Details of a confrontation between a Hastings District councillor and art gallery staff have been revealed.
The incident involving staff at Te Whare Toi o Heretaunga Hastings Art Gallery and councillor Steve Gibson occurred on December 5.
It was during a protest against a controversial art installation at the council-run gallery, of which Gibson had been a vocal critic.
The council ordered an independent “initial assessment” of the incident after formal complaints were made by staff members involved.
A redacted copy of the assessment, carried out by local lawyer Greg Millard, was released to Stuff under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
Millard interviewed gallery staff on December 15-16. He also reviewed various media articles and social media posts made before and after the incident. He viewed CCTV footage taken inside the gallery but it was of such poor quality as to be “essentially useless” in establishing what had occurred, his report said.
Millard contacted Gibson on December 18 to arrange an interview. Gibson declined an interview and provided a written statement instead.
When emailing Millard with his statement, Gibson wrote: “I personally believe this complaint has been engineered due to my opposition to what I regard as the entrenched woke culture within this council. I also believe that as a white male I have been unfairly targeted and profiled.”
In his assessment, Millard said Gibson had been part of a protest outside the gallery on December 5, the day after a flag that was part of the installation was stolen. (It was later recovered but was not returned to the installation.)
Around 1pm, Gibson and an unidentified woman entered the gallery, Millard wrote.
Gibson told two male gallery staff members that he was there for a “welfare check” and he asked what had happened to the flag.
He was told the flag had been taken. He then asked the staff if they had been abused.
They said they had. Gibson then said that was not fair and that he believed he had been partly responsible for raising public awareness about the installation.
While the staff and Gibson were speaking, a female gallery staff member interjected and said, “We’re fine, thank you,” in reference to Gibson’s welfare check.
The two male staff members told Millard she did this in a calm, polite, and professional manner.
However, in his statement, Gibson described her as so “aggressive”, “angry” and “rude” that he believed she must have been a counter-protester. He said her attitude got his “back up” and made him defensive.
The female staff member told Millard that Gibson said something like: “Not you, I’m here to talk to the staff.”
She said this made her feel humiliated.
Gibson claimed she “angrily demanded that I speak to her”.
Millard said that was inconsistent with what gallery staff said.
Gibson stated that he felt unwelcome and left after the “confrontational approach”.
Several key comments alleged to have been made at the gallery were redacted from the report released to Stuff.
But Gibson told Millard that he was not being disparaging, sexist or racist and he was not ignoring the female staff member.
The staff member, however, told Millard that Gibson’s comments were “deeply hurtful and racist” and she felt he was making the point that she was “a woman of colour” and therefore perhaps implying she was pleased with the flag exhibit.
Millard noted the woman was emotional in his interview with her and was “visibly shaking, teary and upset”.
He said she felt the interaction with Gibson had been “racist and sexist and she found it deeply offensive and hurtful”.
Millard said Gibson’s behaviour had a negative impact on the staff, and the hurt felt by the female staff member would not “simply go away with the passing of time” and may get worse if not addressed.
Other gallery staff would be similarly affected, Millard said.
He said the matter “suffers from a lot of perception and extrapolation”.
“On the face of it, Cr Gibson’s comment was not particularly offensive. But given the wider context it is understandable that [employee name redacted] was upset and offended by it,” Millard wrote.
He noted that Gibson had been into the gallery and spoken with the woman 10 days prior to the incident, but claimed not to know who she was on the day of the incident.
Millard said it was more likely than not that he did recognise her.
He said Gibson’s claim that he had been making a “welfare check” was questionable and “I think the welfare check was not genuine and likely somewhat theatrical”.
Millard said Gibson’s behaviour amounted to bullying as defined by the council’s code of conduct.
“It is in my view a very low-level instance, but the impact on [name redacted] has been great.”
There did not need to be intent to bully in order to meet the definition, Millard said.
He said Gibson’s comments did not amount to discrimination based on sex or ethnicity.
With regard to public comments made by Gibson, Millard said these had likely affected the level of confidence staff had in him.
Millard said there would be little to be gained by referring the matter to an independent investigator, and the matter should be referred to Hastings Mayor Wendy Schollum.
He recommended that Schollum remind Gibson that he cannot visit council facilities and speak to staff as “a member of the public”, and that, when speaking with staff, there was “an inherent power imbalance in his favour”.
Among other things, Millard also recommended that Gibson apologise to the female staff member, and acknowledge to her that his behaviour had caused her distress.
If Gibson would not meet the mayor then the matter would need to go to an independent investigator, Millard said.
Gibson has already declined to meet the mayor and last week the council said the matter had to go to a full investigation.
The process to date had cost $9819. The council was unable to say yet what the final cost would be.