Some of Karl Webber’s rock collection on Kapiti Island. He donated one to the Tutere Gallery which is displayed. Apparently the rocks absorb negative energy and need cleansing with sea water and karakia about once a month.
A pic we took last Saturday. There is one problem: that SUV in the distance shouldn’t be there. But as we’ve seen, while harassment of their critics is a top priority for the KCDC, they don’t care so much about the enforcement of their bylaws.
This is an e-mail that was sent to all councilors and Community Board members. There have been previous posts on this topic on here. Our view is that the situation before 2010 (with no macron) should prevail.
Happy New Year Mayor & Councillors
I have been notified about a recent local newspaper article titled “case of
the missing macron”. Whilst I support the person(s) attempt in correcting
the misspelling of our district name by removing the fictitious macron from
“Kapiti” on the sign, they do need to be more careful with their artwork.
It is an opportune time to remind you all, once again, of the facts relating
to how Council has taken an anarchist stance in defiling our district place
name. Please read this e-mail carefully in full because “ignorance of law
excuses no one”.
1. In August 2009, Mayor Jenny Rowan dictatorially introduced the macron into Kapiti Coast District Council without consulting her fellow
2. Council refused (and still does) to submit an application to the New
Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB) to change the spelling of our Territorial
Authority — Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC) — by inserting a macron. The previous Council Chief Executive (Pat Dougherty) stated that Council does not recognise the NZGB as the legislated Authority to approve a name change.
3. KCDC’s lawyers Simpson Grierson advised them in a letter dated
27/10/2010 that “where Council is required to use its legal name (e.g.
because legislation requires it), Kapiti should be spelt without a macron.
This is because the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides the legal names for all territorial and regional authorities”.
4. Mayor Rowan and her Council, at a meeting on 16/12/2010, passed a
resolution to blatantly break NZ Law by continuing to operate under a
Territorial Authority that doesn’t exist in Part 2 of the Local Government
Act 2002. The motion also stated that, Council “seeks a formal
determination from the Courts on the matter, should there be a legal
challenge in relation to the use of the macron on Council documents”.
Please note that Councillors K. Gurunathan and Mike Cardiff voted against
5. The Maori Language Commission publicly stated in 2010 that the place
Kapiti does not contain a macron. However, following pressure from Council and some [but not all] local Maori elders, they chose to qualify that local iwi dialect can affect the way in which a word is verbally expressed and this can in turn create issues for how the place name is correctly spelt. They added that it is important the spelling of any given place name, or part thereof is consistent with meaning that the place name conveys.
In Māori dictionaries, the word “Kāpiti” has only one translation — “Cabbage” — in NZ English.
The reasoning given by Mayor Rowan to introduce this fictitious macron in
the first place was to help with te reo Maori pronunciation of the place
name Kapiti. Ask yourself this question, can any of you categorically state
you know how your ancestors spoke 200 years ago? We all know that people’s speech is different and often changes over time.
NZ Maori tribes did not have a written language so, over time, they used
immigrant European Missionaries to translate their verbal language into
written form. We can all agree therefore that Maori speech would have been written with alphabetic soundings as known by those Missionaries at the time. That being the case, if the place name Kapiti was originally
pronounced with an extended “aa” sound then why wasn’t it written “Kaapiti” on the Treaty of Waitangi back in 1840, as European languages at the time have many instances of “aa” in written words. Te Raperha was a Maori rangatira of the Ngati Toa tribe who signed a copy of the Treaty as
“Principal Chief of Kapiti and Cooks Straits” on 14 May 1840.
For those interested, Maori rangatira were people who held tribal authority
for maintaining boundaries between the tribe’s land and that of other
tribes. Of course, in typical bureaucratic style, Council thought that by using
stealth, rather than the correct legislative procedure, residents would
adopt their nonsensical macron in everything associated with our district
place name without question. It would appear from the photo in the
newspaper article our Council got it wrong and has created a Kapiti Coast
passive resistance following denouncing the false macron.
