Editorial: Our view on the Simpson saga

OPINION: Editor Craig Cooper says anything less than requiring Mark Simpson to take part in a disciplinary process would be a sham.

For once, the Whangarei District Council's silence on a tricky issue is comforting.

Hopefully it means that the council is following due process and listening to legal advice on how to deal with the ongoing employment issues that buzz about its CEO Mark Simpson. Hopefully, the council is following correct Human Resource and Employment Law process this time. Commenting inappropriately could potentially prejudice and derail the correct process.

The council could say something without prejudicing its actions, but given its track record in dealing with this sort of thing, the "say nothing" approach is wise.

An Employment Relations Authority ruling this week found that Mr Simpson should not have sacked his PA Jan Walters-Gleeson, and seemed to have little regard for some basic employment law tenets.

It found he was guilty of double standards in sacking Mrs Walters-Gleeson for breaching a council election protocol that he exempted another staff member from. One rule for one. One rule for another.

Mr Simpson, in sacking Mrs Walters-Gleeson, said she must be "beyond reproach". In other words, her integrity should not be able to be questioned.

It seems fair enough then, that Mr Simpson must be beyond reproach also.

The ERA ruling clearly states that he was not.

There are two options for the council - it could appeal the decision, and to do so would generally require legal advice stating that the ERA ruling is unjust or contains legal errors.

It would be a fair and reasonable response for the post-October 2013 version of the elected council to invite Mr Simpson to a disciplinary meeting, to further explain his actions. Disciplinary meetings can result in a variety of outcomes - from nothing, to a warning, through to dismissal. They are held so that all parties involved get to have their say, and if the process is right, the outcome will be the right one.

The pre-October 2013 version of Whangarei's elected council under acting mayor Phil Halse were responsible for the initial investigation into Mr Simpson's actions and found he had not acted inappropriately.

The ERA ruling this week prompts the question - what the heck were they doing?

The pre-October 2013 council did not seek out an employment law expert to provide them with a defining view.

They asked a lawyer with expertise in contract dispute resolution (primarily building contracts) for his opinion.

A little like asking a nurse to perform brain surgery.

The advice that came back included the observation that council protocols were confusing, and that they - rather than Mr Simpson - were flawed.

The ERA ruling released this week - from an employment law expert - agreed, in part.

It said the council election protocols were indeed a muddle, and the power given to the CEO to over-rule them was "contradictory" and "irrational".

With the benefit of a full and proper investigation, the ERA also concluded that Mr Simpson's conduct was flawed.

I wonder what a full and proper investigation of the pre-October council's actions last year would reveal.

Ratepayers have a simple expectation - that their money is spent wisely by people who know what they are doing, and who do the right thing.

Last year, that didn't happen.

The council's saving grace, the one thing that stifles a public vote of no confidence in the elected council, is that there was an election in October 2013.

It would not be fair to blame this council for its predecessor's actions.

However, personalities and politics from pre-October 2013 remain.

Which makes it all the more important that right now, the correct process is followed.

It took a disgruntled former employee to force a proper examination of what happened.

The council needs to get the next step right to restore public confidence that it can handle its own affair properly.

CEOs drive a workplace's culture - from the top down, they set the bar. They are hugely influential - and in a council's case, not just on the immediate workplace but in the development and growth of a town.

Based on the ERA ruling, the council has fair and reasonable grounds to invite Mr Simpson to take part in a disciplinary process which could result in sanctions up to and including his dismissal.

Anything less than an invite to a disciplinary meeting would be a sham. Another one.