TV interview: Mayor again found in breach of council's code of conduct

“Whatever Mayor Clark’s subjective intention or purpose may have been, we find that his language and other conduct in the interview was objectively offensive, demeaning and discriminatory."

Invercargill Mayor Nobby Clark in a television interview with Guy Williams as part of his NZ Today programme. Photo: THREE

• Enter your email address to get The Southland Tribune editions sent direct to your email inbox.

An independent investigation recommends the Invercargill City Council consider handing down various penalties to Mayor Nobby Clark, including asking him to resign if they feel there’s a risk of similar behaviour.

It follows an investigation into an interview which Mayor Clark conducted with comedian Guy Williams last year. It was then screened in March in an episode of Williams’ New Zealand Today programme.

In April councillors Ian Pottinger and Ria Bond lodged a Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor Clark in relation to his actions in the interview.

They felt Clark had brought reputational harm to the council.

Law firm Wynn Williams was enlisted to carry out an investigation into the complaint and its findings were made public late on Tuesday.

It found Clark’s interview with Williams breached the council’s Code of Conduct on four counts and the findings went as far as saying the mayor “failed to meet an appropriate standard of leadership for other members of council and for the people of Invercargill”.

“Whatever Mayor Clark’s subjective intention or purpose may have been, we find that his language and other conduct in the interview was objectively offensive, demeaning and discriminatory,” the report says.

“Further, we find that Mayor Clark was, at the very least, reckless as to the effect of his conduct. In other words, Mayor Clark must have been and was in fact aware that his language and other conduct would be regarded as offensive, demeaning and discriminatory by members of the public, but he chose to conduct himself in this manner regardless.”

Guy Williams conducted an interview on his New Zealand Today programme with Invercargill Mayor Nobby Clark, which has now sparked a council Code of Conduct complaint.

The report, signed by Wynn Williams partner Joshua Shaw, suggests the council at the very least should now request Mayor Clark publicly apologise for his actions and a letter of censure be sent to Clark.

However, the report also says that if the council feels there is a risk of similar behaviour from Clark, then other penalties should also be considered, including asking him to resign or a vote of no confidence.

Another step suggested would be to restrict Mayor Clark’s duties, particularly the public-facing aspects of his role or those involving media comment.

“Such a restriction could be for a specified period or until such time as Mayor Clark undertakes targeted education or training,” the report says.

Last month Clark was found in breach of the Code of Conduct following another complaint triggered by the United Fire Brigades Association.

That stemmed from a speech Clark made at a United Fire Brigades Association event in Invercargill in March.

On the back of those findings, the council voted in favour of asking that Clark hand over his public engagement duties to other elected members for the remainder of the term.

However, Clark said he would not do so.

If the council does double-down on the back of the latest findings and again asks that any public-facing tasks not be conducted by Clark, it is not expected he would agree to that.

Speaking to The Tribune prior to the public release of the latest Code of Conduct findings, Clark said he wasn’t “having a bar” of the suggestion he shouldn’t be involved in any external public meetings.

“The mayor’s job is the mayor’s job. When you look at the Code of Conduct there is a list of penalties they can impose on me… but the restriction on duties is not one of the penalties. So, they went outside the brief on that,” Clark said.

Despite that Mayor Clark did acknowledge the TV interview with Guy Williams was “bloody ugly” and he regrets doing it.

Much of the interview was dominated by Clark’s use of the “n-word” at an arts event to try to raise a question about what is appropriate in the context of art.

“More than 100 public meetings I’ve spoken at, and I’ve got two wrong and I admit that,” he said.

“They interviewed me for more than an hour and a half, probably closer to two hours, and what you saw was five and half minutes.

“It was cut and pasted horribly, and it portrayed some horrible things, so I acknowledge that… In hindsight I wish I’d never done the interview; it has detracted horribly from what we are trying to do.

“But it is water under the bridge, I can’t reverse it now. My colleagues will make decisions when they do make decisions.

“The last [Code of Conduct meeting] was pretty painful for me and my family to watch, but it is all part of politics and is part of being accountable in politics.”

An extraordinary meeting will be held on Friday where the council will deal with the latest Code of Conduct findings.

Mayor Clark opted not to take part in the investigation for various reasons, which he did put in writing to the investigator.

Clark said neither Pottinger nor Bond discussed their concerns with him directly before making media comments. He expected such an approach on a collegial basis.

Mayor Clark also states that the complainants did not seek a councillor-only meeting to address their concerns and Clark also referred to the cost of a formal process and investigation under the Code of Conduct.

Although the report says, “The very public nature of Mayor Clark’s conduct is also a relevant factor which favours the use of a formal and transparent process.”

It was also Clark’s belief that both Pottinger and Bond “have other unresolved issues with me that need to be explored independent of this investigation”.

The implication was that there was an ulterior motive for the complaint, the report says.

Clark also felt he had already made a public apology for his conduct in the TV interview via an article that featured on Stuff and on the front page of The Southland Times. He suggested the formal process should have ended there.

Although the investigation findings did not consider that apology mitigated Clark’s conduct to any significant degree, nor that it had materially reduced the reputational damage caused.

“We remain of the view that, notwithstanding the apology, a formal process under the Code is warranted”.