THERE is a fine line between robust debate and expressing strong opinion on one hand and being discourteous and disparaging on the other. It is a line which Whanganui district councillors spent about 45 minutes trying to find yesterday.
The code of conduct complaint brought by Ray Stevens against PhilippaBaker-Hogan reached its denouement in the council chamber when Mrs Baker-Hogan was cleared of any breach by a majority vote.
That vote reflected the findings of independent lawyer Harry Mallalieu whose thorough deliberations will make up most of the estimated $7500 bill that the council must now pay. It is unfortunate that that cost and that time was used up on something that should have been quietly settled some weeks ago, shortly after Mr Stevens took exception to Mrs Baker-Hogan accusing senior staff member Mark Hughes of having a "biased view".
There was general agreement - including the view of Mr Mallalieu - that Mrs Baker-Hogan's choice of words was "unwise". She withdrew the comment but would not offer the apology which would have ended the matter. Mr Stevens persisted with the code of conduct complaint when he had made his point.
A certain amount of obstinacy was at work. Yesterday councillor Helen Craig suggested the pair had "dug their toes in" when the public would have been better served by council moving on to more pressing matters. Still, the issue did give the opportunity for a bit of introspection and discussion about councillors' behaviour, the standards they need to live up to ... and just where that fine line is.
As mayor Annette Main said, a lesson needs to be learned - that way, the time and money spent on the unsightly spat will not be wasted. Putting it simply, councillors need to compose their thoughts, then reflect on them and on the required standard of conduct, which is clearly spelt out ... Then have their say.
