| |
|
Getting to
Know Your Councillor - the Councillor2010 Survey
(updated Jul 2010)
In 2009 British
group
ComRes undertook an audit of local councillor opinion
across England and Wales called
The State of Local Government Report. Council Watch has
replicated some of this survey to enable a greater
understanding of our elected officials and the local
government sector as a whole.
Our independent survey
was conducted online between June and July 2010 and sampled
37% of Councillors and Mayors
across New Zealand.
A summary
analysis of the survey will be provided to all participants.
For further
information and to purchase a complete analysis of the
survey go to the Councillor2010 web page
here. |
|
Local Govt
NZ happy 'Super City' will be more democratic
(Jun 2010) - Press Release,
LGNZ
Much more
control of council controlled organisations (CCOs) has been
vested back to the new Auckland City Council says
Local
Government New Zealand.
 President
Lawrence Yule says today’s report back of the Local
Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill by the Auckland
Governance Legislation Committee shows major wins for local
democracy.
“Considerable
effort has gone into making sure the new council will have
greater ability to direct and influence CCOs.”
“The amended
bill gives the new council greater ability to remove
directors, while a proportion of vacancies will be set aside
for councils to make appointments.”
“This goes a
long way towards what we have been advocating for.”
He says the new
council must also have an accountability policy for the CCOs.
“This would set
out policies around reporting, management of strategic
assets and being part of the Local Government Official
Information Act.”
‘‘While we
don’t support the creation by statute of a Transport CCO, we
are pleased its structure will be amended to make it
consistent with other CCOs. Additional powers to ensure CCOs’
conform to the council’s overall direction, are welcome."
Other wins come
from local boards, with the number extending from between 4
and 9 to 5 and 12.
“This addresses
concerns that representation at a community level was
seriously weakened in the original bill.”
“It’s also
pleasing the select committee has lengthened the
consultation period for local boards to consult with
communities when preparing draft three year plans. The
original proposal was simply impossible to comply with. And
clarity of functions of local boards has been extended from
six to 18 months.”
Mr Yule says
getting Auckland’s governance arrangements right and making
the transition is vitally important, not only for the
citizens of that city but for New Zealand.
“International
research suggests it takes 10 years for a local economy to
recover from a major consolidation
of this sort.”
Links:
Making Auckland Greater
Auckland
Transition Agency
|
|
Hide’s
move to sack Councillors is "curious"
(Mar 2010)
Local
government watchdog Council Watch is questioning the
measures taken by Local Government minister Rodney Hide
after he gave Canterbury Regional Councillors their marching
orders yesterday.
 Rodney Hide’s
sacking of elected officials of ECAN is being questioned in
the face of accusations that the government is using the
Local Government Act to take ownership of valuable water
resources on the Canterbury Plains.
Council Watch
spokesman Mike MacLeod says he was surprised at how rapidly
the Local Government Minister moved in this particular case,
when there are far more important and systemic failings
within the local government sector. He also heralded a
warning to citizens of New Zealand, say this action is “an
overreaction, inconsistent and antidemocratic”.
Council Watch’s
main concern is that Rodney Hide has thrown the baby out
with the bathwater. “He’s sacrificing the people elected to
this Council by the citizens of Canterbury. Not only the
‘bad ones’, but also the good ones,” says MacLeod, “His
excuse is that there was poor management. So is he also
going to sack the CEO and Senior Managers too?”
To date the
media have referred only to a report from Wyatt Creech with
no reference to the Auditor General’s report which has
already taken action (or inaction) in respect these issues.
Nothing in the foregoing makes any reference to the
so-called “ECAN Four”, those councillors found by the
Auditor General as having abused their position to influence
water charges levied against Canterbury farmers, a group to
which they belong.
“In view of the
serious findings of the OAG,” asks MacLeod, “Why did the
government not take appropriate action at the time and ask
the Auditor General to prosecute or at least seek convincing
arguments against prosecution? If such arguments were
forthcoming – why take this action now?”
