|
Post by ComfortZone on May 17, 2024 8:17:42 GMT 12
We have all heard about the outrageous increases for rates, even though services are being reduced. now there is this advice from the Taxpayers Union on how a councilor is "banished" for daring to ask questions about a proposed budget It's no exaggeration to say that local government is in crisis. Up and down New Zealand, councils are trying to stiff ratepayers with hikes of 10, 15, and even 20 percent this year alone.Meet Grace Ayling: former Taxpayers' Union staffer, now district councillor Around the country there are some elected officials who are on the ratepayers' side: asking the tough questions of officials, and determined to deliver rate increases no higher than is absolutely necessary.
One of those centre-right councillors is our former Grassroots and Engagement Coordinator, Grace Ayling.
After leaving the Taxpayers' Union to become a mum, Grace stood for her local Wairarapa council, in Carterton.
Grace was elected to the Council on a platform of stopping wasteful spending, such as the huge amounts the small rural council was pumping into cycleways that barely anyone was using. As a young family just starting off on the housing ladder, Grace wants her local council to focus on delivering core services and basic infrastructure well (don't we all!).
Not only was Grace elected, she walked the talk! Grace is known for respectfully challenging Council officials on spending, rates, (and, yes, cycle ways).
Earlier this month, Grace even made a submission on the Council's Long Term Plan (10-year budget). You can read her submission here – it is totally consistent with her election platform to seek value for money for ratepayers. Council officials move to ban Grace from participating in council hearings... www.1news.co.nz/2024/05/13/councillor-writes-submission-may-lose-right-to-make-decisions/ It turns out, officials do not like being challenged by a councillor. Instead of allowing Grace to advocate her well known views (and fulfil on her election promises to advocate for prudent spending) the Council CEO and officials have mounted a campaign to exclude Grace from the council hearings that consider the Long Term Plan/10-year Budget.
...on the basis that she doesn't want higher rates 🤯
The officials claim that a councillor who had expressed views on rates is no longer 'independent' and has a conflict of interest in terms of decisions about rates and spending.
Yesterday, on the basis of "informal advice" from Local Government New Zealand, the Council kicked Grace out of the hearings committee (which every councillor usually sits on) because, in the Chair's view, Grace might not be able to accept other views with an open mind and is therefor 'conflicted'.
It wasn't even voted on by councillors (in and of itself a breach of the Council's standing orders). Officials just 'determined' that Grace had to leave.
We say democracy is not a conflict of interest 🗳️
We can all understand that for some decisions, such as Resource Management Act applications, or regulations, sometimes councils have to ensure they are quasi-judicial and independently-minded in their approach.
But a Long Term Plan / 10-year Budget is by its very nature political! How can a democracy work when a politician expressing her views justifies officials in excluding her from the very decisions she was elected to advocate on?!
This sort of behaviour is just one reason why local Government is so broken. Join us in standing with Grace and challenging both Carterton District Council's CEO, and LGNZ's outrageous attempt to de-platform a councillor they don't like the views of.
Councillors are elected because voters know the position they'll take on key issues. Suggesting councillors are conflicted because they advocate for the same policies once elected that they promised to do before an election is patently ridiculous.
But unless we help Grace and push back, the left wing officials, LGNZ, and special interests will keep winning.
|
|
|
Post by jim on Jun 18, 2024 20:28:09 GMT 12
From my inbox this evening from Chris Bishop ... In case you missed it, earlier this week our Government announced that we’re making it easier for New Zealanders to build granny flats in their own back yards.
We’re changing the Building Act and Resource Management Act so that granny flats can be built without the need for resource or building consent, making it more affordable for families to live in ways that suit them best.
Removing unnecessary red tape will not only speed up the build process, it will save up to $6,500 just in standard building and resource consenting fees per build – let alone all the savings in time and resource.
We’ve published a discussion document for public consultation with proposed changes to the Building Act and RMA which can be found here: mbie.govt.nz/grannyflats.
Safeguards will be put in place to make sure flats meet expectations for building performance and quality, and appropriately manage environmental effects.
