Chief Ombudsman to QLDC: “It is my opinion that the Council has acted contrary to legislation"
Share
The results of an investigation by the Chief Ombudsman into the Queenstown Lakes District Council have been released today, revealing that the council has a very high rate of refusing to release information without legal justification.
The investigation centres of how the QLDC aligns with the requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA).
In 80% of QLDC related complaints referred to the Ombudsman the council was found to be non-compliant with the law.
“Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Council has acted contrary to legislation by not always meeting these obligations. Although the number of complaints received is low, the percentage of findings made against the Council was disproportionately high.”
The Chief Ombudsman, John Allen, noted that with other councils around the country the non-compliance rate was only 38% for councils currently under investigation and 50% across all councils for the same period at the end of 2024.
Mr Allen revealed that the previous Chief Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, had discussed these problems with QLDC Mike Theelen.
“He (Mr Theelen) acknowledged the Council ‘in the past may have been overly sensitive’ in responding to some LGOIMA requests, particularly where it was considered that information, if released, might be used against the Council, or misrepresented.
“While we understand the Council’s concern about reputational risk, this on its own is not a valid reason under the LGOIMA to withhold information.”
“We encourage the Council to learn from the outcome of Ombudsman investigations to help ensure mistakes are not repeated. The Chief Executive said the Council wants to ensure it embeds lessons from complaint investigation outcomes into its practice. This should include discussing the outcomes of LGOIMA complaints in the monthly Democracy Services team training sessions, and including examples of outcomes of LGOIMA complaints both for and against the Council as exemplars in LGOIMA guidance.”
The investigation also found fault with the way the QLDC comms team deals with media requests.
“We saw some vulnerabilities in the Council’s handling of media information requests. In some instances, information was withheld without the requester being provided a valid reason, as required under section 18(a)(i) of the LGOIMA. There was also no referral to our Office if the requester was refused information, which is a requirement under section 18(b) of the LGOIMA.
“We saw some practices which appear to show that media information requests are not always considered with LGOIMA compliance in mind. LGOIMA compliance refers not only to timeliness obligations but also providing reasons where information is withheld, and providing recourse to the Ombudsman where necessary.”
“It is my opinion that the Council has acted contrary to legislation by not always meeting its legal obligation under section 18 of the LGOIMA to provide the reason when a request is refused and to advise the requester that they can make a complaint to me.”
Investigation finds issues with public excluded workshops and public forums
Mr Allen details issues around excluding the public from meetings or workshops, not keeping proper records of workshops and on occasions allowing workshops to be used as a forum for making decisions. He was however re-assured by the QLDC’s response that these issues were all being actively addressed, including allowing public forum participation by remote video link.
“The Council has advised me that it is aware of this issue and it is taking steps to ensure access to Meetings for its constituents. The Council has begun conducting more Meetings outside Queenstown to increase their accessibility to the public. The Council also livestreams all Meetings of full council on its YouTube channel. The same concern about accessibility was also associated with public forums, and the Council advised that it has taken recent steps to make available remote attendance for public forums.”
The investigation also looked at how aware QLDC staff were around their LGOIMA obligations.
“The staff survey also showed that roughly three-quarters of respondents considered the Chief Executive and senior leadership team are strongly or moderately supportive of openness and transparency in its responses to information requests made under the LGOIMA. However, nearly a quarter of staff survey respondents didn’t know the Chief Executive’s approach to the LGOIMA or considered he was silent on the issue, which indicates more work can be done to spread awareness of key LGOIMA values to all staff.”
In addition the Ombudsman canvassed the views of local QLDC residents on the question of openness and transparency.
“The way the public perceives a Council’s level of openness is fundamental to its level of trust in the Council and its decisions. Responses to the online, public survey show that some respondents have a perception that decisions are being made ‘behind closed doors’ at closed Meetings and workshops, and that the views of the public are sometimes overlooked in council decision making.
“The Chief Executive addressed some of these perceptions in a meeting with the former Chief Ombudsman, noting that the Council has amended its practice around elected member workshops which, since March 2024, are open to the public by default. The Council also needs to ensure good record keeping of closed meetings and workshops, and good practices around re-visiting material heard in closed sessions, releasing it when there is no longer a harm in doing so. This is likely to assist in improving public perceptions around the openness of council decision making.”
The investigation report included some sample quotes from local residents as to the openness and transparency of the QLDC.
“I have no faith in QLDC, it is a waste of time and energy attending public meetings to voice concerns over financing, overspending and lack of public consultation are ignored. “
“Queenstown is only just beginning to acknowledge the need to keep the public fully informed as to its actions, plans, development ideas, bylaws (current, past and pending), in a transparent, accessible manner. “
“There appears to be a lot of decisions and actions made in private meetings, when I believe they should have been public.”
“There is very little communication directed at me from our Council. Not even a mailbox drop. Very little transparency. “
“People seem to think that trying to influence QLDC is a waste of time as the staff control everyone and they do what they want, not what the community wants. E.g. the proposed new council offices in town…the community is massively against this but the staff want it…so they get it. “
“Meetings seem to have a set outcome preordained by non-elected QLDC staff. So most meetings are meaningless and just a box ticking exercise.”
TOP STORIES
