### ODT Online Thu, 9 Jul 2009
Guest apologises to councillors over Chin letter breach
By Chris Morris
A second Dunedin city councillor has been forced to apologise after breaking Dunedin City Council rules governing confidential information.
Mr Chin would not say, when asked, if the letter [to the Otago Regional Council] discussed any aspect of the Forsyth Barr Stadium project.
Read more
25 Comments
July 9, 2009 at 5:13 pm
There was short and to the point…
### ODT Online Thu, 09/07/2009 – 9:35am.
Comment by iainz on Open and honest
This useless nonsense wouldn’t have happened if Chin hadn’t gone behind people’s backs in the first place.
There was the explosive from afar…
###ODT Online Thu, 09/07/2009 – 10:16am.
Comment by Richard Walls on Enough is enough
Quite frankly, I have had enough of this nonsense and continued personal abuse levelled at the Mayor. It nothing more than a continuation of what we witnessed over the Chinese Garden. Much of that had racist overtones which was quite unacceptable. Peter Chin was re-elected our Mayor with a thumping majority.
Read more (sigh)
The justified retort…
### ODT Online Thu, 09/07/2009 – 1:20pm.
Comment by MikeStk on Ironic
I find your comment ‘the “facts” out, as they must’ deeply ironic considering the context. I would hope that all facts of our city governance would ‘out’ as they occur and only be very occasionally kept in secret after long debate by the council – your current proceedings are largely opaque to the citizens.
Read more
Read the full rebuttal…
### ODT Online Fri, 10/07/2009 – 10:04am.
Comment by iainz on Off the handle?
In reply to your post ‘Enough is Enough’:
1. I expressed an opinion, relating to that news article. Yawn, has the DCC nothing better to do?
Read more
He doesn’t know when to shut up…
### ODT Online Fri, 10/07/2009 – 5:02pm.
Comment by Richard Walls on Fair enough
…As for ‘the invitation to leave’, it is well targetted at some who have come quite recently to live in our city and who have brought with them some attitudes quite ‘foreign’ to this city and region.
They have contributed nothing but have [sic] are happy to take. Perhaps I should have said: “go home”.
Read more (double sigh)
A senior councillor should not be making ludicrous assertions of this kind, his old trick of talking in tongues.
July 14, 2009 at 8:25 am
“Talking in tongues”? Mmhh!
I absolutely deplore the self-flagellation and personal abuse that has accompanied this and the stadium issue.
I have almost been drawn into the morass myself. It is difficult to escape. And all because I was willing to “blog” and answer some questions!!
That is where STS and their accolytes dragged it.
The absolute forked tongue and venomous nonsense that have accompanied the ‘Stevenson Affair’ is one of the most astonishing I have witnessed in public life.
And when the facts “out” as they will, then you will see why I felt it time to speak out.
Then we will see who should have “shut up”.
July 14, 2009 at 8:26 am
Oh yes! I have kept a meticulous and detailed record!
July 14, 2009 at 9:51 am
“Oh yes! I have kept a meticulous and detailed record!”
Richard, that sounds very much like the “watch your letterbox” implication of lawyers’ letters you tried on me a few years ago. It doesn’t wash.
Because silly people in public positions make fools of themselves is the reason why the citizens see them as fair game, not because there is any personal likes or dislikes. Struck on or struck off it makes no difference, but stupid actions in the name of the citizens is cause enough to hold them out for ridicule. And that is what freedom of speech is all about.
If you really deplore “self flagellation” then stop doing it. It could make you go blind.
July 14, 2009 at 10:04 am
Richard seems to be in evidence again. Welcome home to What if?
July 14, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Calvin:
Lawyer’s letters?
July 14, 2009 at 1:44 pm
And Calvin:
Two questions:
(1) Who has stood twice at the polls in Cargill and been thumped by Michael Guest?
and:
(2) Have you mentioned this in your objection to Michael Guest’s application to be reinstated to the bar?
July 14, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Richard:
Yes, lawyer’s letters. Again, refresh your memory. You were in Australia at the time when we exchanged a series of emails over the Fisher & Paykel deal. Say no more.
Two Questions:
(1) Who stood twice at the polls in Cargill and was thumped by Michael Guest? I did. Does that make him a better or worse candidate? We will never know.
(2) Have I mentioned this in my objection to Michael Guest’s application to be reinstated to the bar? Even if I did, would it matter if I had or had not? Michael’s application will stand on its own merits. We will just have to wait and see, indeed, as will Michael. Sad that he even has to go through the embarrassment. But who brought it upon him, but himself.
July 14, 2009 at 6:00 pm
So, here I am yet again in Australia at the time of the Fisher & Paykel expansion when we exchanged some emails.
I certainly recall the former but I have no recollection at all of any ‘lawyer’s letters’.
Indeed I cannot even think of what would prompt such a matter as I was not Chair of any council committee, not directly involved and I certainly cannot recall instructing any lawyer to act on my behalf.
