No further action on Ombudsman’s report

Press, 1 July 1983, Page 5

No further action on Ombudsman’s report

The Christchurch Transport Board yesterday decided to take no further action on an Ombudsman’s report on a board election last year. A Labour board member, Mr T. N. D. Anderson, had asked the Ombudsman to investigate the election, in which Mrs Helen Garrett was chosen to replace the late chairman, Mr John Mathison.

The result, coupled with the decision by Mr P. V. Neary to resign from the Labour Party and become an independent member, changed the balance of power on the board from Labour to the Citizens Association.

Mrs Garrett was elected by a show of hands, in spite of protests by Labour members that a secret ballot should have been held.

The Ombudsman, Mr L. J. Castle, investigated the matter, and his report to Mr Anderson was tabled at the board’s June 21 meeting. Mr Castle concluded that the advice of the board’s general manager, Mr M. G.

Taylor, to the acting chairman, Mr P. V. Neary, on how he should proceed with the election, was wrong. “This opinion does not necessarily mean that the election falls,” Mr Castle said. The matter could be finalised only by an application for judicial review in the High Court. When the matter came up for discussion yesterday, Mr Anderson asked that the debate be deferred until the board’s July 19 meeting, to enable members to seek further legal advice. He had earlier given notice that he intended moving that Mrs Garrett resign, and that the chairman and deputy chairman step down from their positions until another election was held.

The chairman, Mr Neary, said, “It has got to the stage where every time you open your mouth in this board you are liable to have it taken down and sent to a lawyer.”

He said that the board’s solicitor had seen the Ombudsman’s letter, and had

concluded that no action was necessary. However, Mr Anderson said that three questions remained unanswered, and should be put to the board’s solicitors. They were: • “What are the consequences for the board now that the opinion advanced as the basis for Mrs Garrett’s election to the board... has been demonstrated by the Ombudsman to be wrong? • What is the appropriate response... /I • If the chairperson fails to rule in accordance with the law, what are the consequences for the chairperson?” Mr Anderson said that the Ombudsman was prepared to discuss the matter with the chairman and general manager, and that such a meeting should be arranged as soon as possible. Mr Neary moved that no further action be taken on the Ombudsman’s report. Mr C. L. Sugden (Citizens), seconding the motion, said that the board had wasted a considerable amount of time, and rate-

payers’ money. He said that the matter could be resolved only by the High Court, so “let him (Mr Anderson) take it to the High Court.” Mr G. Stone (Labour) said that the delays were caused by Citizens members’ attempts to “sweep the Ombudsman’s report under the carpet.” The motion was passed by five votes to three. Mr Anderson said after the meeting that he would raise the matter again at the July 19 meeting.

Study of clubrooms

A committee has been set up to investigate proposals for staff social clubrooms at the board’s Ferry Road depot. A delegation from the social club told board members at yesterday’s meeting that the facility they proposed would cost about $190,000, and that the social club would supply the fittings.