Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

When a mayor goes rogue

Yet another episode in my seemingly endless battle with the South Waikato District Council is currently playing out -- and it's a shocker.

As regular readers will know, I've had my run-ins with this council over the years and this has seen some attrocious abuses of power on the part of the Mayor and CE. Perhaps the most obvious example being when they called police in an attempt to have me evicted from a public meeting for simply sitting in the public gallery with a camera in my hand.

One one occasion the Mayor completely abandoned a meeting due to the presence of myself and my camera and on others he has allowed me to record but issued warnings that the footage must not be misused.

Well this week there is a very important meeting of the council so I decided that I would again attend and video events so as to ensure that the public has a *complete* and comprehensive record of what transpires.

As they say in the world of clickbait -- you won't believe what happened next.

As is required under section 12.4 of the council's Standing Orders, I notified the chairperson (who is the Mayor) that I would be attending to record the meeting.

If you peruse section 12 of those standing orders it is very clear that a member of the public is not required to seek permission to make such recordings, only that their intention to do so is advised in advance. This is a very important point.

Yesterday I received an email from the Mayor which I include in full here:

Let's examine what's going on here.

Firstly, Mayor Petley is asserting an authority he does not have -- which is to demand that I seek his permission to record the meeting. That right is clearly provided under section 12.4 of the Standing Orders and although the chairperson may require that such recordings be temporarily paused, for the purpose of privacy or confidentiality, he has no authority to prohibit the public from recording.

In the first bullet point, Mayor Petley seems to think it unreasonable that I have encouraged members of the public to attend the meeting to watch exactly how councilors vote on a very important issue surrounding the openness and transparency of council workshops. I have also publicly voiced my opposition to the motion being presented which would reverse an earlier decision to open these workshops to the public in accordance with recommendations by The Ombudsman.

It seems that Mr Petley is strongly opposed to community oversight of his council and believes that I have no right to free speech.

The "denegration" he refers to is open and honest criticism where such criticism is due. For example, at the last meeting I highlighted (with evidence) that one councilor had clearly not read the motion they were about to vote on, nor had that councilor even listened to what the sponsor of that motion had said just minutes earlier in the meeting. I called that councilor out for their very poor performance -- Mayor Petley seems to think that I denegrated that person through my criticisms.

To "denigrate" is to criticise or belittle in an *unfair* way. I think my criticism was very fair, since that individual is paid over $1,000 per week to be aware of the agenda items and to cast their vote from an informed perspective.

Bullet point two sees the Mayor suggesting that what I post is antagonistic and *may* inhibit discussion.

So explain how my presence with a camera will change that for better or for worse.

As for inhibiting discussion, the mayor supported another councilor's recent abuse of the democratic process on multiple occasions when that councilor tabled a "procedural motion" to skip the debate normally associated with any motion that comes before council. It seems that having the debate totally skipped to avoid letting councilors have their say is fine but *possibly* "ihibiting" the debate is unacceptable.

To bullet point three. Mayor Petley seems upset that I have recorded himself, councilors and staff all doing ridiculous things. They are hardly "props" for my videos and if they are held to ridicule that is because they have done ridiculous things. All I have done is shown the community (and in some cases the world) the level of stupidity and bad behaviour that these people get up to. If you behave sensibly and respect the rights of others then I have nothing to ridicule.

Finally the issue of trespass.

If the SWDC is silly enough to trespass me from the meeting then they open up a huge legal can of worms that could cost them a fortune. Attempting to use the Trespass Act to violate a person's rights under the NZ Bill of Rights is very much frowned on by higher authorities. There have been a number of cases before the NZ courts where the courts have ruled against those who would do this and in some cases there have been significant compensatory damages.

The only legitimate grounds for trespassing someone from a public place is if they pose a threat to person or are disruptive. I have plenty of evidence and many witnesses to the fact that when I record a meeting I threaten nobody and only speak when questioned. I stand in a corner of the public gallery, not obstructing anyone and I do not interject or otherwise disrupt proceedings.

It is very clear therefore, that Mr Petley's threat to trespass me is nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt to subvert my rights under section 14 of the NZBORA and would be treated as such by the courts.

My case is further strengthened because, since the demise of our local newspaper, I have become an essential source of information in respect to the actions of council, delivering regular reports to many thousands of ratepayers and residents. In a district with only around 17,000 registered voters, getting an average of 5,000 to 10,000 views per video clearly indicates that I am serving a need.

The Mayor is fearful of the fact that I expose what would otherwise go unreported and unnoticed by the community. I do not make stuff up. I do not put words in his mouth, nor do I direct his actions. All I do is document what happens and, from time to time, add my own thoughts and opinions, as is my right under the NZBORA.

To summarise, Mayor Petley is prepared to breach his own council's standing orders. In doing so he also breaches section 19(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 2002 which states that any meeting must be conducted in accordance with those standing orders. He's also prepared to misuse the Trespass Act by trespassing me, not for valid reasons, but solely for the reason of trying to censor me and thus infringing on section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights.

So Thursday morning could be an interesting time.

If you're near Tokoroa at 9:15am on Thursday, drop by the council building and say hello. I gather that quite a few of the community will be there to stand beside me. How many? I don't know but I guess we'll find out.

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font