The court of public opinion is a harsh and unforgiving arena for any public figure or organisation to be judged in.
It does not stick to legalistic rules and regulations, but is fuelled by perception that someone or group has erred on a grand scale. Sometimes it can seem unfair,but more often than not it is bang on the money. Either way, it can be a damning indictment.
The big news this week has been the findings of the inquiry into the Havelock North water crisis. The inquiry panel, headed by Lyn Stevens QC, was quite stinging in its criticism of the failings of the Hastings District Council and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council over the security of the water supply.
The report emphasised that the two councils did not cause the contamination which saw more than 5000 people to get ill and claimed lives. However, it also pointed out that if the councils had not failed, maybe there would have been a different outcome.
This finding is quite confusing, Either the actions or inactions of the councils caused the outbreak or they did not.
Many would say the inquiry panel is having a bob each way - saying it was the councils' fault, but not actually blaming them.
By their very nature commissions of inquiry are forward looking. They are set up to find learnings for the future - to ensure things like this don't happen again. They are not designed to be punitive and most often are not.
So, now we have a situation where the two councils are high-fiving and sighing with relief that they have been cleared of causing the contamination.