These changes fit with our wider package of work to address our housing crisis through the Going for Housing Growth agenda. We need more houses in New Zealand, and this is one way to achieve that.
Consultation is now open. You can find more detail in the discussion document published yesterday, and I encourage you to provide feedback online by emailing grannyflats@mbie.govt.nz. We want to hear from everyone who has constructive suggestions that will help make sure we get this right.
The changes are expected to be in place from mid-2025.
Hon Chris Bishop, Minister of Housing
This government is slowly impressing me - i detest having to get overpaid underskilled idiots involved in any sort of project (sadly in previous times i've had to bite the bullet and do so ) . I can see me phoning my pet builder if this goes through.
|
|
|
Post by em on Jun 19, 2024 7:01:28 GMT 12
From my inbox this evening from Chris Bishop ... In case you missed it, earlier this week our Government announced that we’re making it easier for New Zealanders to build granny flats in their own back yards. We’re changing the Building Act and Resource Management Act so that granny flats can be built without the need for resource or building consent, making it more affordable for families to live in ways that suit them best. Removing unnecessary red tape will not only speed up the build process, it will save up to $6,500 just in standard building and resource consenting fees per build – let alone all the savings in time and resource. We’ve published a discussion document for public consultation with proposed changes to the Building Act and RMA which can be found here: mbie.govt.nz/grannyflats. Safeguards will be put in place to make sure flats meet expectations for building performance and quality, and appropriately manage environmental effects. These changes fit with our wider package of work to address our housing crisis through the Going for Housing Growth agenda. We need more houses in New Zealand, and this is one way to achieve that. Consultation is now open. You can find more detail in the discussion document published yesterday, and I encourage you to provide feedback online by emailing grannyflats@mbie.govt.nz. We want to hear from everyone who has constructive suggestions that will help make sure we get this right. The changes are expected to be in place from mid-2025. Hon Chris Bishop, Minister of Housing This government is slowly impressing me - i detest having to get overpaid underskilled idiots involved in any sort of project (sadly in previous times i've had to bite the bullet and do so ) . I can see me phoning my pet builder if this goes through. That’s a welcome development , hopefully there’s no hook in the wording “granny flat “ and it can be anyone’s flat
|
|
|
Post by chariot on Jun 19, 2024 10:06:18 GMT 12
Not to sure about this. Having spent 10 years in building controls, the standard of work and knowledge by a lot of licensed Builders left a lot to be desired. The local authorities will have to keep it to preferred builders only or else it will be like the wild west full of cowboys that shouldn't even build dog kennels. I could write a book about some of the things I came across.
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Jun 19, 2024 10:30:43 GMT 12
Not to sure about this. Having spent 10 years in building controls, the standard of work and knowledge by a lot of licensed Builders left a lot to be desired. The local authorities will have to keep it to preferred builders only or else it will be like the wild west full of cowboys that shouldn't even build dog kennels. I could write a book about some of the things I came across. Sounds like it should be elaborated on, even just a couple of short stories chariot. It's always good to hear about these kind of fly by nighters.
|
|
|
Post by jim on Jun 19, 2024 12:15:45 GMT 12
a little look into it shows qualified sparky,plumber and builder involved ... i hear you chariot, but there are cowboys everywhere in nz , don't know what can be done about them. for my own aspirations i have top guys lined up but i guess there could be an influx to Fair Go (if it still exists)
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Jun 20, 2024 13:53:06 GMT 12
Jeesus, Anne Tolley, the first one that might need a quiet clip around the ear. (is that another thing one is no longer allowed to say??)
Some people just can't handle their own power trips can they.
When Unelected officials dominate the local democratic process
BRYCE EDWARDS
JUN 19
Dysfunction and dissatisfaction appear to pervade many local government councils at the moment. Increasingly, the blame for this is accumulating around the role of the bureaucracy – the unelected officials and consultants, who stand accused of overstepping their mark and becoming the real decision-makers in local democracy.
In numerous councils around the country, elected councillors complain that the council officials, and often their council’s chief executive, have usurped the power to make decisions or at least come to dominate the elected councillors in their decision-making. This is a fundamental problem for the principles of democracy, in which the bureaucracy is supposed to serve those with the elected mandate.
