Stuff Digital Edition

Officials fear losing their voice

Janine Rankin and Sinead Gill

Elected officials in Palmerston North are baulking at a proposed rule change that seeks to control how they speak to the media.

The proposed change mandates the mayor as the first point of contact for media on council issues, except in the mayor’s absence, or when the mayor refers to another councillor or the chief executive.

The city council meeting on Wednesday abandoned formal debate on the proposed code of conduct, and referred it to a workshop, out of public view.

Cr Lorna Johnson said she could not support the code in its current form because it appeared to restrict councillors’ rights to speak to the media and engage on social media.

‘‘No other member may comment on behalf of the council without having first obtained the approval of the mayor.’’

Councillors would be allowed to express a personal view so long as they made it clear they were not speaking on behalf of the council.

Their comments had to be consistent with the code, and not deliberately misrepresent the views of the council.

An appendix on the use of social media asked councillors to take care in mixing their political and personal lives, to be open and transparent, not use aliases, and refer any negative or critical posts about the council to an authorised spokesperson or communications staff.

Dr Dean Knight, a local government expert at Victoria University of Wellington, labelled the new clause ‘‘trite and dangerous’’, and said it threatened to mute dissenting voices at the council table.

He said it wasn’t unusual for councils to have rules distinguishing when councillors were speaking on behalf of council or in their personal capacity, and there was ‘‘no drama’’ having the mayor as the spokesperson on a council position.

‘‘The danger is these types of trite distinctions are prone to be weaponised.’’

It could lead to elected members self-censoring, or make it easier for them to be censured for expressing a dissenting view.

‘‘The reality is we know politicians wear different hats, and the sky doesn’t fall when they don’t go out of their way to tell us what is and isn’t their own political position.’’

Johnson said the rules restricting councillors seemed vague, without offering them any protection.

‘‘The increasing abuse and threats we receive has resulted in some people disabling their accounts.’’

Cr Rachel Bowen said she also had significant concerns with elements of the code.

She was not sure whether she could be putting herself in breach of the code by administering social media pages for community groups apart from her formal role as a councillor, for example.

‘‘We are all accountable to electors, and our primary accountability is to them.’’

Bowen also objected to sections which seemed to give staff the power to decide what professional training should be made compulsory for elected members.

The council regularly reviews its code of conduct, and this time it was proposed to use the Local Government New Zealand blueprint as a basis for change.

Cr Vaughan Dennison said councillors needed to spend more time refining the code, as it was too important to vote through at a full council meeting with what might be just a narrow majority.

Deputy mayor Aleisha Rutherford put the procedural motion that stopped debate in its tracks.

The code review is to lie on the table, and be referred to a councillors’ workshop, outside the formal public meeting process.

The last time a councillor was found to have been in breach of the code was in 2013, when former city councillor Chris Teo-Sherrell was taken to task for a comment alleging managers were trying to run the council.

The complaint went to a hearing, and Teo-Sherrell was found in breach, and was told not to do it again.

Dr Dean Knight local government expert at Victoria University

The danger is these types of trite distinctions are prone to be weaponised.

Front Page

en-nz

2021-12-04T08:00:00.0000000Z

2021-12-04T08:00:00.0000000Z

https://fairfaxmedia.pressreader.com/article/281496459568506

Stuff Limited