Council and the local Maori lobby group “Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti” took
exception to my findings but were unable to present historical evidence to
substantiate their claim about introducing the macron into the place name
Kapiti so I was told its actual derivation is “ka apiti”. Note that they
proclaim it was two words which would most definitely have been spelt
“Kaapiti’ if a missionary had written it as one word.
The myth then developed that Kapiti is a variation of “āpiti” (also stated
in the newspaper article) but again local Maori elders have no explanation
what the letter “K” means in Kapiti? If we are to believe that it comes
from “ka āpiti” then can anybody explain how early Maori settlers pronounced
“Ka aapiti”? How, in written te reo Maori, is “Kaaapiti” represented?
I am still in favour of the long established historical understanding (also
in various text) that the place name Kapiti is an abbreviation of “Te waewae
Kapiti o Tara raua ko Rangitane” translated in NZ English as “the boundary
between Tara and Rangitane”. Ngati Toa elders agree with me! In December 2012 they signed their $70 million Treaty settlement where the place name Kapiti (213 instances) does not contain a macron
When I revisited this topic a year ago in January 2018, a Councillor
responded by stating, “the macron issue has, in previous trienniums been
referred to our iwi partners for opinion”. Since when does local Maori
ratepayers have the jurisdiction of changing a Territorial Authority Name
in New Zealand? Under what authority do our elected Local Government
representatives have in passing this very important issue over to a small
group of non-elected representatives on basis of ethnicity?
It is the impression of the vast majority of New Zealanders, both non-Māori & Māori, that under the Treaty of Waitangi we are “one people”. Do the
Mayor and Council agree with this premise?
All I have been asking over the past 9 years is for someone (anyone) to
present me with the proclaimed historical data that shows the place name
Kapiti was spelt with a macron over the “a”. In all that time nobody has,
including Kapiti Coast District Council; The Maori Language Commission, iwi elders in “Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti” or editors/journalists of various NZ newspapers.
In his days before becoming Mayor, Mr Gurunathan used his journalistic
skills to write an article about my stance over the Kapiti macron issue by
comparing it to the parable of “the King’s new clothes”. For those who
don’t know this ancient tale, it is where people were told to say how
beautiful the King’s new clothes were when he was actually parading through the streets completely naked. One, less gullible boy, chose to speak the truth. Who was right?
Mayor, Councillors and other elected officials, please make 2019 the year
when you take the initiative to stop operating illegally by either:-
1. applying to the New Zealand Geographic Board, with all the necessary
evidence, to have our Territorial Authority name legally changed; or
2. acknowledge that your predecessors made a mistake and drop the macron from our place name KAPITI.
I still live in hope that common sense will prevail [a big hope with the present councilors —Eds] and must remind you that in 2016 you signed an oath under the legal name Kapiti Coast District Council (spelt without a macron) to represent us to the best of your ability.
9 College Drive
Paraparaumu Beach 5032
Phone: (04) 296 1117
P.S. This newspaper article, brings into question the competency of
Tuehu Harris (Maori Language Commission Chief Executive) understanding of language! By un-dotting an “i” or un-crossing a “t” they cease to be a
written letter in both English and Maori languages but the letter “a” exists
with or without a macron in the 26 letter New Zealand alphabet. However,
spelling of words may require one or two occurrences of these letters to
convey the correct meaning.
To quote [former cabinet minister] Peter Dunne, “if we create rights for some New Zealanders and not others, then we start down a very sure and slippery slope to anarchy”.
by Roger Childs
‘Let’s been havin’ ya!’ the big man cries
the tumult and the chatter dies.
Visitors welcomed, messages given
the big field lines up, primed and driven.
Youngsters, oldies, dogs and strollers,
the track is smooth and has no boulders.
The dash is on to reach the bush
the winding path is quite a push.
Under the bridge and on the bank
must keep plenty in the tank
to try and break out from the pack
and catch some folk while coming back.
Now they’re on the final dash
running for pride and not for cash.
Then the usual post-race banter
about the Kapiti Parkrun canter.