A Survey of what elected counsellors think
The Free Speech Union has polled local government politicians to gauge some of the issues and find out to what extent this is a problem. They released the results today, which back up the various anecdotal stories showing that democracy is being undermined.
Of the five questions they ask councillors, the most important one in this regard is: “How free do you feel in your role to counter or challenge Council staff publicly?”. Answering this on a 1-10 scale, in which 10 means entirely free, the average answer was 4.4 out of 10. This suggests that there is indeed a real problem. See the response below:
Other questions in the survey also illustrate the problem. Councillors were asked how free they felt to engage with media “to raise the concerns or perspectives of your local constituents”, with the average answer being 5.4 out of 10. See below:
Councillors around the country also often claim that officials are reprimanding them for breaking council “code of conduct” agreements. Officials are allegedly using these codes of conduct as a means to control the politicians. Therefore, the Free Speech Union survey asked if the codes of conduct are being “weaponised to silence local councillors”. In response, 54 per cent of councillors said that this happened either occasionally, frequently, or constantly, and only 20 per cent of council respondents said that this never happened. See the full results below:
The full survey results of the Free Speech Union survey of councillors can be seen here: Free Speech Union survey of Local Government
The Wellington City Council schisms
The problems of bureaucracy are most prominently seen at the Wellington City Council, where Mayor Tory Whanau works very closely with the chief executive, Barbara McKerrow, who is increasingly acknowledged as the most powerful actor at the Council.
On Tuesday, I outlined the latest schism on the Council, which could have some significant consequences – see: The Left split from Tory Whanau’s wayward Wellington City Council
The gist of this is that the three most leftwing councillors have revolted against the leadership of the Mayor, arguing that she has been captured by the agenda of council officers. One of the dissident councillors, Ben McNulty, claims: “Council’s officers say: ‘Jump,’ and the response of the mayor’s office is to say ‘How high?’”. Another, Nureddin Abdurahman: “The mayor is not leading, the bureaucracy is governing us”.
The three councillors and others have also objected to how officials allegedly manipulate and block information within the council, which they say is contributing to disastrous decision-making. They also argue that this “information blockade” is reinforced by a new code of conduct that the CEO introduced last year in which officials won’t supply information to the politicians unless it pertains to upcoming decisions. This has been best covered in The Post by Andrea Vance – see: New code restricting advice to councillors is “unlawful and unconstitutional” (paywalled)
She reports that public law scholar Dean Knight of Victoria University's law school says the code is “unlawful and unconstitutional” and “democratically problematic.”
Knight elaborates on the problem: “The idea that the chief executive gets to make the call on what the councillors on the governing body see tips the institutional relationship upside down… The chief executive is not elected, nor directly accountable to the public. The chief executive serves councillors, not the other way around. Just imagine the uproar if officials in central government agencies started blocking requests from Cabinet and their ministers about matters relating to their portfolios.”
In an opinion piece, Andrea Vance explains that this is a problem throughout the country, but especially visible in Wellington at the moment, due to controversial decisions made by the council: “In Wellington, a succession of poor decisions have been accompanied by a troubling mix of confusion and poor grasp of details by councillors. That’s not their fault. From the water crisis, to the Town Hall cost blow-out, a reckless Reading Cinema deal, and now the sale of airport shares, councillors were either kept in the dark, asked to withhold information from the public, or provided with one-sided advice” – see: What happens when politicians no longer trust their officials? (paywalled)
Today, the Minister of Local Government, Simeon Brown, has sided with the critics on Council, condemning McKerrow’s actions, stating “The CEO is acting like a politician when she should be acting like the CEO, and the politicians should have access to the information that they need” and “CEOs need to ensure that they respect the fact that mayors and councillors are elected, and they are not” – see Thomas Manch and Andrea Vance’s news report, Minister Simeon Brown ‘appalled’ by Wellington City Council withholding information (paywalled)
This article reports that the Minister sees this as a broader issue than just Wellington Council and has requested more information from the Department of Internal Affairs on the state of the problem and what can be done about it.
