"Officers in this forum cannot defend themselves. It is time to realise that once a decision has been made, the council decision becomes the collective decision of us all, even if we voted against it," he said.
The council has just reviewed its code of conduct, and this will be the first test of the revised policy. Mr Stevens now has to specify the councillor, specify the alleged breach of the code and also provide evidence to support the claim.
"I've requested a transcript of the meeting and once I've read that there may be other councillors named," he said.
Once he has presented his information, the chief executive must act, which means asking the Wanganui branch of the Law Society to name an independent person to investigate the matter.
Once the investigation is finished, council has a number of options. It can let the matter lie on the table, or the councillor can be censured, suspended for a period, asked to apologise or given training. The code does not let council remove the elected representative or restrict their remuneration.
Mr Vinsen said he was "embarrassed" there should be an attempt to release council management from their obligations to give elected members sound professional advice.
He believed senior managers deserved the chance to defend their decisions in public "and it is a rare occasion that I disagree with them".
"I reserve my right to challenge any decision made by council or by officers and would be failing in my duty to the ratepayer if I did not do so."
Mr Vinsen said any councillor had the right to challenge any issue. He has been an arch-critic of the odour management programme at the Airport Rd treatment plant and said the process had not been a "directive of council".
"It has been a course of decision-making by the infrastructure manager and his advisers. It has been reported to council, not directed by council."