The Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy was put forward to the audit and risk committee at their meeting on Tuesday for recommendation.
It proposes a clear policy dictating how the organisation will manage negative and unreasonable conduct, citing hostile emails, cyber stalking, bullying and threats of violence.
Also noted was the overuse of the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act (LGOIMA) requests.
The council stated although the vast majority of the complaints or information requests were addressed satisfactorily, a small number of complainants were making repeated requests, leading to stress and strain on resources.
The proposal states the current process is inappropriate for dealing with said complainants, and so a formalised process in line with the best practise guidelines produced by the Office of the Ombudsman is being proposed.
Under the proposal, unreasonable conduct is defined under five categories: unreasonable persistence, unreasonable demands, unreasonable lack of co-operation, unreasonable arguments, and unreasonable behaviours.
Different considerations will be put in place regarding the five behaviours, be it modifying behaviour or limiting engagement for a period of time.
Other potential strategies including trespass notices, advising the customer to contact external agencies and reporting behaviour to authorities.
Gore District Council chief executive Debbie Lascelles said in a statement the measures were being put in place to protect council staff.
"Council staff have the same rights as other members of the community to expect a safe working environment free from threats of abusive actions, harassment, or other forms of intimidation."
She stated the issue had been ongoing, noting a health and safety report from the audit and risk committee agenda of June last year which noted threats towards council members.
"Since that time there have been other incidents, including some that have necessitated police involvement."
Last year the Gore District Council received 84 LGOIMA requests.
One person accounted for 11 requests.
Mrs Lascelles stated this was not a way of denying information, as some in the community have suggested, but rather a way of ensuring appropriate allocation of resources and ensuring staff safety.
"[The council’s] proposed internal policy does not limit the free speech of members of the public, or members of the public seeking lawful access to information.
"Restrictions would only be considering either for protection of staff wellbeing, or to prevent excessive communications that can tie up council staff and resources."