The Problem elsewhere in the country
Much of the Wellington debates about the role of officials revolve around their push to get councillors to sell Wellington’s shares in the local airport. Similar situations have been occurring in other councils around the country – notably Christchurch (which decided against privatisation), Bay of Plenty (in terms of the council’s ownership of the Port of Tauranga), and now in Auckland the issues are becoming fraught and fought over.
The Auckland Council sold a large chunk of its shares in Auckland Airport last year after Australian consultants advised councillors to do so. But two councillors—Mike Lee and John Watson—are now questioning the advice they received and have asked the Auditor General to investigate what they claim is an arrangement that breaches the Local Government Act.
The council has paid Flagstaff Consulting Group over $3.5m for advice on asset sales, including a $1.4m payment for advice on the airport shares. Lee and Watson have written to the Auditor General, saying “In relationship to the sale of Auckland International Airport shares, the main information provided to councillors from Flagstaff was a verbal briefing by Flagstaff executives on 31 May 2023 which frankly amounted to a heavy-handed pitch to sell the shares.”
The councillors claim that the advice, commissioned by officials, was not objective because the financial arrangement with the consultancy was one in which they only got paid a fixed fee if the council agreed to sell the shares. Lee and Watson have told the Auditor General that the payment was, therefore, a “clear financial inducement to achieve a predetermined outcome”.
This is all best covered by Andrea Vance in the most recent Sunday Star Times – see: Were Aussie consultants paid a $1.4m bonus for advice favourable to airport sale? (paywalled)
In Christchurch, there’s been a long-running battle for control between senior staff and elected councillors. Last year, Mayor Phil Mauger even said that staff were “running amok” and needed to be “reined in”. This caused local Newstalk ZB observer of the Council, John MacDonald, to comment: “For a long time now, I’ve been of the belief that while mayors and councillors might like to think they’re running the place - they’re not. And it’s the council staff who really run the place”.
MacDonald was critical of the elected politicians for letting staff get away with it, saying that the good councillors make themselves unpopular with staff by asking “challenging questions”, but generally “the council staff get away with what they want to get away with” – see: We all know who's really in charge of local councils
The situation of unelected bureaucrats running a council is at its most extreme in Tauranga. In 2021, the Labour Government sacked the elected council and mayor and appointed former National minister Anne Tolley and two others to run the city instead. But new elections will finally be held next month, restoring democracy.
As outgoing Commission Chair, Tolley gave an interview on Sunday in which she argued that she and her colleagues should be allowed to stay on in their role on the council in Tauranga’s transition back to democracy. You can watch the TVNZ interview with Jack Tame here: Tauranga commissioner on returning candidates: ‘Wouldn't vote for them’
Furthermore, Tolley advocated that a “hybrid model” of governance could be extended to all other councils in the country: “I believe that's where we should be heading for all local government… Maybe two-thirds of the council is elected, but to have that professional governance — people who understand the difference between governance and operations, who can bring in expertise”.
Contentiously, Tolley also pleaded for Tauranga voters not to elect “those old guys” who were on the previous council. In lending her weight to the campaigns of the new candidates, Tolley—who is also the chair of integrity watchdog Transparency International New Zealand—appears to have abused her ostensibly neutral position to play politics, influencing the upcoming election.
Local government’s “Professional Managerial Class”
To explain how officials have dominated local councils, it’s worth considering the academic theory of the “Professional Managerial Class”, which is increasingly seen as an excellent way to understand modern politics and society. The “Professional Managerial Class”, or PMC, is that group of middle class, highly paid, and highly-educated, urban professionals who are generally viewed as “progressives” and increasingly control most elements of public life (alongside the public service, media, universities, Parliament, business, etc).
It could be argued that local government is simply the latest institution that the PMC has come to dominate. As per usual, it has done so by bureaucratic means rather than democratically. Hence, local councils are now one of the main staffing places for those who want to progressively engineer social change.
