Two submitters to the Dunedin City Council 2025-34 hearing felt that councillors were laughing at them.
Councillors serve the public, and such behaviour was poor. They are, in effect, employed by the ratepayers and residents, and should therefore show respect.
No-one should pretend that acting as a councillor is straightforward. Councillors face mountains of paperwork, difficult decisions, and - sadly - often abuse. Threats of violence are even possible, and female politicians are particularly vulnerable to shocking misogyny and menaces, even at local levels.
Councillors need a thick skin as they undertake an often thankless task.
This does not stop some candidates from standing for the council or the mayoralty. Dunedin usually has about 40 council candidates and several for mayor. Often, a new grouping arises promising fresh approaches and competence.
Nonetheless, some of the most capable will be discouraged from putting their names forward.
In the first disrespectful incident, Mike Waddell said that while submitting, he had observed "people are starting to laugh around the table". He found that appalling and lacking in respect.
In the second, on a different day, Sarah Ramsay was midway through her submission when she called out councillor behaviour.
"I don’t appreciate councillors laughing at me while I’m giving a submission," she said.
Both were submitting on one of the big issues for this year’s election, the Smooth Hill landfill.
Mrs Ramsay said Cr Jim O’Malley had started laughing quite loudly and blatantly while she was talking.
Cr O’Malley described his response during the submission as a snort. Asked about his conduct later by the Otago Daily Times, he said politics sometimes required robust discussions, especially in the face of what he considered to be "unfounded criticisms of council decision-making".
He said, however, he accepted the hearings were an opportunity for submitters to speak while also allowing councillors to ask questions. He acknowledged that all submitters deserved respect, which was why he apologised for his behaviour at the first opportunity.
He also said some had presented factually incorrect positions, as had been put forward by council and mayoral candidates. He made no apology for arguing in favour of the landfill from an informed position.
While councillors can ask questions, the point of the process is to give submitters their time and space. Mayor Jules Radich said councillors needed to "show respect for every submitter and to attend hearings ready to listen and question politely".
So-called "informed positions" and "facts" can be questioned and are not necessarily immutable. It is arrogant to think otherwise.
Promisingly, councillors are being encouraged to ask just one question before moving on to the next councillor. The importance of questions being precise has also been raised. The long-term submissions process is itself long and should not become bogged down.
Three councillors also displayed disrespect to the process last week when they walked out ahead of a presentation by Strath Taieri Community Board chairman Barry Williams, who was justifiably censured in 2023 for a racist slur.
Steve Walker, Marie Laufiso and Christine Garey returned to the table after Mr Williams had finished. No doubt, the councillors felt righteous in their stance.
However, Mr Williams was submitting as board chairman. In that capacity, and as a resident and ratepayer, he was still entitled to be listened to, even if he once failed to respect a hotel worker.
The council can also be seen as disrespectful because of the reduced presence this year from the executive leadership team staff. This is undermining the significance of the consultation.
As representatives of the people, some Dunedin City councillors are denigrating consultation. In such a forum, they must listen and display humility, tolerance and understanding.