Be part of a free world-wide fitness movement
If you can run or walk 5 km you can do Parkrun. In Kapiti the venue is the Otaihanga Domain every Saturday starting at 8.00 am, and the course is out and back along the Waikanae River bank.
It started at Bushy Park in England back in 2004 to get people exercising. Fifteen years later, tens of thousands of people at over 1700 parks in 20 countries do the Saturday Parkrun. And there is no charge!
Before the start, everyone is welcomed, especially new runners, people from overseas and elsewhere in the country. All these folk are warmly applauded.
The technology is a key part of the efficiency of the events. You can do the run or walk, then drive home and find an email waiting for you. In the email you get your time and a full set of results.
The results package provides heaps of information: all the placings, age categories of all competitors, a percentage value on your performance, how many park runs people have done, whether there have been PBs (personal bests) and so on.
This is all possible because when you finish, volunteers zap your place disk and your personal bar code.
Give it a go!
Park run provides a personal challenge: to run, or walk if you wish, 5km. You can race it, jog it, go with your kids, push a stroller, take the dog, whatever.
It’s easy to register and it costs nothing. Go to www.parkrun.co.nz/register/
Once you’re registered, the key thing to remember is to take your bar code to the event! You’ll receive six.If you forget, no worries, one of the volunteers will take your name and place. Tip: Laminate your bar code so it will last longer. Park run is a great way to get fitter, lose weight and feel better. You also get to know plenty of interesting people. It’s got to be good for you!
No, not a display of precious metals that the KCDC might be contemplating investing its borrowings in, but part of the art installation ‘Wai Taonga’ by JoAnna Mere mentioned in last December’s post.
Eruini Street on the right.
After a long spell fishing off Kapiti Island, Lee and Reece Claxton were about to call it a day, when one of their fishing rods “went off”.
Something had taken a liking to the live jack mackerel attached to an 80 lb braid.
Reece handed the rod to Lee who would begin a very physical battle to land a whopping 28.38 kg kingfish late on Wednesday afternoon on their boat called Fish n Chips.
Lee initially thought it was a barracuda but quickly knew it was something a lot larger.
Seen at the Coffee and Cars gathering in Southwards grounds yesterday: a 1954 MG with bring your own refreshments typical of that era, although probably tea rather than coffee. 🙂
Letter sent to the Chief Executive of the KCDC by the Auditor General
5 December 2018
Kāpiti Coast District Council
PO Box 60 601
Investment funds proposal
Thank you for your time, and the information provided, when I visited Kāpiti Coast District Council (the Council) on 30 October 2018 to discuss the Council’s proposal to establish two new investment funds. Thank you also for the material provided subsequently.
As discussed when we met, several people have contacted us to raise concerns about the investment funds proposal, specifically the proposal to borrow in order to invest in two new investment funds. We generally encourage people who contact us with concerns to contact the entity involved directly, and we have done so in these cases.
As the Council’s auditor we have an obligation to assess whether the Council is being financially prudent in its activities. Borrowings and investments by councils are something that we consider through both our annual and long-term plan audits. Assessing financial prudence is a matter of judgement. Relevant factors auditors use for their judgements on prudence include the processes councils have used to complete their own prudence assessments, together with the quality and completeness of the information available to the Council.
Investment fund proposals
I acknowledge that the Council is committed to doing further work on the proposed funds, and has yet to make a final decision on establishing them. However, I consider it is important that I set out my views on the proposal.
The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires councils to have policies to guide their borrowing and investment decisions as part of prudent financial management. There is nothing in the Act that would prevent the Council from borrowing money in order to invest it (unless the borrowing is in foreign currency), provided it fits with the relevant Council policies and is prudent.
That said, I note that the Council currently has the second highest level of debt per capita of all councils in New Zealand.1 The Council is exploring how to manage its finances over the long term, in accordance with its financial strategy. I understand that the proposed investment funds are intended to be long-term investments, with the expected returns used for growth and resilience purposes. The proposed funds are due to be established by borrowing up to $20 million from the Local Government Funding Agency, and you are expecting to achieve an overall net return of 3.5% after costs.