….This column continues below for fully paid subscribers. To access this, please consider subscribing:
Subscribed
Many are certainly highly paid. Journalist Susan Edmunds has recently looked at the incomes of local authority officials, discovering that “More than 10,000 council staff across the country earn more than $100,000 a year, and in many councils more than 20% of the staff earns six figures” – see: Which council staff are earning more than $100,000? (paywalled)
According to research, nearly half the staff at the Wellington Regional Council earn over $100,000, but the council with the highest number of these high earners was Auckland, which had 3742 such staff. Some provincial councils also have incredibly high salaries – “Rotorua Lakes Council had the highest median salary for managers, $188,467.” And throughout the country in local government, “At least 742 staff received more than $200,000 a year.”
Leftwing political commentator Chris Trotter wrote about the dominance of local government PMC, painting a picture of a topsy-turvy world that could be one straight out of the 1980s BBC political satire Yes Minister: “our district and city councillors are democratically elected to govern their communities on one very strict condition – that they never, ever, under any circumstances, attempt to do so” – see: The Illusion of Power: How Local Govt Bureaucrats Overawe Democratically-Elected Councillors
The column has created quite a debate in local government circles, with Auckland Councillor Mike Lee posting Trotter’s piece on social media, saying, “I am not making any comments except to fully confirm very sadly the essential truth of this analysis.” Lee also backs the call for reform of local government – Trotter suggests that the Government should “legislate to outlaw any and all attempts by local government bureaucrats and/or contractors to intimidate, threaten, or by any other means overawe, those elected to serve the public interest, and enforce the people’s will.”
On this, former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore has also joined the fray, saying about this and the Wellington controversy: “It's time for a rewrite of the Local Government Act to remove the power of the executive. It is fundamental that NEVER should an elected rep be denied any Council report. It is totally against the spirit of the LGA to deny any information like what has been requested.”
For a longer-term history of how successive central governments have eroded the power of local politicians, see this analysis published on the leftwing blog site, The Standard: National and the Gutting of Local Democracy
Here’s the conclusion: “New Zealand is now one of the least-governed, least accountable, most centralised political orders in the developed world. Successive governments both Labour and National have made it consistently worse. The only body that regulates the performance of councils is Internal Affairs, who in turn have no democratic input and answer solely to their Minister. Worse, local government used to be a place where people were heard enough to make a real change. Now most have lost faith in their capacity, since Councils have influence over a very, very narrow range of activities.”
Finally, Auckland city councillor Mark Thomas wrote last week about how dysfunctional local government has become, including the problem that “transparency around council decision making is low and needs improving, together with much better engagement with citizens”.
He points out that the health of local government is vitally important to how New Zealand functions – collectively, it has annual revenues of $11b and an asset base of $130b – but that despite endless reviews and reports that get commissioned about fixing local democracy, nothing ever changes – see: NZ’s maddening local government
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Jun 21, 2024 8:39:58 GMT 12
This is all too common, I remember some years ago our local councillor Greg Sayers getting stonewalled when requesting data on 1. rates collected in Nth Rodney vs council $'s spent in Nth Rodney, and 2. trying to get costs on the City rail Link
We need a law change Local Government Minister Simeon Brown says he is “appalled” by Wellington City Council chief executive Barbara McKerrow withholding information from elected councillors. … Brown said it was “appalling that information has been withheld from elected members”. “Ultimately, they are elected by the public and they should have access to information, and they should not have to be using the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act in order to obtain information.” Brown said he had asked Department of Internal Affairs officials to advise him on the “wider issue” of elected councillors lacking access to council information and what the Government could do. The issue of CEOs withholding information from Councillors is not unique to WCC, but seems to be far worse there than other Councils.
A law change mandating the Councillors have the same right to access Council information as a company director has to access company information would be a simple solution.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Jun 21, 2024 10:17:20 GMT 12
I see Invercargil has gone ferral again. Political opponents are trying to take out the Mayor cause they don't like how he talks. What I don't understand, he was elected by the public, not other councillors. If the public don't like how he talks, they get a vote if they want him to stay or not.
I think this whole code of conduct needs to get the boot. The code requires you can't criticise other politicians or Council employees. So what is left to do? Read meeting minutes and sip tea?
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Jul 1, 2024 7:08:46 GMT 12
This is excellent and shows when you stray from your intended purpose you should be treated with contempt. www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/06/christchurch_leaves_lgnz.htmlRadio NZ reports: Christchurch City Council has announced it is resigning from Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).
