For those interested, a move to get the Howick Local Board to even discuss the pending drink-driving and related charges against the Board’s chairman Michael Williams FAILED at last night’s Board meeting.
As previewed in the Howick Pakuranga Times (Challenge to chairman to stand aside), board member Lucy Schwaner attempted to raise as Extraordinary Business her motion suggesting Mr Williams take a leave of absence until his defended hearing on charges of driving with excess breath alcohol and failing to accompany a police officer is complete.
Mr Williams is due to appear at a defended hearing in the Manukau District Court on March 1, charged with drink-driving and refusing to accompany a police officer.
The court action stems from an incident last May. Mr Williams allegedly recorded a reading of 169 millilitres of alcohol per litre of blood, more than twice the legal limit. He says he’s been advised by his lawyer not to comment.
Ms Schwaner says the board is being brought into disrepute by Mr Williams’ personal problems.
Matters to be discussed in the extraordinary business section of the Board meetings are subject to a vote by members — ostensibly on the grounds of whether they are regarded as sufficiently urgent.
Ms Schwaner’s motion — merely to have the matter discussed by the Board — failed by a vote of 3 to 5, with Mr Williams abstaining. That means (to spell it out) these Local Board members did NOT see this as a matter worth even discussing last night:
Jim Donald
Wayne Huang
Steve Udy
John Spiller
Shirley Warren
For the record, I attended the meeting last night and in the public forum (before the business part of the meeting) repeated my call from last month (see Bunfight at Howick Local Board) for Michael Williams to step aside as chairman until the charges against him are resolved one way or the other.
This is what I said:
Notes of my presentation to last night’s Howick Local Board. (click to enlarge)
There was no response, and then it appeared Mr Williams had the numbers to block-vote against even discussing the proposed motion that he be encouraged by the Board to take a leave of absence.
The October election beckons. Democracy in action.
– P
Indeed October will ultimately decide and reflect his actions and decisions.
Can’t believe it was not even discussed, disgraceful. I could however understand if board did not think a DUI deserved any further ‘punishment’ does it really impact the job of the chairman? Ignoring all the other indiscretions you perceive Michael and the board has been involved in?
* I am not privy to any of actions of any members of the board other than whats been published on this site.
Thanks for your comments.
Read the Times article wherein Lucy Schwaner lays out her reasoning for her call for him to step aside.
The Howick Local Board’s decision to avoid publicly discussing even the existence (let alone the implications) of the driving-with-excess-breath-alcohol and failing-to-accompany-a-police-officer charges Michael Williams reportedly faces is a disgrace in my opinion.
How can we have respect for elected public officials who won’t respond transparently to a matter of this level of public interest. You are free to disagree, of course.
– P
Here’s the H&P Times’ account of the Howick Local Board’s unedifying machinations around Michael Williams and his ‘leadership’.
http://www.times.co.nz/news/chairman-holds-his-role.html
I agree with you in principal. But using the its in Public interest line can be a throw away statement. If he liked Aerobics on Sunday Mornings that could drum huge Public Interest. but is it something that seriously jeopardises his role as Chairman, as I stated earlier ignoring all the other actions or statements he has made. Should he step down because of a possible DUI charge?
Just being Devils Advocate. I think come October and reading of your other ‘concerns’ his fate may be sealed anyway.
Thanks for your comments.
For me, the more telling charge Mr Williams faces is the ‘refusing to accompany a police officer’.
If it’s true (innocent until proven guilty, sure, but why would the police make THAT up?), he failed a breath alcohol test (a level of ‘more than twice the legal limit’ has been reported) … then, based on the fact of the charges he faces, when legally required to accompany a police officer (presumably for an evidentiary blood test) he refused.
What could his reason be? Maybe he had a more pressing engagement. Or does he think perhaps the law doesn’t apply to someone in his position?
Howick Local Board member Steve Udy was quoted in the NZ Herald as saying Mr Williams “may have a Caesar complex but we have to live with that.”
A Caesar complex. Or is it a case of ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ — Or one law for all y’all and another for the ‘mayor of Howick’?
I completely agree, failing to willingly cooperate with a Police Officer has far more serious implications and potentially shows his personal belief of his self importance.
News today … hard to make sense of the police charging him with ‘refusing to accompany a police officer’ when the summary of events indicates:
“…police […] arrived and took the community leader to the Manukau police station.”
Still, that’s been dropped, as you will read:
Click through to the Times website to read the full article which includes Michael Williams’ Open letter to the Howick community
http://www.times.co.nz/news/board-chairman-convicted-in-court.html
I seem to remember something written somewhere about a prostitute about to be stoned to death by some upstanding community members – and some person who later became famous (and a crutch/excuse for many) saying … “…he who is without sin among you cast the first stone…” or words to that effect.
Please refer to http://www.thepaepae.com/we-are-all-self-righteous-hypocrites/27540/
That accepted, I believe we in the community have a right (obligation?) to criticise members of the oligarchy and hold elected officials accountable for their actions.
Do you disagree?
