million.
"Unresolved conflict creates its own destructive force.
"The longer it's unresolved, the greater the destructive potential."
When the Shellharbour council was dismissed, the mayor observed in the local newspaper that in Australia's federal and state governments the "bad apple" was thrown out but "in local government if they get a bad apple they throw the whole barrel out".
And in that respect Australia and New Zealand are very similar.
The Dunedin council has five complaints about councillors' behaviour on its books at the moment.
One of them was lodged by the chairman of the Dunedin council's art in public places subcommittee, Bill Acklin, against former subcommittee member Lee Vandervis, for allegedly leaking confidential information.
He has suggested any councillor who "betrays the trust of council" by leaking information should be dismissed.
In other words, tossed out like a bad apple.
But New Zealand's Local Government Act 2002 does not work that way.
The only power the minister of local government has if a local authority "is unable to perform and exercise its duties" is to toss out the whole "barrel" and appoint a commissioner.
Mr Willis believes heading down that track should be avoided at all cost.
"A commissioner isn't local government, and it isn't local democracy.
"With the best will in the world, commissioners are but a temporary and locally unaccountable form of administration."
The behaviour expected of Dunedin councillors is contained in the council's standing orders, and more specifically its code of conduct.
It is here where the lofty ideals of ethics, teamwork and "effective local democracy" are spelt out.
Councillors are reminded democracy relies on "mutual respect" and that they are to focus on issues rather than personalities and avoid "aggressive, offensive or abusive conduct".
And they are told they "must not use or disclose confidential information ..."
The code declares at one point all elected members are "required to comply" with the code.
But in practice, if they do not, it does not greatly affect them.
A councillor can only be dismissed for a serious crime.
Every other offence is a matter for the conduct committee, and it has limited disciplinary powers.
It can demand an apology, impose a censure, suspend a councillor from specific committees for a period [incurring a loss of voting rights and meeting payments] and dismiss a councillor from a senior role in the council.
The current disharmony on council stems from the release of information about art in public places subcommittee discussions over funding of artist Rachel Rakena's Haka Peep Show in the Octagon.
Behind closed doors, the subcommittee, with Cr Acklin as chairman and Cr Vandervis as a member, first agreed to fund the bulk of the cost of Ms Rakena's $130,000 creation.
Then the subcommittee's parent committee, the community development committee, knocked the subcommittee back.
Cr Acklin says the reason the public was excluded from this debate was to protect the reputation of an artist whose work was rejected.
"It is no different than if you had applied for a job as editor of the ODT and you didn't get the job and then they go and put that on the front of the paper. That's the principle with this particular situation."
Eventually, the art work was funded - by Ngai Tahu and the council through its marketing budget- and details of the work were released, though not details of the discussion.
Then, in the ODT on September 13, some details of those discussions did emerge when Cr Vandervis explained his reasons for resigning from the subcommittee and his opposition to the spending on the art work.
As a result, says Cr Acklin, he "copped it" as members of the public unhappy with the Octagon art work accused him of being "the bloody dog that has wasted all the money".
That went on for 12 days until he finally released previously confidential minutes that revealed for the first time he, like Cr Vandervis, had voted against the subcommittee spending the money on the art work.
"It was my leadership in the subcommittee that steered it away from being an art in public places project."
But instead of credit for saving the reputation of Ms Rakena or for voting against the peep show, Cr Acklin appears to have taken hits to his own reputation for keeping the matter confidential.
When speaking to the ODT last week, Cr Acklin professed no great knowledge of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 or the Official Information Act 1982.
"Gosh, that's legal beaver stuff to really know the finer details of it.
"All I know is what we get told as we work through what we are allowed to release and what we are not.
"As time progresses on, it can very easily become, 'gosh, is that still in non-public or is that actually released'; so things can get a little bit grey as you work on down the track.
The council's expert in the area of public information is governance manager Sandy Graham, who declined to discuss with the ODT her job and how the council's processes worked.
The two Acts have a similar purpose - to make official information available to the public "unless good reason exists" to withhold it.
The subcommittee took the view the reputation of an artist could be damaged by a council decision to reject a proposed art work and that was "good reason" for discussion and decisions to be made without public involvement.
Long-standing Dunedin sculptor Stuart Griffiths does not agree with that view.
The former University of Canterbury lecturer in sculpture says he was involved in public art policy in Dunedin in the 1990s when works were approved only after consultation.
"The whole process of involving community was very extensive."
He gives as examples sculptures at Middlemarch, St Clair, Waikouaiti and the one at the entrance to the Botanic Garden he was involved with personally.
"The artists submitted proposals, they showed their proposals to those communities and the decision was then vetted by the council just to make sure something didn't get through that wasn't appropriate.
"But by and large the works the communities wanted were put in place."
And he does not believe artists should or would have any objection to their proposals being discussed in public.
"It's like anything else. There are competitions for everything.
"If people are asked to submit proposals on the basis the proposals would be publicly seen, as part of the process of selection, I don't think they would have any problem."
He believed the council could still reserve the right to make the decision, but by getting the public involved "you certainly get a lot of information" he says, laughing.
Cr Acklin describes the whole Haka Peep Show business as "an absolute blimmin' upheaval of a mess on all fronts" and he is looking forward to a review of the rules that govern the subcommittee.
"I will also point out I did not ask to be part of this committee and the only reason I ended up as chair was because nobody else wanted it.
"The things you bloody end up with by default."
Southern District Health Board member Malcolm Macpherson, who has spent many years in local government, including a nine-year stint as mayor of Central Otago, believes local authorities can avoid such messes by providing more information about confidential matters.
"It's possible often to give an indication of what's being discussed and why it's being discussed with the public excluded."
He regards the sanctions available when someone breaches confidentiality as "pretty weak" and he considers there is little to prevent a "renegade councillor" ignoring the rules.
"It falls apart if people are determined to be renegades and determined to be awkward and determined not to play by the rules.
He considers the rules governing confidentiality are "not perfect."
"But local government is not perfect.
"It's a messy business sometimes and people have strong ideas and sometimes they differ strongly and you can't legislate for that.
"It's hard to legislate good behaviour."
