We're in a spin
So it seems Westgate have expressed a preference for dealing with the WDC over the port. Which of course they have every right to do. LawsWatch has never expressed an opinion one way or the other in terms of whom Westgate ought to talk to. We have, however, repeatedly sought transparency in the process. This is, after all, a public asset the operation of which has far-reaching economic effects throughout Wanganui and beyond.
Publishing selected quotes on the Council website isn't open government, it's spin.
Section 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act provides that information may be withheld only to:
(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons; orUndoubtedly some of the negotiations between the parties may reasonably be captured under S7(b)(ii), especially when things reach a greater level of detail than at present. But that doesn't justify the selective release of only that information which bolsters the Diva's personal standing.
(b) Protect information where the making available of the
information —(i) Would disclose a trade secret; or
(ii) Would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
How about a section on the Council's site devoted to the Port development, with pdf files of documents not captured under Section 7 and a list describing those documents that are considered commercially confidential?
It seems, however, that websites controlled by the Diva aren't about information - they're entirely about spin. The Vision Wanganui website, referred to by LawsWatch just a few weeks ago has disappeared. Visitors are now redirected to MayorMichael.co.nz - yes, a site devoted entirely to the Diva (with a few of Dotty's columns thrown in for good measure).
Visitors can "Listen to Me" find out "About me" and of course browse a gallery of photos of well... yes, him (assuming the five on the front page aren't enough for you). Gone is Vision Wanganui and their democracy policy, which fortunately is archived here, and which said:
"...communication between Council and citizens is poor. Too little accessible information is made available to Wanganui people... [we will] perform an immediate review of the Council’s communications policy with the aim of making it more relevant, immediate and informative [and] immediately improve the Council’s website and aim to develop one internet portal..."Then again, in DivaWorld spin is all that's relevant, so perhaps they're living up to their promises after all.
Perhaps the Mayors of other small cities may come to realise that personality is more important than substance. The Lord Mayor of some place called London is part way there. His homepage has a single photo of himself, but his name isn't even mentioned, let alone included in the web address. And there's far too much information about Council business and not nearly enough about Celebrity Treasure Island and other vital matters of state.
And some out-of-the-way place like New York, for instance, doesn't even have the nous to plaster the Mayor's face on his homepage. No wonder, when it's cluttered with irrelevancy like links to budget reports and something called an accountability document. Thankfully, Wanganui isn't distracted by such trivia. Not when we have the Diva's school photos to keep us entertained.
Comments on this post are now closed.
58 comments:
This is the point, really. Why is everything to do with our money being filtered through this "sound-bite" process? Why do we have to constantly apply the LGOIA to this stuff to find out what's happening in Wanganui? Well, you know why, and it's got sod all to do with open government.
Interesting remark about the "slowly sinking dump site" in a post about the port earlier? What's that about?
Dear LawsWatch
I'd like to know WHAT Matt is talking about because I've read nothing in my local newspaper about information obtained under the OIA by anybody! Not even the Chron. And if Matt has info obtained under the LGOIA in his possession, then please inform the rest of us poor peasants. This was always my problem with the Code of Conduct complaints. They became circular after awhile and excluded those of us who want to see the arts restored/rejuvenated in our lovely Whanganui to their rightful place.
There have been a number of stories stemming from from LGOIA requests: you may remember back in April Council actually initiated a policy to accompany all LGOIA releases with a press statement. I can remember stories about Larry Mitchell's fee, and the Film Festival off the top of my head.
Is Lawswatch being silly? Or been caught in a d-uh moment? Because the LGOIA doesn't apply in the Westgate letter case quoted on the council's website today. It's obvious Laws has publicly released the letter to the Chronicle and other media sites but is drawing attention to the preference issue, as he's entitled to do. He isn't withholding anything. In fact if council only passed the motion last Thursday & the reply letter has been posted on Tuesday ... that's pretty good going.
And unless a request has been received and denied, then Lawswatch is being silly again. We only knew of the letter's existence today (although presumably council had it a day or so earlier) so it's still 20 working days until they NEED to release it publicly and only after they get a written request.
But I'm not Lawswatch and I'm not talking about the Westgate letter. Should we wish to see the letter, as opposed to hear Michael selected quotes from it, we may well have to use the LGOIA here too.