Councillors at a meeting today decided to no longer be part of LGNZ, after its annual membership costs rose by more than $20,000.
The decision came after a report was presented at the meeting about renewing the annual membership subscription for the association, which represents the interests of councils around the country. The annual cost for Christchurch is $163,254.75 plus GST for the 2024/2025 year.
This means LGNZ has lost its two largest members (Auckland and Christchurch) and no longer represents around 40% of New Zealand’s population. It is a pity in some ways. Ideally every Council in NZ would belong to a united industry group to represent them. But the damage done by their stance on supporting Three Waters against the wishes of so many Councils has left scars that will take a long time to heal. They ended up lobbying the Councils on behalf of the Government, instead of vice-versa.
I suspect in time, Auckland and Christchurch will rejoin. But only after a fairly long period of time.
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Jul 1, 2024 16:22:30 GMT 12
and from the BFD on the Waipa Council
The sleepy, leafy suburbs of quaint conservative Cambridge were torn apart by the Waipa District Council’s infamous BLUE BLOB. Residents awoke to the local newspaper’s report about a new bridge location and the shifting of the town’s main arterial route through their back streets. There was no prior notice and the exact details were covered by the large blob of blue over a map, but the council was adamant that this was it. So adamant that they described four options of their own invention, with no public input, selected their preferred one and gave the residents a choice between Option C and… no, that was it, just Option C. The Local Government Act Section 82 requires consultation according to the following principles: That persons who may be affected by the decision should be provided with reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons; That the views presented to the council should be received with an open mind, and should be given due consideration in making a decision. The council utterly failed to comply with the law The decision to proceed with Option C had already been made. The finer details could be up for debate but none of the logical alternatives on the outskirts of the town would be considered. The blue blob created confusion over which particular streets faced massive disruption from roadworks (including losing the verges, trees and street parking that create Cambridge’s character), bridge construction (including demolition of riverfront houses) and the resulting 100-fold traffic increase (noise, safety and pollution issues). Instantly, nobody would risk purchasing a property anywhere near the blob. At least 100 families were now trapped with their major asset devalued. At a conservative estimate, this is $50 million in losses. The human cost is greater. Waipa District Council has a history of consultation failures Like many councils, they took the bribe of taxpayers’ funds to implement Innovating Streets: Waka Kotahi’s Labour-inspired anti-car fiasco. The deliberate interference with the daily commute was done without any public consultation and the feedback was harshly negative, forcing the removal of most of the interventions. One example was painted dots through several intersections with the stated purpose of distracting drivers so they would slow down. The concept of distracting drivers is usually regarded as a serious safety hazard to be avoided at all costs. This was insanity. In 2022, the council tried to ban dogs at a dog park. The consultation was conveniently left off the annual dog registration letter and hidden several layers deep on the council website (who checks that regularly?), with only a single week for feedback. I stumbled across it and alerted the many dog lovers. Again, the feedback was harshly negative. The council justified the ban as being culturally sensitive to Maori. This was simply a lie. Apart from the fact that Maori had kuri (dogs), I also had a consultant report from two years earlier – when the land was identified as a good site for a council building. The secretive attempt to ban dogs was to make the land available for their ulterior motive. The council admitted fault, apologised and then undertook new consultation via an online forum, so that many of the retired dog lovers (e.g., most of Cambridge) didn’t know how to access it. Given this history, public feedback to the blue blob was angry. We have had enough. The backlash again caused the council to backtrack. They are slow learners – one may even say retarded – from the original French for slow. A public meeting was hastily arranged for 50 people. Five hundred turned up. But key council staff members didn’t; leaving Mayor Susan O’Regan unable to answer questions. This was strangely reminiscent of Hamilton’s deputy mayor declaring she didn’t know much about 20-minute cities in a similar setting. Like that meeting, O’Regan departed quickly, leaving behind a furious crowd. She later ‘apologised’ in a letter, but spent most of the words blaming the public for the failure. To add insult to injury, the council made the decision to drop the blob in a Public-Excluded Workshop. Local ratepayers have been complaining for years about the secrecy of such meetings, and the Ombudsman had recently concluded that the council is not allowed to make decisions in such workshops. Andrew Bydder Critic of Waipa District Council as a private citizen Hamilton City Councillor
