We have been sent this professional opinion by Peter Chemis of Buddle Finlay as a basis for a discussion by today’s KCDC meeting about the misconduct complaint.
Our views
We agree with Peter Chemis of Buddle Finlay that context is important.
Michael Scott’s e-mail was in response to a quite aggressive, condemnatory one by Mrs Sue Smith sent not only to Michael Scott but 12 others.
It is worth noting that Mrs Smith’s defective husband was the local lawyer about whom we filed a complaint with the Law Society in 2013 over a protracted series of antagonistic e-mails and phone calls which not only maligned us, but also experts we had consulted in our dispute with his associate, a local property businessman. We also believe that Mrs Smith and her husband were involved in producing the anonymous circulars distributed in Waikanae (in which the recipient of Michael Scott’s e-mail was deliberately mis-stated to be Sue Lusk.)
Clearly it is a household that has a pattern of behaving in this fashion.
However, that does not excuse an aggressive and abusive response from Michael Scott.
It is important for everybody, but especially professionals, to maintain the moral high ground and resist the temptation to respond to unsavoury communications from hotheads in the same manner; such can and likely will be used in evidence. All communications should be considered and made with a clear head free of emotion.
The code complaint hearing today descended into farce with what Gurunathan whimsically called “the amendment to the amendment to the amendment to the amendment,” until perhaps most Councillors did not seem to know what amendment they were discussing. Pure slapstick, and indicative of the jackassery that predominates in this council.
Whatever one thinks of Michael Scott’s reaction to Ms Smith’s email, he has a record of ill-mannered, arrogant behaviour. After my multiple misconduct complaints against Councillors in August 2015 he quipped to me as he was walking out of the premises “loser,” and “are you going to hit me with your walking stick?” , heard by others.
Michael Scott has referred to Cr. Elliott on his air-headed Facebook page (largely composed of video and pics of food, and totally hypocritical references to integrity) as “the people’s flake.” Last year he oddly gestured at David Scott from across the council chamber table; when David Scott objected, he was berated for doing so by Ross Church, rather than Cr. Michael being reprimanded. Said Councillor quipped that Cr Elliott could not string a coherent sentence together. After waiting for hours to speak for three minutes on three subjects, Mr John Vickerman was interrupted by Michael Scott to be told that council wasn’t interested in two of the topics. So one sees a pattern.
A byproduct of today’s session was that when Christopher Ruthe suggested that Cr Holborow should recuse herself from the hearing because she had written an email that she regarded the complaint as of little consequence and had therefore come to the hearing with her mind made up, she replied that she had ‘no recollection’ of such an email. Shortly after she was confounded and struck mute by Salima Padamsey who quoted the email in question. Others less charitable might ask whether Cr Holborow was obfuscating, semanticising, or just plain lying? Well done also to Cr Elliott for asking Ms Padamsey to repeat the Holborow email so everyone was clear.
Falsus en unem; falsus en omnibus.