Connecting Citizens Who Care
"Broadcast every Thursday at 11.45am on Access 999AM" Contact Peter at wheeler@inspire.net.nz
02 18th January 2007
This Week: 1. Review. 2. Wards etc. 3. What we can do. 4. Getting a hair cut. 5. My God.
Editorial: Did you know that just a few short years ago the Country Woman’s Institute painted the local Railway Station, how many times do the public have to do the job of the owners before the council makes a move? To perform honest community work for hard pressed community groups is with out doubt an honour but to do it for Toll Holdings Ltd. an Australian owned company seems strange to say the least! Bruce Thompson, in a strange letter to the Evening Standard praises the council for organising a working bee at the station. Doesn’t he understand that the council are doing nothing, nor are the councillors, and that the station is not government owned nor council owned, so no tax payers money can or will be saved.
1. This year is local government election year and in Palmerston North the campaigning has already begun. Cr. Naylor has already announced his intention to stand for Mayor and we are all aware that the present Mayor Heather Tanguay will seek re-election. Those with an interest in local government will understand that the election will be based on the Ward system of voting. Because of complaints by Cr. Gordon Cruden [and others] the local government commission decided on the Ward System because of its inherent fairness of representation for communities. One change they made was to combine the Ashhurst and Fitzherbert Wards into one and two councillors represent the combined Ward. So we are to have 15 councillors and a Mayor for the three years after this years election.
Now I agree with the number of councillors and with the ward voting system although I would prefer more and smaller Wards based on a more logical community of interest factor. To make the present system work I believe we need to ensure that firstly: Councillors elected by Wards, represent those wards fully and put in place processes by which this representation is both effective and efficient. At present the Ward Committee process is one way of moving toward that goal. Councillors are virtually allowed to have no contact with those committees. While they may promise to do so, there is no accountability to do so. This leads to a very weak connection to wards with councillors. Hokowhitu Ward for example has two councillors who have publicly stated that ‘They take no notice of Ward Committees’ [Gordon Cruden & Jono Naylor]. Takaro Ward is presently represented by three councillors who have no Ward Committee, and who promised after the last election to hold forums on key issues at least four times per year, as yet only one out of eight has taken place. [Wall, Dennison and Ian Cruden]. Papaioea Ward has a councilor who decided not to attend Ward Meetings at all [Pope].
The second factor is that Ward Councillors should live in the Ward they wish to represent. At present a number of Councillors don’t live in their ward. This was understandable during the first three years after the creation of Wards but it is time for a change. The days of rich absentee landlords filling our council chambers has long since passed into history. The present councillors that live outside of their wards [Naylor, Claridge, Dennison, Etheridge and there may be others] should and must consider standing in the ward in which they live. How will we ever get balance across the city while this fundamental and basic principle is ignored? For local democracy to flourish it must be practiced and councillors must believe in it. Fay Roy wrote a letter to the editor where she expressed her views and while she and I may differ on Ward Vs. City wide voting our belief in democracy follows the same lines. Her letter is published below.
2. Subject: Ward committees Cr. Gordon Cruden's letter (7 January) takes a very selective view of the Council of the 1960s and 1970s. I suggest he remove his rose tinted glasses and read Cr. Joyce Dunmore's book 'The Cobweb.' written from the perspective of the only woman on the Council at that time. His letter shows that the Councillors have not grasped the intent of the Local Government Act for local authorities to be community driven rather than Council driven. The government believes that the point of local government is enabling local people to make decisions for themselves. This did not happen after the 2001 election when the newly elected Councillors voted to communicate with their Wards four times a year. Strangely his letter confirms my reason for supporting his choice for citywide elections rather than the Ward system. What we have had for the last two elections are Councillors who use the electorate to gain a Seat on the Council and then turn their backs on their electorate. Perhaps the Local Government Commission are giving all parties another opportunity to get it right’. Fay Roy
3. Another reader who has a great experience of local government wrote the following about what we all can do in improving the local scene.
‘I have details in my files and have presented them myself in a very detailed submission on the Local Government Bill, and also before the Select Committee - my basic argument is that the Government needs to take more responsibility for controlling local government. When the inquiry into local government rates gets going it may be possible, depending on its Terms of Reference, to bring the matter up. Because one reason the rates keep rocketing up is the high spending on "visionary" projects by local government often initiated or strongly supported by management (as in Palmerston North).
What is needed, is more power to the actual people affected to stop this, and to get Councils to focus on the essentials of what people really want. The survey that the Residents Association did a few years ago which asked people to list the 10 most important large projects they wanted done in Palmerston North was a good example of how to do this. It got over 1000 replies, either personally posted to us or dropped into the Tribune office. It was clear from crossing out etc that people had thought about it really carefully and some people, including the man who cleans my chimney, told me how much they enjoyed doing this. The Square make over was last on that list. It's so obvious to me how best to go about getting citizens views, and other people of course ("activists"), but a lot of it's about power and vanity which has been around for a long time, and will continue to do so. Some independent practical people to assess the bias of consultation would be useful.
It is very hard to combat the manageralism ethos, which is so ingrained in the local council scene, public service and other organizations. And the faith in "consultation" which often means that those in power pre-determine the answer, and if anyone says anything that doesn't fit into these predetermined categories, or suggests modifications are simply ignored or categorised as "for" or "against". I have heard even left-leaning people speak of "outcomes" etc as if they were holy writ which absolutely must be obtained, and the fact that they were basically meaningless and of high generality did not occur to them. I think just to make it clear to councillors that you are watching them, as Peter Wheeler and other people do, is a good thing to do. But there is no point in anyone wearing him or herself out in this power game. Best to at least balance that bad stuff with humour and doing enjoyable things to have a good life.
Best wishes, Thanks dear reader for those comments, other organisations like the ‘Residents Association’ who produced the wonderful questionnaires that asked for the ten most important things to be done in the city, appear to have disappeared off the scene. I’ve been waiting for them to call the required Annual General Meeting. Perhaps if they called the long overdue meeting it could be reactivated into life, I hope so.
4. Another email from a reader is published for your consideration.
Hi Peter, A happy and healthy New Year to you! Today, although it is not my birthday, I had my hair cut, as usual, by Cinnemon. During this process we discussed the proposed Council changes to parking in College Street ostensibly to provide cycle paths. I wondered how one could obtain information on:
1. Has there been an audit of the number of cyclists using that route?
2. What exactly are the proposed changes?
3. Have the residents of College Street been consulted/informed?
4. What is the cost? Cheers,
‘Reuben’.
Well Reuben a quick call to the council should bring you enlightenment but don’t be in rush. Clare Hadley was too busy to answer the Manawatu Standards questions on the cutting of funding to youth groups, and by the way do you only get a haircut once a year?
6. My God: Recommends to the Mayor that reconsideration of the council rental housing policy will be vital for it to be meaningful in real terms. My belief is that council housing should be allocated on an ‘Greatest need basis’ and that must be fully inclusive. Housing for the aged is important but no more important than housing for those with other needs. To set up a contestable process between various groupings is simply unproductive. The key rests in the hands of those selected or willing to undertake the huge task of deciding who should or should not be allocated housing.
Wheeler’s Corner welcomes the new Administrators/Managers to both Age Concern and Access Radio.
Peter J Wheeler
Wheeler@inspire.net.nz
No comments:
Post a Comment