“It seems odd
that the Minister would allow something so serious to pass,
yet later sack the entire Council.”
By the numbers:
water management is but one activity among many that ECAN
administers. Is it appropriate that 14 councillors (only
four of whom were ostensibly guilty of misconduct) should be
banned from administering the business of the Council
because of mistakes and concerns in one area? Surely this is
an overreaction?
Says MacLeod
“Even if we might be persuaded that this is not an
overreaction there is a glaring inconsistency insomuch as
the government has essentially ignored a damming OAG report
which; had it been suitably acted upon, might have resolved
all the (water) issues without impacting upon other
activities and their legitimate governance.”
“This raises
questions about the governments’ true agenda in these
issues. What are they and what is the rationale for them?
Why is the Minister not allowing the people of Canterbury to
go to the polls this year and decide for themselves who
should represent them? Who – in the long run – is going to
be benefiting from a government-controlled Regional
Council?”
“The Minister
and the government are acting curiouser and curiouser. No
wonder the Prime Minister is distancing himself from this
bizarre and totally undemocratic decision.
|
|
The System - sometimes it works well
(updated Mar 2010)
"There's
no such thing as a free lunch." Unless of
course you are Wellington City Council.
When you read the story below bear this in mind:
a developer went through a lawful process to get
permission to build something. A
City Council gave that permission. A
Regional Council blocked it because of the
serious environmental impact. The
developer has spent $$$ undertaking earthworks,
and now are out of pocket.
Should they sue
the City Council? If so the ratepayers end
up forking out. If the City Council appeal
the decision of the Regional Council in court
then... guess what? The ratepayers fork
out TWICE.
Why
can't Councils like Wellington City Council do
the job properly the first-time round?
Read on...
This
is a case of a City Council with too little
regard for a community, and a Regional
Council who has put its foot down.
Grenada
Village is a small suburb to the north of
Wellington City. You pass by it to your right
as you are heading north, just before Porirua.
It's quiet, bucolic, and sits next to a
wonderful recreational reserve called Seton
Nossitor Park.
You
can understand the frustration and
concern when the local community association
learned (through the media) that the Council had
given non-notified consent permission to
build an 11-hectare car storage facility.
Fortunately the Regional Council has stopped the
development proceeding due to severe concerns
they have over the environmental impacts of the
development.
And
Wellington City Council's response? Well their
spokesman Richard McLean is using words like "legal
advice", because as you can imagine the
developer is "angry". Perhaps if
Wellington City Council was not so quick to
issue non-notified consents for developments
that affect entire suburbs there would be fewer
angry developers... and communities?
Councils of
New Zealand take heed. Read
the full story
here.
|
|
|
Residents2010 Conference Proceedings now available
(Jun 2010)
A 37-page
report has been published containing the output from a
conference for residents' associations held in Parliament
Buildings in April this year.
The report -
released by the Residents2010 Task Group - includes speeches
by the Chief Ombudsmen and the Chair of the Social and Civic
Policy Institute.
You can
download a copy
here.
|
|
Grovetown Residents'
Association angered by Council
(May 2010)
A Blenheim
residents' association have complained to the Office of the
Ombudsmen over the actions of the Marlborough District
Council.
Mayor Alistair
Sowman admits that he and the Councillors received advice
from the CEO Andrew Besley not to attend a public meeting
organised by the Grovetown Residence Association.
Read the full
story, published in the Marlborough Express,
here.
|
|
Complaints Lodged with Ombudsman
(updated Mar 2010)
After two
attempts at undertaking public research with Councils across
the country, Council Watch staff have finally given in and
started lodging formal complaints with the
Office of the
Ombudsmen. This week the last batch of 47 complaints
were lodged.
The first batch related to the non-response of
16 Councils (see
list here). The
second batch related to the refusal by 17 Councils, all of
whom claimed that the release of the information would
breach the privacy of their staff. This is despite
Chatham Islands Council (who only have two staff in total)
releasing the information as requested and within the
timeframe allowed by law.
