by Salima Padamsy
On 27 June 2019, I and eight other people attended a full Council meeting to put forth our views on the agenda item, “Proposed Organisational Review of Council” and its accompanying staff report during public speaking time.
These speakers included prominent leaders in our community representing local interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Kapiti Economic Development Agency.
Public speaking time at Council meetings is the only forum for direct engagement with our elected officials that is placed “on the public record”. It is a valuable tool within our participatory democratic system allowing the public to hold Elected Members to account and ensuring transparency and true representation. It provides for public views to become part of the institutional memory of Council, forming a vital part of citizens democratic rights to contribute to their own governance.
Unfortunately, at this Council meeting, the Mayor unilaterally decided to reduce the allocated public speaker time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes per speaker, and instructed the Councillors not to ask any questions of the speakers. In other words, he ruled there would be no two-way dialogue on this matter.
Speakers were not prior informed of the speaking time reduction and Councillors were not briefed prior on the fact that they were to be barred from discussion with the speakers.
Not one Councillor opposed the Mayor’s unilateral decision on speaking time, nor challenged the Mayor in denying them any direct interaction with their funders, the ratepaying public.
Despite these actions, concerns remain about the organisational review.
First, what was the catalyst for the review to be undertaken now after three years of people urging it? What inspired Councillors to request that the CEO provide advice on a proposal to commission and independent organisational review now? Why not after the Auditor General’s letter stating that KCDC was the second most indebted Council per capita in New Zealand, for example? Understanding the context and catalyst for this review would go along way for the constituents of this district to understand the timing and thereby possibly allay any fears of political motivation.
As Dr Cathy Strong pointed out in her article in the Kapiti Independent News of 26 June, she felt the staff report on the organisational review gave a negative spin on steps to get an independent overview of how Council is run. What concerned Dr Strong and other readers of the staff report, was the apparent lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by those authoring the report. Such a palpable reluctance towards the review suggests the organisation may not welcome the process, and thereby embrace and implement the recommendations.
This review exercise will only be as good as the objective and professional ability of the reviewer and the scope of work prescribed in the Terms of Reference. KCDC must set criteria to ensure the reviewer has absolutely no conflict of interest with any staff and/or Councillors. The scrupulous selection of the reviewer will be the most important step in determining whether the time and money spent will provide a transparent and accountable process, and not merely a whitewash. We must ask whether the initial findings, and final recommendations, will be in the public domain and open to constructive inputs?
These concerns, and others were presented during public speaking time on 27 June. Minutes of that meeting are now published on the Council website. Not one of the points made by any of the speakers have been recorded on the public record. Only the names, and in some cases the organisation they represented, are noted in the meeting minutes.
For me, the message given to the public regarding this organisational review is clear: “We are not interested in what you have to say and neither will we share your views with the wider community”.
Also, of interest is that the Elected Members decided to schedule an extraordinary (i.e., not previously scheduled in the calendar for this triennium) Council meeting, to be held only 2 days before the upcoming local body elections! At that time, this existing Council will make further decisions about this critically important review project. The timing of their decision process suggests that the staff, not a newly elected Council, will be pretty much in charge of the organisational review.
This article is pure conjecture and not based on fact. There is no significant decision being made on 10 October. All that’s being done is implementing a process already set out and agreed on. We have checked this with LGNZ and there’s no problem. Surely if this was politically motivated current councillors would have been mentioning it during the campaign. The underlying reasons are clear in the publicly available Terms of Reference.
Hi Janet – as per my comment on the FB post, I think that is the point – you are locking in a chosen organisation to conduct this review (and approving a budget for that contract in the vicinity of $170.000) on behalf of a yet-to-be elected Council. And you are doing that 2 days before the election at a previously unscheduled meeting. Why not just let the newly elected Council take up these considerations given the importance of the matter as demonstrated by the large number of public speakers on the issue at the last Council meeting? As Salima mentions in her post, the output of the review will only be as good as the ToRs and the organisation chosen to do the review. It does seem to me that the newly elected Council should have some say in both these matters – as well as whether the budget of $170,000 is appropriate. As mentioned in the FB post, LGNZ have a CouncilMARK programme which achieves much the same output at a bit over 10% of the cost that Council has budgeted. The LGNZ programme is explained here: https://www.lgnz.co.nz/about-councilmark/
In other words, the LGNZ CouncilMARK review and report cost is less than $20,000 versus the Council’s budget of $170,000.
Nice to know your site is well read eh!
Meanwhile, sadly I have to say that I still fined no budding mayor yet able to attract my vote.
Perhaps a rabbit will pop out of the hat.
Surely the meeting is a farewell morning tea to the current council.
Being ego-trippers the existing councilors read us when there’s a mention of them in a post — we doubt they take much notice otherwise.
Apologies, should read like this.
As one of your potential new councillors who attended that June meeting I am powerless to change but really hoping that if I get in it is not already set in stone. I am not sure the current ToR is as far reaching as it should be
As one of your potential new councillors who attended that June meeting I am powerless to change, but really hoping that if I get in it is not already set in stone. I am not sure the current Terms of Reference are as far reaching as they should be
Salima Padamsey’s article is timely. She quite properly asks why do councillors who in their 3 years did nothing except allow the Waikanae library to become unusable, suddenly seek a review in the last weeks of their hold on power. She asked why it was not done when the auditor general pointed out the excessive debts levels? Action needed to be taken immediately to look at reducing costs.
Originally the CEO was asked to set the terms of reference. That is like having the rapist act as judge in his own trial.
My concern is that the review will be so wide ranging it will achieve little or nothing. Currently it is going to look at staff discontent. There is nothing with enough specificity to get meaningful advice on efficiencies within the bureaucracy etc. We need sharply directed and deep not broad and shallow.
I read that the budget is now $170,000. At candidate meetings up to $500,000 has been mentioned.In this regard cheap is not usually best. KCDC went cheap on their Coastal Hazard Report-$112,000. A thorough report would have cost $300,000 plus. The cheapie was nasty and cost millions in the end.
Surely the first objective is efficiencies to be achieved and reducing flab. Why do we have 5 press officers when 1 would do? Why 2 lawyers when KCDC spends $24m on outside consultants including lawyers.
Concern has been expressed about new councillors being left to carry on with an investigation they might not be wholly agree with. A new council can do what it likes if no contracts have been signed. Let us hope newly elected councillors have the guts to to stand up to the CEO and demand that they make policy decision, not the CEO. in the past 9 years councillors have been puppets except for Mike Cardiff. We don’t want more puppets on the CEO’s string!!
I find it kind of ironic that Salima has written this article after her cohort Christopher Ruthe attended at least 2 of the 4 recent public election meetings where I openly discussed the pending 10th October meeting and the review decision expected to be on the agenda, my opposition to the timing – as not best practice, and the concerning expected cost range. Surprisingly neither of them make any reference to my being perfectly transparent on this issue. Or the fact Salima, that I did try 3 times to bring a review to the council table after the 2014 Auditor Generals public concerns about council debt. How bout at least giving some credit where it is due………but then again it is election time, no surprises there.
Hi Jackie. I haven’t attended any candidate meetings, so was unaware of any points you may have made. Nor have I read any Council meeting minutes where you placed an organisational review on the agenda for consideration earlier. Perhaps you could refer me to a meeting date? I’m glad you share many of my concerns.
Christopher Ruthe did attend a number of meetings over the past few weeks after which I have been extensively quoted in your articles …………………………thanks. Happy that the message has been made public.