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Jul 5, 2024 9:42:40 GMT 12
folllowing on from my previous post, this further piece by Andrew Bydder is worth a read (my bolding) thebfd.co.nz/2024/07/04/an-example-of-rage-against-the-machine/A message I sent to Waipa Council as a private citizen and resident of the district has caused headlines across the country. You may or may not agree with the message (and I am not defending it here) but the follow-up will give you a deep insight into how the council machine operates, and why it is failing the community by excessive spending and poor service. You will also see just how much danger free speech is in, along with the hopelessness for ratepayers (all of whom are taxpayers) to try to change the system. The message gained attention solely because I am also a Hamilton councillor. Other anonymous people used rude words and some have gone much further with threats of violence, yet remain hidden from public view. My role was not included in my message, which was sent from my private address, after hours, using my personal computer directly to a Waipa website, about an issue affecting my private property. Where is the line between my private identity and my public persona? The line is in fact clearly defined. Council staff give elected representatives advice on drawing the line and maintaining separation. There is a code of conduct policy and a council equipment policy. Most councillors and parliamentarians have strong online social-media presences, where they publish material related to their role and use council computers to do so, while having separate personal accounts maintained from private computers. The Official Information Act further clarifies what are public vs private records. There are also unwritten conventions; for instance, younger family members of politicians are considered off-limits to journalists. And Hamilton Council has no right to investigate my personal finances as long as any conflict of interest is properly registered. The simple fact is that is I acted in a private capacity, protected by the Bill of Rights section 14 Freedom of Expression. Jonathan Ayling of The Free Speech Union disagrees with my words but confirmed my rights. However, I have certainly upset some people in the council machine. I have upset them many times before. My background in architectural design has brought me into conflict with several councils over resource consents and building consents. Anyone in the property sector will understand the nightmare bureaucracy that has crippled the industry and which is the real cause of the housing affordability crisis. It is good to see that Minister Chris Bishop has finally learned this as well. I am a technical expert in this area and have been right every time. Councils don’t like losing. Staff know that accountability is very rare indeed and the council has deep pockets if they get it wrong. I have dozens of incidents documented, but one in particular stands out. After 18 months, the Matamata-Piako Council machine finally admitted I was right about a difference of interpretation over a town planning issue. The council got legal advice nine months earlier confirming I was right. In between, the council staff organised a raid with six police officers using a fraudulently obtained warrant (I got a copy via the Official Information Act) to attack a 70-year-old tenant undergoing chemotherapy for cancer in an attempt to intimidate him into leaving my property. He was knocked to the ground and one of them stood on his head. The council machine admitted it got the raid wrong, but described it as a “minor error”. It is clear that the machine wants to get rid of this troublemaker. My Waipa message has presented them with an opportunity. So far 24 complaints have been made, and a process under the code of conduct has commenced. The decision that I am wrong was made back in March – that is when the message was sent! The story is breaking now because the machine is ready to process me. Last week, I received a notice that a complaint was made against me. Hardly surprising. This is stage one. This week, I received notice of the outcome of the preliminary assessment (stage two), whereby the machine will determine (stage three) that the case is to be referred to an ‘independent’ investigator (stage four) who happens to have been hand-picked by the machine. An hour later, a press statement was released to ensure the public could assume my guilt without any chance for me to respond. The Bill of Rights section 27 Right to Justice requires any public authority making any determination (such as the determination to proceed from stage two to stage three) to be carried out in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This is so important that I wrote to the council last week reminding the machine of the obligation, because none of the dozens of complaints I have made about councils has ever been treated with due process. Who polices the police? Especially when the council is judge, jury, and executioner for complaints about itself. Let’s start with the basics. I have yet to be given a copy of the complaints. I don’t need names of complainants, but to be this far through without me even knowing what I am charged with is a breach of natural justice. The first action the preliminary assessment must make is to check the validity of complaints. There is no transparency about this, which is another breach. The complaints process