It is widely accepted that there is generally a strong correlation between risk and return.
Also, there is little doubt that interest rates and returns on equities are likely to continue to fluctuate over time. When we met it was acknowledged that the return on the investment funds could go up as well as down. Current interest rates are at historical lows, so it would be reasonable to expect interest rates to trend up in future rather than down. I also note the proposed funds could include an investment mix of up to 65% investment in equities, to achieve the overall investment returns expected. Clearly there is an element of risk with such an investment mix, and the Council needs to be clear on the level of risk it believes is acceptable for each of the proposed funds.
Section 14(1) of the Act requires the Council to satisfy itself that the expected returns are likely to outweigh the risks inherent in the investments. I would expect such a consideration by the Council to be formally documented.
The proposals are unusual compared to other funding arrangements we are aware of in the local government sector, in particular that the initial investment would be funded by borrowing. Similar situations we are familiar with involve councils that have invested money after asset sales, rather than by borrowing.
It is not our Office’s role to question the Council’s policy decisions, including the Council’s decision to establish these investment funds. However, we do expect the Council to carry out appropriate due diligence, given the nature and inherent risks involved with the proposals. We expect the Council will:
- seek independent financial and legal advice on the proposal;
- seek independent quality assurance over the establishment of the funds;
- provide suitable information and advice to elected members to enable them to make an informed decision; and
- provide clear public information about decisions to progress the establishment of the funds, and criteria and governance for the funds.
On the basis that the investment funds are established, we expect the Council will ensure:
- good governance over the funds; and
- there is clear and transparent reporting on the performance of the funds, including the net return earned on the funds, taking into account investment management, administration fees, and the cost of borrowing.
I would be grateful if you could tell me about any additional financial and/or legal advice you intend to seek on the proposal, or will receive in due course.
Given the nature of the proposal, the appointed auditor for the Council will consider the management and reporting relating to proposals, and any associated risks, as part of the annual audit. Any concerns will be reported to the Council in our management letters, and where appropriate in our audit reports.
I request that you arrange for this letter to be tabled at the next meeting of the full Council.
Deputy Controller and Auditor-General
Cc K. Gurunathan, Mayor, Kāpiti Coast District Council
Community Board members urge rejection of this ill-considered proposal
Raumati Paraparaumu Community Board members Guy Burns and Bernie Randall are urging Councillors to reverse their decision to borrow $20 million dollars for investment purposes, reminding them they could be personally liable for any losses that may occur.
“The Auditor-General’s letter of 5th December reminds KCDC that it has the second highest level of debt per capita of all Councils. Further, Council should have formally documented their deliberation showing that expected financial returns are likely to outweigh the risks associated with such an investment, and provide clear public information about progressing the establishment of the funds. We are not aware of any such documentation occurring.
“The fact that the Councillors approved the scheme when they adopted the Long Term Plan is a matter of concern. Especially, when prominent citizens in Kapiti have expressed misgivings and describe the scheme as foolhardy and reckless: $13 million of the proposed borrowed 20 million dollars will go into the sharemarket alone. Indeed!
“Expert legal advice on the two investment funds states Councillors could be personally liable for any losses that may occur.
“We are also troubled that KCDC’s own Audit and Risk Committee has refused to discuss the investment funds. The Committee’s role is to provide assurance, monitoring and evaluation for Council; it should have provided an assessment of the risks to ratepayers regarding the investments.
“The plan to use borrowed money for investing, has been politely called by the Auditor-General; ‘unusual’. We find it highly unusual and unacceptable. The concept is flawed and has been met with disbelief by ratepayers. Using loans to invest is counter-intuitive to most Kiwis and goes against what ratepayers find acceptable.
“The Mayor’s current reversal of direction in not supporting the plan seems to put him against some of his Councillors who have been outspoken enthusiasts of the dubious scheme [notably Crs Cootes of Otaki, Michael Scott of Waikanae and Holborow of Paekakariki —Eds]. We hope they follow the Mayor and change their minds over the risky loans for investment proposal.”