The most recent batch to
be delivered to the Ombudsmen relates to 14 Councils who
provided information that was not in keeping with the
original request (for example, in bands of $25,000 or
$50,000).
In the past
Council Watch have discussed non-compliance of LGOIMA
requests with the Ombudsmen's staff, however this has not
produced the desired outcome of receiving the information
asked for. Initially we were reluctant to lodge
official complaints due to a concern this would hamper the
operation of the Office of the Ombudsmen.
|
|
Council Watch petitions Crown Law and ECAN
(Feb 2010)
Council
Watch officers have petitioned the Crown Solicitor and the CEO of Environment Canterbury for all documentation, notes,
and advice pertaining to the recent investigation by the
Office of the Auditor General into
conflicts of interest by four Canterbury Councillors.
Days
prior to Christmas last year the
Auditor General Lyn Provost
released a
report damning the Councillors for acting illegally but
refusing to prosecute. If the intent was to 'slip it
under the media radar' then the Auditor General's office
almost got away scot free. This is a very important
observation, and pertains to the "Public Interest Test": the
heart of the decision not to prosecute as discussed further
in this article.
Council
Watch picked up on the report and called for
the immediate prosecution of the four Councillors.
As we go to press there is no indication from the Auditor
General's office that they have recanted their decision.
The
reasons that were given were unclear at the time, and
despite a review of the law by this organisation they remain
that way. In her findings Lyn Provost declared it was
in the best interest not to prosecute based on advice
provided by Solicitor-General
David Collins QC. This advice
hinged around the doubt that a court would prosecute the
four Councillors because "previous court decisions have
shown that courts are reluctant to impose a conviction in
situations of this kind and will consider options such as
discharging without conviction".
As we
stated earlier, we can find no legal precedent that
indicates a court would fail to prosecute the four, when a
prima facie case has been established. Indeed, the
fact that the four Councillors have been found to have
breached an Act that was expressly written to remove
people from office who knowingly committed a conflict of
interest would, we think, provide guidance and reason
for a court to convict.
The
Auditor General fails to cite many of the
Public Interest
Considerations for Prosecution, the main ones being:
-
Where a
conviction is likely to result in a significant penalty
... then there is a strong public interest for a
prosecution (the penalty for this breach of the law is
extremely serious - loss of their position as
Councillors);
-
where the
defendant was in a position of authority or trust and
the offence is an abuse of that position;
-
where the
offence was carried out by a group;
-
where there
is any element of corruption.
Finally, it is
in the public interest to allow these people to have their
day in court, just like any citizen caught breaking the law.
Why should these people be allowed to get off simply because
they are Councillors?
In any event,
this case cannot be allowed to die. There is, in our
opinion, sufficient justification for a court of law to be
allowed to pass judgement on these four elected officials.
To allow this to happen would send a powerful message to
others in such privileged positions around the country.
|
|
0800 Hotline contact list now
available
(Feb 2010)
Council
Watch today launched a simple online service that will - in
the words of one happy user - "solve a lot of people's
pain".
A list of
commonly-contacted official hotline numbers has now been put
together in one place, meaning users of the Council Watch
website are only a click away from finding the right number
to call for anything from pollution (Regional Council) to
toxic algal blooms (NZ Food Safety Authority).
Council
Watch webmaster Jarrod Coburn is hopeful the service will be
used by a wide audience. Also on the same page are
addresses, website URLs, and contact phone numbers of every
Council in the country. Click
here to view the
0800
Hotline list.
|
|
Latest Research Reveals Senior Salary Levels
(Jan 2010)
A recently-released report by Council Watch provides an
insight into salary levels for senior Council managers.
The report, available
here, shows the average salary rate as $155,000; with
little variance between the North- and South Islands.
Whilst only 41% of Council Chief Executives
responded with the information we requested (thereby
reducing the quality of the data) the outcome provides the
following insights:
-
The spread of salaries for senior managers is very large, from $50,000 at the
lowest end to $350,000 at the highest;
-
The average salary for senior managers is $155K per annum;
-
Salaries for senior managers were equitable for both North and South Islands;
-
The highest senior manager's salary ($350K) was greater than 85% of the salaries
of CEOs that responded to the survey;
-
North Island CEOs get paid more on average than their colleagues on the mainland
($250K v. $239K);
-
The range of CEO salaries was $150K to $450K.
