Excuse me, your democracy is at half mast

"Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that your new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle."

- reputedly the longest sentence ever uttered by Sir Humphrey Appleby of "Yes, Minister" fame (as opposed to our own Sir Humphrey).

We've always found that the effectiveness of a committee tends to be inversely proportional to the number of people on it. But in local authority terms they're where a lot of the real work gets done, with full Council meetings being, of necessity, a rubber-stamping exercise. In commenting on the revelation of diVision's secret meetings, some commenters have said it doesn't matter, really, because:

If there WAS a party approach to council, then Vision would have ALL the chairmanships. I've checked the council website and Crs Wills, Dahya and McGregor have chairs and important ones.

...aren't non-vision councillors like McGregor & Dahya chairmen of committees? And Wills? And hasn't Pepperell been demoted to a deputy? Just asking.

Well, the Council's website obliges with a handy list of Standing Committees (Strategy, Finance & Administration, Infrastructure, Community Development and Economic Development), their membership and function. There are also Specialist Committees (Hearings, Harbour, Heritage, Maori, Youth and the Wanganui Rural Community Board).

Of the Standing Committees, all councillors are on Strategy and the others each have seven members, all with four (i.e. a majority) from Vision. Only infrastructure has a non-Vision chair in Don McGregor but still has a Vision majority.

When it comes to Specialist Committees, there are indeed other non-Vision chairs but there is a similar majority of Vision over non-Vision members.

As for Sue Pepperell's fate, yes she was demoted (nothing to do with her breaking ranks and apologising for the way the Diva got off the leash and savaged the arts community, we're sure) but in favour of another Vision councillor.

Now before commenters rush to say "well of course there is, because there are more Vision than non-Vision councillors, dummies" we acknowledge that. We're not advancing a conspiracy theory here. Although some independent talent was overlooked in favour of some questionably capable Vision people, given the numbers there was always going to be a Vision majority, and Vision chairs, on most committees.

But we are pointing out that in a Vision-dominated Council, on Vision-dominated committees, with Vision councillors chairing four out of five of the major committees and having a casting vote, the fact that independents chair a handful of minor committees and that one Vision councillor (who had the temerity to break ranks) was demoted in favour of a less capable but more easily controlled Vision councillor is hardly a bulwark against the erosion of democracy.

Comments on this post are now closed.