Dunedin councillor Jim O'Malley quits as committee chair over hostile work environment

• A Dunedin councillor has resigned from chairing the hearings committee, saying he does not feel safe in the role as he is being targeted by the chief executive.

[LI Jim O'Malley is calling for an investigation into behaviour of the chief executive and the processes for different hearings, saying he has doubts about the council's commitment to follow due process.

• Council chief executive Sandy Graham says the comments are outrageous and she has no idea why the councillor claimed to not feel safe in his role.

A Dunedin councillor claims he is being targeted by the council's chief executive in what he describes as a "hostile work environment".

Councillor Jim O'Malley sent a letter resigning as the chair of the Hearings Committee on Friday, saying he believed he had become the focus of the chief executive and she intended to bring an employment complaint against him.

"I believe basic principles of democracy and representation as they relate to the consultation process are not being met at the Dunedin City Council and I personally am operating in a hostile work environment," he said.

Dunedin City Council chief executive Sandy Graham has fired back, calling his comments "outrageous".

"I simply have no idea why Councillor O'Malley would not feel safe in his role," she said.

"I have never previously considered lodging an employment complaint of any sort against him or any other elected member.

"It's disappointing to see these comments made publicly by the councillor, but I remain confident I'm fulfilling my duties as the community would expect of me."

O'Malley also called for an external investigation into behaviour of the chief executive and the processes for different hearings including a contentious central Dunedin cycleway, the Albany Street Connection.

Dunedin Council chief executive Sandy Graham said the comments were outrageous and she had no idea why the councillor claimed to not feel safe in his role.

She had never previously considered lodging an employment complaint against him, she said.

"It's disappointing to see these comments made publicly by the councillor, but I remain confident I'm fulfilling my duties as the community would expect of me."

O'Malley's role was to appoint members to various council hearings, ensure that best practices were being met regarding the consultative process, and act as the signing authority for the city in Environment Court arbitrations, he said.

But O'Malley raised doubts about the council's commitment to follow due process and adhere to the principles of natural justice, saying he did not believe he could do his job properly become of this.

In particular, he said the committee had reached a decision on the Albany Street Connection back in 2023 after going through the whole process, only for nothing to happen and then for another consultation to kick off.

He believed that happened because of complaints from three businessmen who appeared to have gone through the chief executive to ask for the process to be redone.

"I'm deeply concerned that you can actually affect the process that way," O'Malley told RNZ.

O'Malley recused himself from the Albany Street hearings panel this week after the complaints and clashes with local business owners.

"I feel like that that was an intimidating activity that was intended to actually remove me from the committee."

Graham said she had advised O'Malley about the legal risks identified over his public comments on the Albany Street Connection and his role as chair.

The council had been contacted by a businessman earlier this month, who asked that O'Malley recuse himself, alleging that he could not consider further consultation feedback objectively after recent "ill-judged comments/outbursts in the press".

The council had then contacted law firm Anderson Lloyd, asking if O'Malley's participation created a legal risk for the council after he made public comments suggesting he was frustrated with reconsidering the Albany Street project.

Anderson Lloyd recommended O'Malley recuse himself during the Albany Street consultation feedback to "preserve the integrity of the consultation and hearing process and remove the risk of a legal challenge on process grounds".

If he did not, the law firm said there was a moderate legal risk that a High Court challenge of the council's process would be successful.

Graham said the legal advice was shared with O'Malley.

O'Malley said he decided to resign from the role because it was not an isolated incident.

He questioned how the inland port in Milton made it onto the Future Development Strategy.

"I believe the chief executive has been talking to parties with a pecuniary interest and those parties got an unfair input into the process."

Graham said it was her job to ensure that the council's processes around significant projects were robust and any problems were addressed.

That included the decision to consult again on parking changes connected with the Albany Street project.

"My role is to manage the process for the Dunedin City Council," Graham said.

"I remain absolutely committed to delivering on that responsibility and make no apologies for doing so."

O'Malley also raised concerns about a Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee meeting in March where he commented that staff had effectively been "caught misappropriating funds".

He took out the word 'caught' after it was objected to, but he said the video was temporarily removed by the chief executive who had written a letter complaining about his behaviour, but could not get additional signatures for the complaint from the executive leaders.

There had never been a plausible explanation, but he acknowledged this needed to be treated as hearsay until there was an external investigation.

That was challenged by Graham, who said the council already commented that the video was taken down temporarily due to potential legal concerns.

The video was fully reinstated once it had been checked by the council's legal advisor, she said.

Her memory was that another staff member had made the decision to temporarily remove it but she completely supported their decision and it was backed by the initial legal advice the council received on March 12.

"The suggestion I sought, and failed to get, signatures from other members of the executive leadership team is incorrect," Graham said.

O'Malley wanted the Office of the Auditor-General or the ombudsman to be involved in the investigation.

"If you're in a governance position, you don't have HR to go to so if you feel you're on the receiving end of what is a hostile work environment. There's really nowhere to go and no protection to get."

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.