Electioneering by straws

### ODT Online Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Opponents scrap over stadium vote
By David Loughrey
Dunedin’s election campaign ignited yesterday, with mayoral candidate Cr Dave Cull fending off accusations he and fellow Greater Dunedin candidate Kate Wilson voted for the Forsyth Barr Stadium in 2008.
Read more


My notes when in attendance at the Finance and Strategy Committee meeting and the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 17 March 2008 show:

That at the finance and strategy meeting, Crs Dave Cull, Kate Wilson, Fliss Butcher and Teresa Stevenson voted against the stadium project. In accordance with the minutes received I agree that the meeting ended with a 10-4 vote to commit to the stadium, subject to conditions.

That at the Extraordinary Council meeting there was a procedural vote to confirm the resolutions taken from the finance and strategy meeting. Crs Cull and Wilson voted in the affirmative. The motion was won, 12-4.

At the time and since I did not infer a vote for the stadium by Crs Cull and Wilson.

It may have been ‘politically naive’ to vote the resolutions through given the events in the finance and strategy meeting where conditions were agreed – or perhaps it was sound procedurally.

Either way, the matter of how Crs Cull and Wilson voted on the motion to confirm the resolutions was not going to change the outcome.

The ‘opponents’ cited in the ODT are clutching at straws.

Post by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under People, Politics, Stadiums

9 responses to “Electioneering by straws

  1. Anonymous

    Pat McCarty in particular needs to STFU.

    What with this and fruit trees becoming a major election issue plus the STV and one ward debacle, I despair of democracy in NZ sometimes…

  2. Peter

    I despair when you get candidates who flip flop. Fair enough to change your mind, once, if you see a better argument to do so, but to go backwards and forwards – as pressure is applied – is flakiness. Also when you read statements where a candidate is against/for something and then ‘undoes’ what they have just said by stating the opposite is equally flakey – and evasive.

  3. Russell Garbutt

    I read with interest the letter in this morning’s Oddity from Anne Stevens which commented on Cr Guest’s actions.

    More importantly, her comments regarding Cr Bill Acklin were insightful. One must question why anyone can read the findings of the Law Tribunal and still persist in thinking that Cr Guest was the victim of tall poppy syndrome. Cr Acklin’s judgements must be called into question and one wonders how many other times has he been guilty of poor judgment.

    • Elizabeth

      Thanks for the reference Russell, here is Anne’s forthright comment on Acklin:

      ### ODT Wed 1 Sept 2010 (page 16)
      Letters to the editor
      Wrong attribution
      By Anne Stevens, Dunedin
      …The second matter is Bill Acklin’s ridiculous suggestion that Michael Guest has been refused a practising certificate to work as a lawyer because of jealousy, “a tall poppy syndrome”. Mr Guest has been refused a practising certificate because of his dishonesty, plain and simple. That is a matter entirely attributable to Mr Guest. Mr Acklin cannot have read the Disciplinary Tribunal decision… It would be sensible for any councillor who wants to give their public opinion on this matter to read all three decisions of the Disciplinary Tribunal before they write or say anything about it.

      -Anne Stevens is a barrister.

      Read the full letter in print and digital editions of the Otago Daily Times.

  4. janet

    Perhaps back in 2007, before the election when he had had some beer to drink but decided to drive anyway and came to the attention of the police.

  5. Peter

    Who’s UglyBobNZ and who cares what he/she says.

  6. Russell Garbutt

    I think that Anne Stevens’ assessment of Cr Michael Guest is quite plain and not open to any other interpretation.

    Only he knows why he has allowed his name to go forward as a candidate for the DCC elections. I would have thought that the honourable thing would have been to quietly withdraw and perhaps retire to his house in Wanaka which was fortuitously removed from being realised to settle his many debts.

    But come back to those that agreed to supply character references to this dishonest man. Cr Bill Acklin is prominent in his support but a lot of others gave their support. My understanding is that Michael Guest asked every sitting Councillor to write to the Tribunal in support of him but only a few did so. I think that Anne Stevens’ comments about Cr Acklin could be equally applied to those that did agree to write in support.

    I bet those Councillors whose judgement is now questionable would not be too keen in defending their support in public. Perhaps something to ask them when the opportunity arises.

    {This comment has been moderated. We are under the impression the house referred to is held in trust. -Eds}

    • Elizabeth

      Wasn’t Wednesday fun in relation to Letters to the editor at ODT. Can’t beat a sharp shooter armed with three decisions of The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.

      It would be a mistake to dismiss these findings lightly as current councillors might do. I’m happy to read aloud from the decisions at any support-letter-writing male councillor’s bedside as they sip their hot chocolate of an early night following the rigours of their electioneering and arse covering campaigns. There will be some short questions afterwards so no snoozing until we’re done.

      Sigh. I don’t imagine any of the councillors concerned will give the right answers in comprehension.

      And that will signal the beginning of my thesis.


      In the month of August 2010 What if? has enjoyed the highest total of monthly views since January 2008 when the blog’s online presence first began to be felt, by a very large overwhelming margin. We appear to be in a free climb of exponential growth.

      Good to see other blogs linking in, and we to them – we’re also enjoying our spontaneous links to Twitter.

      Active contributors are generously as ever forging the time to have their say in all colours. The ensuing STV debate is timely and stunningly informational.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s