When you think about it, there's always the possibility that pressure from posters here caused the spin to start up :)
...the LGOIA doesn't apply in the Westgate letter case quoted on the council's website today.
It doesn't? The Act even makes specific reference to "documents" that may even be an "article or thing from which sounds or visual images are capable of being reproduced". In short, the Act is all-encompassing of any information held by an LGA and it is up to that Authority to release or not release any "document" as the case may be.
It's obvious Laws has publicly released the letter to the Chronicle and other media sites
It is? Nothing on scoop.co.nz, stuff.co.nz, Google News... and of course nothing on the Chron website. (Yes, today's bumper rooster / cake / lost cat / ice cream flavour issue is out, but surely for a matter of public interest, they could fire up the web publisher?).
If there's a link to the entire letter on any site, do please let us know. We'll wait and see what the Chron has tomorrow.
And unless a request has been received and denied, then Lawswatch is being silly again.
No request has been made by LawsWatch under the Act. We did, however, ask Westgate CEO Roy Weaver on Friday to clarify his company's position to the public. We've reiterated that request today. If a copy of the letter is not forthcoming, we reserve the right to use the provisions of the Act to extract it.
We made the request without resorting immediately to the Act to see if anyone in this affair believes in behaving transparently and accountably with public assets and whilst (some are) in public office.
Accountability? Transparency? From these people?! You're right, anonymous - we're being very silly.
You're a b-l-o-g.
You have no legal status, so you can't make any legal request of anybody.
Doh.
Of course ... you could be a mental condition. Or a sprite. Or a virus. Or the 10th planet ...
Xena? Nice name for a planet except if it is on some eliptical orbit and minus 400 degrees F.
You'll just have to wait for tomorrow's Chron to see what the rest of the letter says, but be assured the Diva's selective quotes are just that: selective.
You're a b-l-o-g.
You have no legal status, so you can't make any legal request of anybody.
Do you also conduct conversations with your television set? Or have you woken up to the fact there are actually little people inside, making it work?
re the Westgate letter:
Yeah, the Diva didn't mention the bit that said Westgate had been approached by PoW and had listened to their ideas with interest but couldn't work with them unless the council indicated they should.
It figures.
This does nothing to vindicate the Diva's meddling or his desperate attempts to discredit PoW. It's just another episode in the sordid tale of Spin City.
"listened to their ideas with interest"
Isn't that a nice way of saying that we're too polite to tell you to fuck off, but we wish you would?
I haven't read anything except the council media release today, but if the 2 paragraphs are reported accurately then it is Mayor 1 POW zero.
But I've also read the earlier threads on Tuffy's past. Why should that surprise anyone?
Be as sarcastic as you like Laws Watch - the point is that blogs don't have legal identities & only legal identities (actually persons) can request information under the OISA or LGOIA. Read the act. If you can.
I'm interested in where Port of Wanganui Ltd go now. The bluewater concept is dead as I read it in my Chronicle. That left the inland port concept but Westgate have left them stranded, so to speak. That leaves the industrial concept and biomass electricity plant. Where is that at??
... and the Qs I've always been meaning to ask.
Is POW director Vivienne Chapman related to Code complainant Warwick Chapman and is Warwick Chapman fellow Code complainant William Pearce's brother? That's the council scuttlebutt anyway.
Scuttlebutt? Warwick and Bill have hardly kept their brotherhood a secret.
"Interesting remark about the "slowly sinking dump site" in a post about the port earlier? What's that about?"
You'll have to ask the Rent Boy about that. He's the one apparently trying to flog the dead dump to Westgate.
Anonymous said...
You'll just have to wait for tomorrow's Chron to see what the rest of the letter says, but be assured the Diva's selective quotes are just that: selective.
7:47 PM
So, assuming this post turns out to have substance, is Laws' selectively quoting article abuse of Council's website? Or will the spin be excused as "a member's personal opinion"?
And still we don't know why Laws and his associates care so much about who gets this contract.
This from the Chron.:
Whitlock resigns from port post
02.10.2004
Wanganui District Council chief executive Colin Whitlock has resigned as a director of Ocean Terminals Ltd.
Mr Whitlock said his appointment to Ocean Terminals’ board was on behalf of council while the company was the port lessee.