The reason most Councils gave when
withholding this information was privacy of the individual,
however this has been considered in the past by the Office
of the Ombudsmen (see
here) and as such we will be referring the matter on to
that authority. Click
here to view other
research from Council Watch.
|
|
|
A generation
of experience lost with passing of Upper Hutt City
Councillor
(Jun 2010)
The sudden
death of Councillor Keith Barnard saw over 30 years of
experience in the Council Chamber lost from the Upper Hutt
City Council.
Cr. Barnard was
a passionate member of the Upper Hutt community and very
involved outside of his Council duties.
Further
information can be found
here.
|
|
Taranaki residents' association takes a lead in Local Body
Elections
(Jul 2010)
The Bell Block
& District Residents Society arranged a mayoralty candidates
forum at its 30th anniversary celebrations and annual
meeting held on 29th June.
Bell Block
society spokesperson Mary Perrott, says the society
decided to host the candidates to fit in with 30th
anniversary celebrations.
It was obliged
to have its AGM before June 30, and the question of a new
mayor was an important topic.
|
|
Masterton
farewells "diligent and popular councillor"
(Jun 2010)
Councillor Jeff
Workman of Masterton District Council passed away recently
due to illness.
The Mayor of
Masterton, Garry Daniell, said Councillor Workman was a
diligent and popular councillor who was highly committed to
the democratic processes of local government.
Jeff Workman
had served as a Councillor since October 2007.
The official
news release from Masterton District Council can be found
here.
|
|
Freeman
Award for Alacrity goes to Chatham Islands Council
(Jun 2010)
Carrying on a
tradition started in 2009, Council Watch is pleased to award
the Freeman Award for Alacrity to Owen Pickles, CEO of
Chatham Islands Council.
The Freeman
Award for Alacrity is named after the first recipient,
Stratford District Council CEO Michael Freeman.
Mr Pickles took
just 17 minutes to respond to our most recent LGOIMA
request. Thank you for setting a benchmark for other
Councils.
|
|
Latest
Research Focuses on Ex-Gratia Payments
(Jun 2010)
The latest
research question posed by Council Watch concerns payment
made by Councils without the giver recognising any liability
or legal obligation.
Obviously, one
would expect a Council wouldn't just give money to a person
or organisation without some good reason. Sometimes,
however (such as in the instance of an out-of-court
settlement) the Council may wish to make an ex gratia
payment.
These payments are made "without
prejudice" and can be for a variety of reasons.
The main purpose, however, is to resolve an issue or to show
"good will" without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.
Council Watch
is interested only in the total sums of this type of expense
for each of the financial years ending 2007, 2008 and 2009.
You can
find the original request, sent individually to each Council
Chief Executive Officer on 15th June 2010
here.
|
|
Wairoa
District Council takes consultation seriously
(Apr 2010)
Wairoa
District Council is venturing into a new style of public consultation by hosting
'Face to Face With Council' - a two-day open event in the
former Retravision building on Marine Parade.
Chief executive
Peter Freeman says "The need to
consult remains important, so it's up to the council to
change tack and try something new."
There will be
displays all aspects of the Council and staff will be
present to answer any questions and explain their role.
Read the full
story on the Gisborne Herald website
here.
|
|
Community leaders positive
on the future of democracy
(Apr 2010)
New Zealand’s inaugural conference of residents’
associations attracted over 40 organisations on
the weekend and sends a strong message to the
local government sector: work with us or face
the consequences.
Conference
convenor Jarrod Coburn says that the unbridled
passion – and in some cases frustration and
anger – about issues in the local government and
community sector took him aback and caused many
to comment that “something needs to be done… or
else”.
