PHOTO
It is sad when the right course of action is plain to just about everyone but the person concerned.
It is especially poignant when that person has a fine record, when he had inspired, when he has been a breath of fresh air.
Not anymore. Invercargill Mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt has been struggling with his duties and he should resign. In fact, he should have left with dignity and not stood again in the 2019 election.
It was obvious to many he was having difficulties at that stage. But the word had not spread sufficiently. Sir Tim won his ninth Invercargill mayoral election, doing so comfortably.
His first was in 1993, and he only lost once in the intervening years. He was also mayor of Waitemata for two terms.
When Sir Tim moved south, he brought with him a genius for publicity, a massive grin and boundless enthusiasm.
It helped the people of Invercargill feel better about themselves, and the rest of the country became much more aware of its southernmost city.
Matters were obviously serious when the Department of Internal Affairs launched an inquiry last August following concerns about the Invercargill council, chaired by the experienced Richard Thomson, of Dunedin.
It found Sir Tim’s performance had resulted in a “leadership void”. There was a clear consensus the mayor struggled to fulfill significant mayoral roles.
Sir Tim voted to accept the report and then, when this was released last November, he rejected the findings.
A letter to the review from three Otago mayors, for example, had said: ‘‘We have observed decline over a number of years, but in the last 12 months our concerns have increased.”
The mayors, Sir Tim said, had a vendetta against him.
The review found there was no working relationship between the mayor and the chief executive.
Two external advisors were appointed to the council, among other strategies to improve council performance and work around the mayor’s limitations.
Sir Tim had chosen Nobby Clark as deputy mayor last October, after the previous deputy resigned under stain and citing the “toxic” culture. The review described Cr Clark as polarising.
He and Sir Tim have since clashed. Sir Tim has called him “Brutus” after Cr Clark said he should front up on why he was not driving.
The council has given voting rights at this month’s Local Government New Zealand conference to a councillor, with another councillor as back-up, rather than the mayor which is the usual practice. Cr Clark supported this because the councillors would be able to keep up with amendments and discussion.
Sir Tim’s mayoralty continues to be colourful. He refused to say why his driving licence was suspended, and challenged councillors aged more than 70 to a running and swim race. He claimed he was given insufficient IT training but council staff said he turned down opportunities.
He has said he has several terms left in him yet, and he floated running for Environment Southland as a “semi-retirement” option.
Councillors, for a moment no doubt relieved, heard Sir Tim at a meeting last week ask what would happen if he resigned.
Sir Tim now says he joked. ‘‘It was amusing to break the tedium and watch the looks of unadulterated joy on certain faces.
‘‘Sorry Councillor Mayoral contenders — I am not going anywhere!’’ he said on Facebook.
Yet again, Sir Tim has shown why he should not be mayor. Again, he has shown an unfortunate lack of self-awareness.
Once, his eccentricities were a strength. Now, they just emphasise his inabilities.
One of the most illustrious careers in New Zealand local government will increasingly be remembered most for its division and decline. Sir Tim, with every passing month, is further undermining his fine legacy.