"As the company no longer fulfills that role, there is no requirement for me to remain on its board."
Since March 1 the port has been leased by River City Port Ltd.
Mr Whitlock said he had remained on the Ocean Terminals board after the assignment of the lease in case there were any matters relating to council on the finalisation of the lease.
Mr Whitlock’s directorship of both Ocean Terminals and River City Port, when the latter company was seeking to gain the port lease, is one of a raft of port-related matters that deep-water port proponent Port of Wanganui Ltd has asked the Auditor-General’s Office to investigate.
The office has obtained information from the council and is deciding whether to proceed with an investigation.
Hmmm. When's the A-G due to report? What about?
Flogging a dead dump? Who is this "Rent Boy" of whom you speak?
Back to the LGOIA requests: The only one I've got outstanding regards the Heart project. I just want to know how things are going.
Perhaps we'll see a public announcement about it in the meantime...
Anon said:
"This was always my problem with the Code of Conduct complaints. They became circular after awhile and excluded those of us who want to see the arts restored/rejuvenated in our lovely Whanganui to their rightful place."
Then I hope you've been lobbying hard for the reinstatement of the Sarjeant Gallery Trust Board. Jodie Dalgleish made the point that as the gallery's sole means of raising funds from outside, the SGTB has a vital role. Not only that, try getting donations when you haven't got a trust in place. Council simply didn't debate this issue at all. Their "debate" focussed on how to get their desired outcomes on the cheap (that's my spin & I'm sticking to it).
I think we should invest more money in the Gallery, and watch the benefits roll in. As they inevitably will, having arrived in every other place that's ever invested in the arts. More to the point, we should encourage the idea that we're investing in Wanganui across the board, so we leave it a better place for our children, instead of always focussing on how we can make it cheaper.
Yes, anonymous, just as the Chron may report "its" latest chicken scoop (chickens coop... geddit?) when in fact a humble reporter actually wrote it, so may LawsWatch despatch a minion to enquire on its behalf.
But the point, as Matt says, is why must we when the Diva came to power promising openness, accountability, and free lollipops for all? (okay, maybe not the lollipops...)
And that will remain the point. We can not only read the Act, we can read the Diva's attempts to deflect the issue onto whether a blog can make LGOIA requests. Who really cares? And of course the answer is, as Your Mother says, "yes, by getting someone to write a letter". Whew, with scrutiny that tough, we're really sweating. Not.
Spin faster, Michael, faster... feeling dizzy yet?
Anonymous said:
"It's obvious Laws has publicly released the letter to the Chronicle and other media sites."
So why isn't the letter on the council's site or the mayor's site?
And:
"You'll just have to wait for tomorrow's Chron to see what the rest of the letter says."
Sorry but isn't the Chron too busy writing fluffy bunny rabbit stories to bother with this sort of thing? Perhaps someone could get Mr Maslin to explain the new editorial policy.
What's it like being impotent Lawswatch? Don't you wish to could join the big boys & girls but ... doh, you're still a loser blog.
Maybe you'll meet that other loser Mitchell-Anyon down there.
Now, now, now!!! That is quite enough. If you two can't speak nicely to each other then don't speak at all. It will be smacked botties & NO supper.
Back to the point, shall we?
The port issue is the straw man argument. It was wrong of anti-Laws people (or proWhanganui people as I call you) to dismiss His Worship on the basis of thinking Tuffy and his hare-brained antics are worthy of defence. They are not, so let's move on quickly.
The REAL issue is as Matt alluded.
Where is Heart of Wanganui? And how can we make it work for the betterment of us all, despite His eminence grise in City Hall. PLEASE - this is the only issue that really matters.
Love
Aunty Amy
Not the only issue that really matters, Aunty. Just one of them.
Anon said (now he's got the dummy out again he's getting quite articulate)
"...Don't you wish to could join the big boys & girls but ..."
What, the big boys and girls up there so far above us how could we even imagine we'd come to your attention? Those big boys & girls? Do you get lightheaded from having your head so far up...in the clouds?
If Laws watch is all the way down there, I must be even lower. Cool, I get to hang out underground.