The Residents 2010
Conference – held in parliament’s Grand Hall on
Saturday – attracted interest from residents’
organisations as far away as Auckland and
Christchurch. The conference was a collaboration
between the
Federation of Wellington Progressive and
Residents Associations (FWPRA), the
Social and Civic Policy Institute (SCPI),
and local government watchdog
Council Watch.
Coburn, experienced in
community engagement on both sides of the fence,
says the “or else” could spell bad news for the
local government sector and would come in the
form of the increasingly vocal network of
residents’ associations (over 1,500 across the
country) turning their backs if the Government
continue down their current path of tinkering
with Councils.
“We’ve seen two instances
of the National government stepping in to change
local government in the past year: the so-called
‘Super City’ in Auckland, and the sacking of the
democratically-elected members of Environment
Canterbury.
“This Government has
indicated without a doubt that they are willing
to make some tough decisions when it comes to
local democracy. My fear – and this is shared by
others – is that we are seeing a major threat to
the remaining Councils.
“The sector – through its
own incompetence – is giving central government
excuse after excuse to cast doubt over its
effectiveness. Bizarre as it might sound; it
might be residents’ associations and like
organisations who have to come to their rescue!”
Mr Coburn says that the
gathering of nearly 100 community leaders was a
milestone in a growing movement toward citizen
participation.
“People are becoming less tolerant with public
employees now. There is more money around than
ever before in our economy, yet Councils are
pleading poverty and reducing their services.
“It is time for the local
government sector to do some serious reflecting
on their future, and whether or not they want
the support of the communities they are legally
obliged to serve,” says Coburn.
“Many delegates relayed
stories of Councils making decisions using a
bogus process of ‘consultation’ – basically an
expensive way to justify their officer’s
choices,” says Coburn, “Well after this weekend
let it be known that citizens can also make
choices, and have a voice, and have opinions
that count with the people who hold sway over
their futures!”
The conference delegates
agreed to a number of recommendations, which
will be communicated to the appropriate agencies
and the public at large over the next few weeks.
In the meantime work on finding ways to support
residents’ associations across the nation will
continue by the three organisations.
“Obviously you don’t hold a
conference like this and then forget about it
the next day,” says Coburn, “for SCPI, FWPRA and
Council Watch the work has just begun. Already
we’re getting calls from other organisations
around the country asking how they can be
involved in this movement toward stronger local
democracy.
“One thing I will say is
that we welcome approaches by anyone at any
organisation to start a dialogue about improving
the lot of residents’ associations in New
Zealand. If it is to be done, it will have to be
done cooperatively and in the spirit of
democracy and equality.”
Jarrod Coburn says that the
organisers will contact community leaders in
Auckland and Christchurch soon and ask if they
would be happy to co-host similar conferences in
their areas in 2011.
Full details of the
conference, including the proceedings and
associated research, will be available soon on
www.residents.org.nz. |
|
Chief Ombudsman confirmed for
Residents Association conference
(Mar 2010)
Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem will provide the
keynote address to a gathering of residents’
association representatives at a conference in
parliament next month.
 A
spokesman for the conference says Ms Wakem’s
presence at the conference recognises the
importance of residents' associations in our
system of democracy.
The conference aims to show that people can take
responsibility for what happens in their
communities. It is all about enabling
communities to take responsibility for
themselves.
People interested in attending the conference
can find more information
here. The full story is available
here.
|
|
Residents Association conference announced
(Feb 2010)
Council
Watch is one of three sponsors supporting
Residents2010 - a conference for residents'
associations in Wellington. The conference will
be held in the magnificent Grand Hall of
parliament buildings and is expected to
attract delegates from across the greater
Wellington region.
Council Watch spokesperson Jim Candiliotis says
the conference is well overdue. "It's about
time the hard work of residents' associations is
recognised," says Jim, "Residents' associations
hold our system of local democracy together.
They are stalwart defenders of community's
collective rights and do a great job for the
citizens of this country."
The
conference is on Saturday 10th April and is free
to committee members of any residents'
association or like group. See the full article
here or visit the Residents2010 website
here.
|
|
|
