Heathcote County Council gags debate on dispute

Press, 21 April 1979, Page 1

Heathcote County Council gags debate on dispute

The Heathcote County Council last evening voted to resist any additional debate over the dispute which erupted after an allegation against one of its members. The matter now rests with solicitors.

A special meeting of the council unanimously resolved against further discussion “concerning comments by any councillor about another councillor” at a meeting of the finance and administration committee on April 11. The County Chairman (Mr J. M. McKenzie) said that he had called the meeting after receiving a letter from Cr D. J. Patchett, and after obtaining an opinion from the County Solicitor. The motion had been based on the solicitor’s opinion, and no names were mentioned. Mr McKenzie then passed on to what he called “a possible allegation against a member pf the council staff.” This was a different matter, according to the solicitor, and could be discussed by the special meeting. Mr McKenzie said that he had investigated “what he believed to be the incident,” and w’as satisfied of “complete honesty and fulfilment of duties to the council.” He opened the

matter for debate and said that he believed an apology should be made.

Cr J. Richardson said that neither the councillor nor the staff member had been named. Mr McKenzie replied that he had not mentioned names because he had not personally heard the “allegation.” However, he said that, according to the County Solicitor, what had been published in newspaper reports of the committee meeting “could be construed as malpractice.”

Cr Richardson: Well, where is the apology coming from?

Mr McKenzie: If any councillor did make an allegation, that councillor should make an apology. Discussion continued Cr B. K. Roberts asking the chairman if he had found any action by a staff member which could be seen as “unwise.” Mr McKenzie said that he had not seen “any essence of anything untoward.” The meeting was closed 12 minutes after it began. It had been called after comments made by Cr Richardson at the committee meeting. He said that he had seen an “illegal action” occur at Cr Patchett’s property after

he had followed a council truck there. Mr McKenzie told “The Press” last week that he had been assured by council staff that electrical work done for Cr Patchett was paid for before it was done. He said that, if the allegation concerned the delivery of a power pole, the council staff were performing “no more than a work order.” Mr McKenzie said that he would make a full investigation and wanted to report his findings to the public and to the council.

After the meeting last evening Cr Patchett said that he had written to Mr McKenzie, on April 17, informing him that legal proceedings had been started and asking that the council abandon discussion of the incident. Cr Patchett said that he was prepared to listen to a withdrawal , of the offending comments publicly, but would not say any more about the matter.

He said that he had acted in a “gentlemanly fashion.” The matter was still in the hands of his solicitor. An apology would have “lessened” the seriousness of the comment, but he had still to receive an apology.