Please produce the letters.
July 14, 2009 at 6:55 pm
UPDATED 15/7/09
ODT has advised the finalised dates and venue for the Guest hearing in today’s newspaper (the information published in the National Business Review 11/6/09 was provisional). ODT Link
The hearing for Michael Guest’s application to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal has been brought forward to Monday 27 July. The hearing will be held in the Heritage Room at the Southern Cross Hotel, Dunedin. The hearing is open to members of the public.
For more information go to:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/lcdt/home.asp
http://www.justice.govt.nz/lcdt/current-applications/restoration-to-the-roll.asp then click on “Michael Guest”.
****
Other links:
### National Business Review Thursday June 11 2009 – 07:45am
Disciplinary tribunal to decide convicted ex-judge’s fate
By Lucy Craymer
A four-day hearing has been set in front of tribunal chair Judge Dale Clarkson and four other members.
Read more
### ODT Online Thu, 4 Jun 2009
Guest application opposed – by Elspeth McLean
### ODT Online Fri, 22 May 2009
Guest’s letter removed from website – by Elspeth McLean
### NZ Herald 11:46AM Thursday May 21, 2009
Legal Services: Law Society opposes ex-judge’s bid to practise
### National Business Review Monday May 4 2009 – 07:53am
Tim Shadbolt supports disgraced lawyer Michael Guest – by Lucy Craymer
### ODT Online Tue, 17 Mar 2009
News: Guest first in line to be lawyer again
July 14, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Richard:
Just to refresh your memory seeing you insist. You said, “when I get back I will be talking to my lawyer, watch your letterbox.” Don’t believe me? Well that is OK by me. I could produce copies if I wanted to. They are in my Ombudsman’s file on the subject. But I won’t. Why? Because it is not my style. The last thing We need is for this to get personal, particularly over old happenings.
July 14, 2009 at 9:55 pm
This is pathetic.
July 14, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Elizabeth:
Why do you suppose Richard brought up with me the matter of Michael Guest’s application for reinstatement? What on earth has it got to do with me? Surely MG is more than capable of making his own faux pas without Richard’s help. In fact I think he has excelled himself.
It has just resulted in you bringing up all the references to remind everyone of his plight.
July 14, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Peter; you are absolutely right.
July 14, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Calvin,
any chance of some thoughts on the stadium, your fascination with Richard is somewhat misplaced here, sorry.
July 15, 2009 at 2:01 am
Calvin – so there is NO letter. You did not have my those emails from Australia when you bought the matter up a few weeks ago. Indeed when I asked for them you said I “would have to be kidding after all that time”or words to that effect. Now they are in your “ombudsman files”. Your what?
You go on to say in another post, “The last thing we need is for this to get personal, particularly over old happenings.”
Really? So what have so many of your posts here and on the ODT been about?
July 15, 2009 at 2:03 am
PS: Now that I have established what this is all about, I will not be pursuing this matter further or having any further ‘exchanges’ with you Calvin.
July 15, 2009 at 7:11 am
Elizabeth
One has to ask why this topic was introduced anyway? It has nothing to do with the Stadium and was in the ODT anyway.
July 15, 2009 at 8:45 am
A number of people have said they didn’t realise this hearing is public. The post was informational to track passage of the application. My first post on this matter of public interest (at this thread) has been updated for the dates and venue of the hearing, care of news carried in ODT today.
July 15, 2009 at 10:33 am
Richard: “No further exchanges with me.” Excellent!
July 15, 2009 at 10:41 am
Elizabeth:
Richard asks why this topic was introduced anyway. Talking in tongues, or floating amnesia, who made the first two postings? Who keeps the meticulous and detailed records? Who brought up the Michael Guest application?
July 15, 2009 at 10:43 am
Paul:
You know my thoughts on the stadium.
July 15, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Calvin – this is what Richard does. Is it not.
Today a little early morning RW-barrage going on – not all of which I’ve had time to read. This makes What if? look important!
We like to encourage the comfort of free murmurs and floating expression amongst those posting here. We don’t always understand it.
July 15, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Hey, Elizabeth. You did invite the first reponse and you still haven’t answered my question. Not that it matters.
Seems you have been too busy to pick up on the new planning appointments at council. I would have thought one, in particular, would warrant a positive comment from you!
July 17, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Richard, I’d read the report to Planning and Environment Committee (8 June) about what would happen with the merger of the former City Planning (Policy) and the Architecture and Urban Design Teams. The forthcoming appointments had been mentioned by two council managers in discussion with me at recent consultation meetings, as well as in the council response to my LTCCP/Annual Plan submission this year.
If the appointments have now been made then I’m not up to speed due to other distractions.
Yes I welcome them, obviously.
Here’s the report which updates the restructure, the team structure and the city development work programme:
Report – PEC – 08/06/2009 (PDF, 97.9 kb, new window)
City Development Work Programme Update