Data shows it's Guy and Lewers making the personal attacks - not their opponents

Crux is sharing the following article from Queenstown Lakes Community Action to shed some light on who is actually attacking who in the current local elections. At Crux we have found both Mayor Lewers and Councillor Lisa Guy unusually evasive when it comes to answering actual questions, but both are very comfortable accusing us and their opponents of “misinformation” and even “defamation”. As just one example, this weekend Lisa Guy attacked Crux threatening all sorts of dire legal consequences only 24 hours after she missed our deadline to answer real election questions- her excuse? “I was celebrating my husband’s birthday.”

This is Dirty Politics and needs to be called out, using data rather than emotion.

From Queenstown Lakes Community Action. Republished with permission.

Elections are noisy times. Signs go up, leaflets land in our letterboxes, and social media fills with opinions about who should lead us next. In all that noise, it’s easy to forget one simple truth: words matter.

In local government elections, most of us don’t know the candidates personally. We rely on what we read, hear, and see to form opinions. A single comment or repeated phrase can frame how we view a candidate. Words can inspire confidence in someone’s vision — or erode trust and credibility.

When candidates debate issues clearly and respectfully, voters are better informed. But when attacks replace arguments, the focus shifts from policies to personalities. And when people switch off because of the mudslinging, democracy itself is weakened.

The Last Week: Noise or Nasty?

Over the past week, the volume has been turned up. Some residents have said the tone has become too nasty and personal. Others insist it’s just the scrutiny we should expect. We wanted to analyse the comments that have been made about the CEO recruitment process.

The lens we used was simple: were these comments examples of legitimate and expected scrutiny, or did they slip into personal slurs and “hit piece” territory?

What’s been said — and how it lands

To bring some clarity, we analysed the actual words used by four key voices: Mayor Glyn Lewers, Councillor Lisa Guy, Councillor Niki Gladding, and mayoral candidate John Glover. The comments we looked at were all posted publicly from the beginning of last week until 5pm yesterday.

We categorised each comment as either:

Scrutiny – focused on governance, process, or evidence.
Personal – aimed at motives, intent, or character.
Where comments contained elements of both, we coded them conservatively.

An explanation of how we carried out the analysis can be found in the comments document which we link to below.

Here’s what stood out. (Scroll down for a graph showing the analysis)

Glyn Lewers

Many of the Mayor’s remarks were directed squarely at Gladding and Glover. He described Gladding’s statements as “misleading,” “irresponsible,” and “designed to disrupt,” and said she had “caused major disruption” and would “undermine the very organisation she is meant to help govern.” He accused her of “undermining public confidence for her own gain” and “too ready to substitute personal crusades for good governance.” Glover, he claimed, was “unable to listen and consider all views” and “incapable of building a team and/or creating a collaborative environment.”

The only comment that fell cleanly under scrutiny was a statement that information shared had been “inaccurate and misleading.”

Lisa Guy

Councillor Guy likewise aimed many of her words at motives and behaviour. She dismissed criticisms as “political theatrics” and spoke of “councillors who thrive on conflict.” She said Gladding’s allegations were “outside the standards of respectful governance” and told voters to ask “who is fuelling mistrust with half-truths.” She said Councillor Gladding’s behaviour was “not the marks of a team player”

Her scrutiny-focused comments came where she stuck to governance ground — arguing, for example, that suggesting the Mayor controlled recruitment “distorts reality and undermines public confidence,” or that repeated attempts to relitigate Lakeview were a waste of time.

Niki Gladding

Gladding’s focus was much more on process. She raised concerns about the “perception that the Mayor is steering recruitment” and pointed to OAG guidance requiring consultation with the full Council, not “a select few on a committee with no mandate.” She also asked how staff and the Mayor could all have “got this wrong” on delegations.

But her language wasn’t without some personal edge. She said integrity of the process was undermined by “the Mayor’s poor leadership,” described Lewers’ approach as a “blatant disregard for democratic process” and that this failure to follow democratic process meant he was a “dangerous choice for Mayor.”

John Glover

Glover also kept most of his focus on governance, calling the recruitment process “ill-timed, inappropriate, ill-advised and with seriously bad optics” and stressing that the LGNZ guide “must be used alongside the guidance provided by the OAG” when carrying out the procurement process

But he, too, strayed into the personal at times, saying “no one was happy with the current council leadership” and suggesting newcomers would struggle with “all the secret deals that have gone on.”

What the balance looks like

When we coded every comment, here’s how the balance between scrutiny and personal attacks stacked up:

The pattern is stark. Lewers and Guy leaned heavily on personal critiques. Gladding and Glover leaned more on process, but still mixed in a few sharper personal shots.

Comments By Candidates And Our Analysis

112KB ∙ PDF file

VIEW.

You can read the comments we analysed in this file. This file also explains how we did the analysis and how we handled comments that fell into both categories. Sources for these comments can be found below.

If any of the four candidates covered in this analysis feel that we have missed any public comments made during the period that should have been included, or have mis-coded any of the comments, and we agree, we will update this analysis.

Why It Matters

A “hit piece” does not inform but causes damage, even if unintentional. It plants seeds of doubt that are hard to shake, even if the details don’t hold up. In local elections, where margins can be razor-thin, even a handful of such comments can swing an outcome. One hit piece can be enough to swing voters — and in a town where elections are sometimes won by a handful of votes, that’s powerful.

But there’s another cost: trust. When campaigns focus on attacking people rather than debating ideas, voters switch off, and good candidates think twice about standing. Local government works best when we get a diversity of voices and when debate is robust but respectful.

Scrutiny is essential. We should expect candidates to ask hard questions, point out risks, and challenge each other’s record. But there’s a clear line between holding someone accountable and tearing them down.

This past week shows how easily that line can blur. Words can shine a light on process — or inflame division. As voters, we need to keep listening closely, not just to what is being said, but how it’s being said.

Because words matter. And in a local election, they can shape everything that comes next.

What Happens Next

To test whether Councillor Gladding’s allegations are accurate — and whether the recruitment process was handled properly — we’ve written to Councillor Guy, Mayor Lewers, and Councillor Cocks with a set of clear questions. This followed Councillor Guy’s letter to us challenging our post and implying we had made defamatory statements by repeating Gladding’s concerns.

You can download the document below to see the questions in full.

Questions On The CEO Recruitment Process

30.4KB ∙ PDF file

View

These are straightforward questions with straightforward answers. If answered, they would confirm whether Gladding’s claims of poor process are accurate or not. Our most significant concern is this: if those claims are true, why was the Mayor given authority to approve spending when no single elected member has that power? And why was the Performance Review Committee involved at all, when no council resolution delegated that role and it is not in their mandate? Both of these actions are not allowed so we have to question how they have not been challenged by the current council.

We sent these questions to Councillor Guy at 11.55am on Monday, September 29th and copied Mayor Lewers, Councillor Cocks, Councillor Gladding, and Mr. John Glover. A shorter list of similar questions were sent to Mayor Lewers at 5.27pm on Wednesday, September 24th. We have yet to receive a reply to either of these.

In Summary

Local democracy depends on robust debate. But it also depends on trust — trust that debate is fair, grounded in fact, and focused on the issues that matter. Words can build that trust, or they can corrode it.

Once we receive responses to our questions (if we do), we’ll post them here so the community can judge for themselves.

Thanks for reading Queenstown Lakes Community Action! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.