The Ombudsman says local councillors' fears of "looking stupid" when asking "silly questions" in public shouldn't be a valid reason to hold council workshops in secret.
It comes as the watchdog's office releases the findings from an investigation into long-standing accusations that local government has been using closed-door workshops to evade public scrutiny.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier said there had been no evidence - from his investigation into eight councils - that showed decisions themselves had been made in workshops.
However, he said practices - including making workshops closed-door by default - were counter to transparency and accountability principles.
Boshier said: "Meetings should be open to the public, unless there is good reason to exclude them. These meeting requirements can’t be avoided simply by calling what is really a meeting a workshop.
"I also discovered that a range of council officials and elected members didn’t want to open workshops for a number of reasons including that asking questions could make them look stupid. I don’t consider that to be a valid reason to close a workshop.
"Elected members should be resilient enough to withstand reasonable public scrutiny. It is the job they are elected to do."
Under the law, councillors must hold meetings in public and make decisions in public.
However, all councils hold "workshops" and other informal meetings, which are often used for decision-makers to receive advice and presentations.
Many councils across the country do not make their workshop agendas public, or allow members of the public by default.
Some councils had argued to Boshier that keeping the public out of workshops provided local politicians with "a safe space to ask silly questions out of the public eye."
"I do not accept this argument," he said. "Some councils were previously closing workshops by default. In my view, that is unreasonable.
"The Local Government Act states that local authorities should conduct business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner. As a matter of good practice, workshops should be closed only where it is reasonable."
The Chief Ombudsman said he also found "a range of councils" using different terminology like "hui" or "forum" to describe workshops or informal briefing sessions.
"One council that held all its workshops in private was aware of the negative public perception that had developed around the use of the term ‘workshops’," his report read.
"To address this, the council changed its terminology to ‘forums’, rather than amending the actual practice of closing workshops to the public.
"While councils are able to use their own terminology, creating different terms for what is essentially the same thing—a meeting of elected members and staff to progress council business, at which no decision making occurs—risks distraction and confusion."
Boshier said additional transparency from councillors supported trust in local government decisions. His report read: "Councils should be mindful of the public perceptions that may develop where council business is conducted behind closed doors.
"Even when the reasons for conducting a closed workshop are entirely legitimate, secrecy inevitably breeds suspicion."
The eight councils investigated by the Ombudsman included: Clutha District Council, Rangitīkei District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Rotorua Lakes Council, Taranaki Regional Council, Taupō District Council, Timaru District Council and Waimakariri District Council.
"I am pleased to see a willingness from all eight councils to change practices so that meetings and workshops are more transparent," Boshier said.
"Transparent decision-making in local government increases public confidence in councils and their processes. This is an underlying principle of our democracy."
SHARE ME