Credibility and accountability - going down for the 3rd time

We pays our taxes. We pays our rates. But when it comes to knowing what our employees down in Wellington or over on Guyton Street are up to, they conveniently forget who's boss. It's okay for them to know exactly where you are, but not for you to know exactly what they're up to.

Still, that hasn't stopped various anonymii asking some very astute questions:

• Councillors can only set policy: council officers then implement that policy. So what startling new policy will Council now reveal to sort the Port?
• I suppose that's why the mayor set up this new harbour committee and put Dahya and Bullock in there to sort it out. Looking at that committee tho' it includes I note the mayor, deputy and Graeme Taylor. Fairly high-powered, theyre planning something.
• It's funny, though, because, according to the LGA, they're supposed to listen to and implement the will of the District, not pull startling new policy out of the hat all the time.
• I don't understand the difference between what this Council and any previous Council have been landed with re the port. There has been very little tonnage thru the Port since the 60's. Chas Poynter always put up the case that by abolishing the Harbour Board and leasing it to OTL harbour rates ceased, and he's correct on that point. I very much doubt that Laws would have done it differently at the time. Just what is this alleged "incompetence" all about, nothing printed by the Chron explains it. I find the Laws spin of continually alleging incompetence in Chas's council, although predictable, is now past its use by date. They were even blamed for the forestry prices crashing. It's now time to actually do something, rather than just try to make himself look like a white knight coming to the rescue.
• Which begs the question: have all Councillors (esp. Harbour cttee) received copies of this report, or not? Has Michael "arranged to have copies couriered to them"? When do you suppose Vision will meet to discuss it?
• But Audit aren't that secretive so they must have given council a draft or something to respond to.

Indeed they have. But despite the Audit Office existing - in theory only, it seems - to protect the ordinary rate- and tax-payer, don't bother asking them for a copy of the report. Or "our letter" as they interestingly refer to it. They're not making copies public. Seems they are that secretive.

According to the Auditor General's own standards:

1.3 The Auditor-General has broad powers to investigate and report on matters arising from audits. The activities and performance of many public entities are of interest to a wide constituency and audit findings are often of a sensitive nature. (our emphasis)
1.4 The Appointed Auditor must communicate significant audit issues to the appropriate person or body within the entity. The Auditor-General will report audit findings to a wider audience where necessary. (our emphasis)

So it seems the Audit Office don't consider it "necessary" to inform Wanganui just what's happened to one of their most significant assets. As one of the anonymii neatly pins down above, nothing in the Chron details the alleged "incompetence" of previous Councils (though it seems probable they acted less than prudently, given the present mess). And as another points out, the present Council (blameless or not) can't simply head off on a tangent of its own making without letting the rest of us into their confidence.

So that leaves - as a starter - the following questions, deserving of an answer from someone, somewhere, who's in receipt of the public's coin. We wonder who'll be brave enough - and honest enough - to step forward:

1. What, precisely, constitutes the alleged incompetence of previous Councils in relation to the Port?
2. Has the loss to Wanganui of Councils' previous handling of the Port been quantified and, if so, in what amount?
3. Is the present Council specifically absolved of responsibility by the Audit Office?
4. The present Council clearly has at least an outline plan as to what it wants to do about the Port. What is that plan?

Comments on this post are now closed.