– P
Nope … i raised some valid points. Do you disagree … and just by the by … since when have such people been described as “oligarchy” or “oligarchs” as it were.
Take a look at yourself mate … not me.
Held accountable yes – kicking the shit out of them when they’re down is (or may be) another question.
He might be a good man – with kids and a life to fund and live through.
its one of the things i find Jesus supposed followers seldom practice, often refer to – and most often shit all over. But he stood for the underdog – guilty or not.
I don’t think I’m ‘kicking the shit out of’ Mr Williams nor anyone else.
I don’t say he’s a bad man (although his *actions* have been declared criminal, as you have read) nor do I want to harm his wife or kids.
But I differ with his apparent interpretation of what’s permissible/ignorable for a person in his position, and I (clearly) object to his manner of governance of the Howick Local Board (viz: trying to railroad his deputy in the manner he did, among other things.)
I’m not a saint, Ivan, nor do I make a pretence to be (see: http://www.thepaepae.com/about/)
– P
PS Oligarchy: “a small group of people having control of a country or organization”
… or a ward of the Auckland Council? Seems legit.
Oligarch and oligarchy within the context of language being an evolving thing … have a certain tinge of meaning that can no longer (in my opinion) be simply pegged to the classic dictionary understanding of same … Russian politics is often now described in terms of an oligarchy and NOT a democracy.
I think you ARE kicking the shit out of him mate … you are pleased with your role in the public meeting and now like the awful mainstream media just want to leap onto the corpse and pick the entrails out of it. I thought better of you.
As to his actions being criminal … a certain pollie in the south of tne north island was deemed a “corrupt person” under nz electoral law due to a minor breach of electoral rules. Yes he committed a crime.
My point is – its already been highlighted some time ago – its happened … he pays the price so let up on it. “The quality of mercy is often strained”
I know nothing about the issue with his deputy … but anyone ever take a close look at the deputy or why it all started to happen. Where there is smoke there can sometimes (not always) be fire.
I dont know any of the protagonists.
I just know i thought better of you.
I know you arent a saint … you are too tight in the ass to sit on a plinth anyway you Beemer lover you.
Perhaps you have no idea how careful and how restrained I have been.
Far from picking Michael Williams’ “corpse” or dancing on his grave, I have told him — and others in my community and readers of this blog — publicly, openly what I see as ‘the problems’ the Howick Local Board faced (as I saw it).
I suggested as clearly as I could what his course of action should be in my opinion.
I have a strong sense of empathy for Mr Williams. As a fellow fallible human being and father I don’t delight in his embarrassment or humiliation. Far from it.
I’m not offended by you mistaking my actions for something else. As you say, you don’t know the protagonists as I do. I try to treat them fairly, believe me.
I would, however, ask you to consider the price my family and I pay for being more outspoken than average about issues that concern us in the community.
If it was easy everyone would be doing it.
– P
Point is Pete .. everyone is doing it … so why do you have to do it to?
The price you and your family may or may not be paying is entirely your own choice.
When you have a totally merciless and frankly godless system (in the widest sense of the term) that is quite prepared to shit all over anyone that puts a foot wrong (justly or unjustly) … why would you want to step in. If you wanted to defend him (and no one appears to be doing so) i could understand it … but it reminds me of the scene from “life of Brian” where Brian and his mother line up to buy his mum a false beard (so she can pose as a jewish man) and they ask for “oh i’ll have two bags of flat stones and 3 packs of gravel please…” in preparation for a good old loving biblical stoning ….
If you really (any of you) wanted to really change things why not have sought a face to face meet with the Mayor of the supercity instead.
Pathetic.
Thanks for your comments.
If you think Michael Williams is the (undefended) underdog in this situation and that I’m piling on, you really haven’t been paying attention.
I am defending something, Ivan. And calling for ‘better’.
Peace out. – P
Williams wasnt the underdog (i never said he was .. i was referring to the bearded dude called colloquially Jesus – who is universally worshipped and many idiotic things done in his name poor prick that he is) but he is now becoming the underdog … in the public eye and his tackle hanging out … and every man and blogger is now stabbing at the corpse.
Or so it seems.
Doesnt defending something and calling for ‘better’ start with more than what you and others choose to do. I say again clearly … i thought better of you than that.
I read very clearly what you and others wrote … and i do understand the mentality of the mob.
So you’re disappointed in me. OK.
Where else is this matter being discussed? I’m unaware of anything other than the local paper …?
– P
PS Perhaps you can donate to Mr Williams’ re-election campaign.
I think rather than donate to williams (who i dont know from a bar of soap etc) i would rather place a safe bet on your level of comfort in potentially entering the world of politics.
Sir Humphrey …
NZ Herald in the leadup(major metro shit-sheet) Stuff.co.nz reporting your particular “fluff” and the most mainstream media of all … the erstwhile public domain … people exercising vocal capabilities and any accompanying prejudices .. and yes … even you … the Paepae .. that erstwhile platform for dialogue.
By the way Pete .. any comment on my link to the NZ movie “Feathers of Peace” to do with the Chathams maori sponsored and perpetrated genocide …