requires any complaint to reference the specific clauses in the code of conduct. There is an abbreviated summary of the complaints, in which all but one fails to comply with this requirement. The assessment notes: “Most complaints referred to clauses 3 and 5,” but this contradicts the summary and is also an admission that at least some didn’t comply. There is no mention of any dismissal of the invalid ones. I am also aware of one complaint from a fake email address. Nothing has been done to check any of them. Are any real? This fundamental failure of due process means I am not prepared to accept that any complaint actually exists in law at the current time. Not that this will have any impact on the machine or their press releases. The most important right of natural justice is the right to present my side, even in a preliminary assessment. I have not had any opportunity to participate in this stage-two process, yet a determination to proceed has been made. This stage is not expected to consider my full evidence, but, in order to determine whether a material breach could be established (which is the stated purpose of stage two), there are two things that have to be answered and which I wish to give evidence on. Firstly, the allegation in all the complaints is that my words were offensive. You may agree that they were, but you also have to agree that offence is subjective. What is the definition of offence? Without this, there is no way to conclude anything. How does the right to Freedom of Expression limit the right to take offence? Secondly, whether my actions as a private person are even within the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct. If not, then the whole process ends here. I explain the clear line above. However, the preliminary assessment provides a counter legal opinion. It is a simple fact that the council machine pays consultants to give the council machine the answers or opinions that suit the council machine. I am sure this was decided in March. The opinion, couched in deniable words such as “our preliminary view”, argues that an elected member taking part in a process of a public body…cannot be said to be acting only in their personal capacity. This is just not true. The processes of a public body do not magically change the status of a participant. It certainly does not apply to elected members of a different public body! Consider the triennial news piece-to-camera of the prime minister casting a vote in an election. That vote is undoubtedly a vote by a person, not a position with a vested interest in the outcome. This raises serious questions about the competency and independence of the process. The machine is prepared to be dishonest, misleading, manipulative of public opinion, and obstructionist to basic legal rights. I have no confidence in the remaining stages and I sincerely doubt my freedom of speech will survive this without public support.
When you become aware that this is how the council machine deals with such trivial issues as mere words, you understand how people get crushed on more significant issues, and, dare I say it, why my message was sent. To find out more about that, read this article on The BFD.
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 8, 2024 5:01:23 GMT 12
Well here is a glimmer of light for long suffering Auckland Council ratepayers www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/sayers_made_auckland_council_budget_chair.htmlRodney Councillor Greg Sayers has been appointed Chair of the Council’s Budget Committee. Sayers should be a friend to ratepayers. He has already challenged why the Council is funding non-Council gym yoga classes, and giving away free haircuts, ahead of keeping public rubbish bins in place.
The Committee has asked the CEO to find savings of $78 million. Hopefully they succeed.
I have known Greg since he was on the Rodney Local Board, prior to becoming a councillor. He is tenacious and actually has ratepayers interests at heart, often being the only councillor to vote against some of the insane measures proposed by council, particularly when Goofy was mayor.
It will be interesting to watch how this pans out as there will be fierce resistance from the Council CEO and bureaucracy to any suggestion of finding cost savings
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 8, 2024 9:56:56 GMT 12
Well here is a glimmer of light for long suffering Auckland Council ratepayers www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/sayers_made_auckland_council_budget_chair.htmlRodney Councillor Greg Sayers has been appointed Chair of the Council’s Budget Committee. Sayers should be a friend to ratepayers. He has already challenged why the Council is funding non-Council gym yoga classes, and giving away free haircuts, ahead of keeping public rubbish bins in place.
The Committee has asked the CEO to find savings of $78 million. Hopefully they succeed.
I have known Greg since he was on the Rodney Local Board, prior to becoming a councillor. He is tenacious and actually has ratepayers interests at heart, often being the only councillor to vote against some of the insane measures proposed by council, particularly when Goofy was mayor.
It will be interesting to watch how this pans out as there will be fierce resistance from the Council CEO and bureaucracy to any suggestion of finding cost savings
Where do I get a free haircut?!?
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Sept 8, 2024 10:37:14 GMT 12
Not quite free but $20 at Pukekohe.
|
|