Gore’s potentially costly crab-apple tree stand-off has ended with a unanimous vote to plant them in the main street, but not before previous council clashes also got an airing.
Five holes have sat empty since a petition went to the Gore District Councillast month calling for car parks instead of trees.
Early last month, following the petition being presented, the council agreed to gauge public opinion.
But it soon learned the holes would cost $300 a day for daily audits and safety barriers, and result in the loss of car parks due to the barriers.
Councillors made the call to plant the trees and then survey residents, however, a procedural error meant that the resolution was legally tenuous.
The council received a letter calling to its attention that the notice of motion by Councillor Glenys Dickson did not have the requisite signatures from one-third of the council, according to the council’s standing orders.
Petition organiser Peter Woods called for a halt to any plans to plant the trees due to the faulty council decision and this afternoon presented further signatures to an emergency meeting of the council.
Fresh from a recent trip abroad, Mayor Ben Bell chaired the meeting.
His deputy, Keith Hovell, had been acting mayor when the erroneous motion passed.
“Considering the fact that the trees have already been bought and we are ready to go, I have no real issue with the recommendation,” Bell said.
“It’s going to cost us more money to keep those holes dug.
“If we undertake the survey, while it will be a painful exercise to remove the trees, ultimately if that’s what the community wants once that survey is done, we can do that. It won’t cost much more than we’ve already spent.”
Keith Hovell, centre, at a Gore District Council meeting. Photo / RNZ / Nate McKinnon
However, Bell wanted to canvas how the mistake was made in the first place.
Councillor Dickson said she was not aware she needed a third of councillors to sign her notice of motion and apologised for the mistake.
Bell then asked Hovell if he also was unaware of the rules of the standing orders and why he did not refuse the notice of motion.
“As the mayor will appreciate, standing orders is a complicated document,” Hovell said.
“The way standing orders is worded are open to interpretation and that could’ve been cured by a report coming with the notice of motion or the five signatures.
“We don’t always get things right procedurally at councils and we acknowledge that.
“The meeting today is to ensure the correct procedure has been followed. The outcome at the end of the day if this motion is passed is exactly the same, and I am comfortable with that.”
Bell said he did not want to go through such an error again.
“We have had notices of motion in the past - both for the removal of the deputy mayor and for pulling me off committees.
“Both of those did have all the signatures they needed. So I just wanted to make sure that we do follow procedure.”
Councillor Richard McPhail then attempted to raise a point of order: “I don’t think we’re discussing those today, we are discussing the tree issue and both councillors have explained their position. I think we should be leaving it as that. With all due respect, your Worship”.
“Not quite a point of order, but point taken. I was just showing we have had notices of motion before that have followed procedure,” Bell responded.
