The new political year exploded this recently with the Rotorua Lakes Council handling of code of conduct matter against new councillor Reynold Macpherson.

Reynold, who also stood unsuccessfully for the Rotorua mayoralty, has tested the council over what he terms rates affordability.

But he is also subject of a breach of the council's code of conduct, a count levelled by deputy mayor Dave Donaldson.

Rotorua mayor Steve Chadwick is presently undertaking a process of how to handle the charges and what measures can be taken to limit the damage.

Reynold said in a recent newspaper interview the charges are 'systematic campaign” to shut down comments mainly on the issue of rates affordability.

In a Q and A with Rotorua Now, Reynold expands on his views.

Rotorua Now: Is the affordability of rates the only issue?

Reynold Macpherson: No, there are always many issues, but the saliency of the affordability of rates to ratepayers issue rose sharply when senior officials attempted to switch the issue to Code violations and the Mayor accepted their views exhibiting bias and predetermination. It rose again when additional complaints were used by her to issue warnings and then refer the code violations to Audit and Risk. My full responses to complainants and corrections to the FB posts should have moved matters on towards settlement but the Mayor weaponized the Code, apparently to further her vendetta.

Are you nettled at other issues?

Not really. As ever I am at peace with the world and looking forward to an interesting year doing all I can to improve local government in the interests of residents and ratepayers.

What is your view on the use of the term ‘racism'?

As I responded to Dave Donaldson's complaint, '… the complainant asserts his opinion that my post is ‘plainly racist,' and insults both Te Arawa and the RLC by using ‘highly offensive and inflammatory' language. He is entitled to his opinion but he must accept that I have the same entitlement and that my opinion is very different. While ‘taking offence' usefully indicates an unresolved clash of values, and that certainly applies in this case, branding a description as ‘inflammatory' IMO unhelpfully diverts analysis by escalating hostility. Again, IMO, it is time to de-escalate towards resolution. It is also a fact that there is no evidence of insulting racism in my post. The noun racism is 'the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.” Hence, IMO, the insults are contrived and expressed in populist terms, primarily reflecting the complainant's ideological commitments and power base. My description portrays what I see as the arbitrary political reality preferred by a currently dominant power bloc, with one exception. The phrase ‘whatever the demands' suffers from over projection into an unknowable future, and accordingly, has been deleted."

Can you expand on 'bully boy tactics?

My most recent post explains the three phases, each apparently assumed to escalate the pressure, but in fact, exhibiting greater degrees of authoritarianism. Or in colloquial terms, bully boy tactics

The Mayor has been accused of 'arrogance'. Could this not be also construed as leadership?

The two terms are not from the same category. Please check definitions. Such a construction would probably indicate confusion and personal opinion.

In an FB post on RDRR last year, a reply to Mike McVicker by you suggested you were ‘opposition'. Are you still of this view?

I was alluding to the role and value of the ‘Loyal Opposition' in a Western democracy, and how the functions and interests served should apply here in Rotorua – to provide checks and balances. The need became even more apparent when the Mayor awarded obscene pay rises to her power bloc members, along with a fig leaf of fake leadership roles, but locking them into a loyal patronage network, and then did her best to prevent discussion of politically challenging issues, the first being the affordability of rates to ratepayers.

As in 2016, you were disappointed at missing the Mayoralty in 2019. Historically, Glenys Searancke (who stood against Grahame Hall in 1998) and Charles Sturt (against Kevin Winters 2010) were also denied senior responsibilities; twiddling their thumbs in the subsequent term, therefore, seems not without precedent. What did you expect following the election outcome and were your visions for the town and your role in it conveyed to the Mayor?

Disagree. I was annoyed at the political interventions by the CE in 2016, but, having highlighted the matter using my own money in the District Court, I let the matter drop. My mistake was to assume that the laws, constitutional conventions, Cabinet Manual and SSC Guidelines on Political Neutrality applied to local government officials. The Auditor-General has recently assured me that they don't, however desirable. I was delighted at the progress we (RDRR) made in 2019, although a major impediment to us winning proportional representation was the First Past the Post voting system in use. Our popular base has grown steadily. When the votes for RDRR's six endorsed candidates are added to those won by the ex-endorsed candidates and two other candidates close to us who can remain nameless, the total of 60,976votes constitutes 46.3% of all 131,823 votes cast for councillor candidates. Your recollections on ‘thumb-twiddling' may be right but such precedents don't make such behaviour right or wise. I take the view that the mandates and expertise of those elected should be respected and mobilised immediately in the public interest, and not subjected to brutal partisan alienation or manipulated to reward dumb loyalty. Matters reached a new low, IMO, when the current Mayor demanded that Glenys Searancke resign from her leadership role in RDRR or be stripped of all her real responsibilities. Given that ghastly example, I had no illusions about how Raj, Peter and I would be treated. And so it proved.

Last term, the Mayor said she had raised $70million for projects for Rotorua. Had she not done so, she said, the rates would not be close to 5% as currently but nearer 19%. Your view?

Simplistic and irresponsible bombast. The money from the PGF was going to come to Rotorua anyway due to NZ First's willingness to obtain taxpayers' funds for pork-barrel politics and the presence of their Deputy Leader in our electorate. Unmentioned by the Mayor is that these PGF grants had to be matched by ratepayers' dollars or even more debt that ratepayers will have to pay off. Unmentioned by the Mayor is that the 5% increase in rates took the accumulating rise in rates 2013-2019 to 33.4% compared to the accumulated rise in pensions over the same period to 4.3%. Unmentioned by the Mayor is that rates rises in recent years have impacted most heavily on the elderly and the poor, and that much of the capital expenditure has been wasted on vanity, legacy and payback projects. Imagine if the Lakefront Redevelopment dollars had been spent on affordable homes for the homeless.

Last year on RDRR FB you ran a critical rule over most councillors bar Raj Kumar, Mark Gould, Peter Bentley and Merepeka Raukawa Tait. Why were these councillors exempt from your appraisals?

Raj and Peter were candidates endorsed by RDRR members. Mark Gould was widely respected and regarded as a decent and highly principled person by our members. Merepeka was subjected to criticism from time to time, again reflecting the views of our members.

Do you enjoy being a councillor?

Yes, especially because I have a mandate from residents and ratepayers to advance their issues. I have at least two colleagues who appear to share that agenda, and I have opportunities to suggest how to improve the quality of the council's policies and organisation. And the feedback on the ‘rates affordability to ratepayers' has been extremely positive.

Dave Donaldson.