[Updated with correct comments from Yani Johanson 2.37PM ]

Christchurch City Council erupted into heated debate on Wednesday as Councillor Melanie Coker put forward a notice of motion to reinforce a policy requiring councillors to donate income from board appointments to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

The meeting, chaired by Councillor Sam MacDonald, exposed growing tension over transparency, trust, and political motive at the council table.

At the centre of the debate was Councillor James Gough, who had not made contributions to the fund over the past two years despite the council-wide agreement.

Gough later confirmed he will donate the full amount, after his term on the Transwaste Canterbury board ends in October, “or as close as practicably possible.”

Introducing the motion, Coker said the issue was about honouring a collective commitment.

“This isn’t about politics. It’s about integrity. We made a commitment to not personally benefit from board roles, and the public expects us to stick to it,” Coker said.

Councillor James Gough told chrislynchmedia.com “It has always been my intention to ensure that every net cent of the directors’ fees I’ve received for undertaking my directors’ duties in this role will go to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

“That reflects both my respect for public service and my commitment to supporting those doing it tough in our city.”

Gough said “Because of the nature of this company – a multi-shareholder joint venture where Christchurch City Council is a minority shareholder alongside the private sector – directors’ fees are paid directly to councillor-directors.

“This creates tax and administrative complexities that do not arise in other directorships.

“As someone who takes governance responsibilities seriously, I committed to making a total donation at the end of the Council term – rather than in multiple parts – so the final amount can be accurately determined after full tax, ACC, and accounting adjustments are complete. This is consistent with the approach that has been taken in the past since the 2021 tax changes came into effect.”

Gough said “It was discussed with the mayor, staff, and the chair of the Mayor’s Welfare Fund, all of whom understood this to be the most practical and efficient way to manage the process – ensuring more money reaches the Mayor’s Welfare Fund, rather than being lost through repeated and unnecessary administrative costs. In the meantime, the Mayor’s Welfare Fund is in a strong position, and my donation remains committed.”

“Those familiar with governance and commercial structures would see that while the policy is well-intentioned, it does have unintended consequences. That said, it was adopted democratically, and I’ve done everything I can to apply it in a way that’s fair, responsible, and true to its underlying purpose.”

Gough said “Christchurch is my home. I care deeply about our community, and I’m proud to support the Mayor’s Welfare Fund because it makes a real difference. That’s always been the plan – and it still is.”

Speaking to Chris Lynch Media, Sam MacDonald said it was outrageous the matter even came before Council.

“The intention to pay the fees at the end of the term was made clear from the outset.

“James simply wanted to make a single payment to streamline tax, ACC, and expense reporting, all thanks to a poorly thought-out policy forced on directors. Some past directors have refused to pay these fees altogether; James is not one of them.

“It’s a disgrace that Council staff had to waste time on what was clearly a politically driven stunt, aimed at dividing the Council and smearing someone who couldn’t even defend himself.

“The fact that those backing this motion failed to grasp the basic tax implications of their own policy should concern every resident, especially given these same individuals make decisions involving hundreds of millions of dollars” MacDonald said.

“Even worse, they didn’t have the courtesy to raise it with him directly. It was a cynical, calculated attempt to destabilise a Council that’s focused on what really matters, keeping rates down and pushing back on the speed bump obsession some councillors seem determined to inflict on the city.”

During the meeting, Councillor Aaron Keown fiercely rejected the motion, calling it “vindictive and nasty,” and accusing those behind it of targeting Gough while he was on bereavement leave.

“This feels like a personal attack,” Keown said. “I’ve seen James’ explanation. He’s not refusing to pay, he’s just doing it on a different timeline. That’s his choice.”

Keown also criticised the principle behind the policy. “If we don’t value board work enough to pay for it, we shouldn’t be surprised if people stop doing the job properly. This whole thing is counterproductive.”

Councillor Yani Johanson told chrislynchmedia.com “I disclosed a conflict of interest based on a perception bias and stood back from the table and did not participate.

“This is because I chair the Mayors Welfare Trust Fund advisory committee who are responsible for making fund distribution recommendations. This was consistent with the Office of the Auditor Generals advice in regards to managing conflicts of interest whereby the test is if an objective observer would perceive a bias because of this fact. I think this was the prudent approach to avoid the any suggestion of impropriety.

“Especially so given the allegations of corruption that were mentioned during the debate. I think this was the prudent approach to avoid any suggestion of impropriety. Especially so given the allegations of corruption that were mentioned during the debate.”

Councillor Tim Scandrett attempted to defuse the growing conflict. “I get the intent behind this, but it’s not always as straightforward as people think. Not everyone can flick money across immediately, there are accountants, tax implications, timing. Let’s not assume everyone’s acting in bad faith.”

The vote was tied 7-7, which means the recommendation failed.