I'm not a journalist, so I'm prepared to be corrected, but I think Sean Hoskins has made a pretty good job of todays Port story. I also think a previous poster is correct: the ongoing PoW saga is only interesting as a study of Laws' desperate methods.
No, Sean has ruined the Chronicle's credibility by talking to that Tuffy Churton: everyone knows that Michael Laws is the only true source of information in Wanganui.
Mayor Michael Laws today said that the confirmation from Westgate (Port of Taranaki) that they would prefer to work with the Wanganui District Council...
The letter says nothing of the sort. It expresses no preference, and is couched in such a way that both sides can claim victory. Funny that.
Perhaps someone should complain to the Auditor generals office: surely publishing blatant falsehood on a publicly funded website is illegal somehow? Or perhaps it's "just Michael's opinion".
And it still begs the question: are ratepayers going to be asked to buy the straddle cranes, or will a new consortium emerge that have managed, somehow (with bribes maybe), to find favour with Council? When it does, will Council open itself up to legal action, or will it get its nose the fuck out of private business matters?
Perhaps Colin W could chair this new consortium (working title LawsPort) in his retirement - between book writing duties of course.
That would be perfect - Colin knows the issues, has worked on the Ports before, but most importantly, he's Michael's man. Normally, that wouldn't matter, but in a direct democracy, you do as you're goddamn well told, and Colin has proven himself capable at least of that.
I'm looking forward to the chapter in his book that talks about what happened to the $250k-odd port endowment cash under his watch at Ocean Terminals.
It was paid to Ocean Terminals, in return for which they did maintenance work or something, wasn't it?
Maybe, but I'd like to see the books showing just how much was spent directly on port maintenance, dredging etc.
But at the end of OT's reign, what did they have to show for it? I think Blaikie did his best to get the draft down to useful levels but he never had the political support to move the port forward.
Vision Wanganui Arts & Heritage policy:
1.5 Establish a mayoral office, funded directly through foregone mayoral salary, in a heritage building in the mainstreet area of Victoria Avenue – to lead from the front in promoting the use and upgrade of heritage buildings.
Now all Vision's "policy" has disappeared from the web, I'm so glad I made copies of the whole lot.
How is the mayoral office progress going? Michael sure must have a fair bit of cash squirreled away now from the salary he doesn't take.
1.3 Establish an Arts Centre in the Heritage Quarter area to provide a focus for the many talents of our city - including a meeting room, exhibition space, performance and rehearsal area. This will be a key project for Council over the next five years.
Putting the artists in their place? How's that initiative going?
"The immediate problem is that secretive and shadowy UK property developer C J Efstratiou has gained resource consents from the council" - ML Laws July 14 2003
On a slightly different tack, does anyone know why the Diva has gone deathly quiet on CJ's activities? Back when Michael was wannabe mayor CJ was up there with Tuffy and the Sarjeant on his A hit list. Then was talk about the "secretive and shadowy" CJ having secret and shadowy pow-wows with the new-elected secretive and shadowy ML.
So let's be having it Michael. Just what have you been and CJ been cooking up? Or is that getting too close to openness and transparency?
Be fair to Vision. They have 3 years and haven't even gone 12 months yet. I think they've achieved one heck of a lot in that time.
Name one thing they have "acheived". The "nil rates" policy isn't. They haven't built anything, they had a film festival cancelled due to their incompetence. So far as I can see the main output of this Council has been spin.
The "Friends" of the Sarjeant? Give me a break.
You can't list the referendumb either: we already knew what Wanganui wants: the Community Outcomes consultation process cost around $100k, and was completed in 2004.
Council officers are struggling with the bullshit attitude that they are there to tell people what they want, instead of listen and facilitate.
VISION:
“Vision Wanganui will foster youth participation and development. We will encourage constructive partnerships between young people and the community so that young people’s contributions are valued. In turn, the community will benefit from those contributions, ideas and energies”.
Which actually translates into giving Morgan Hunter Bell (who's getting on a bit for a "youth" isn't he?) $20,000 to set up a "Youth Council". Someone has yet to explain to me how this is going to further the aims of anyone but the young Tories.
"8. Regional Co-operation
Similarly Council will start discussions with our nearest territorial neighbours – South Taranaki, Ruapehu and Rangitikei district councils..."
So, with the benfit of hindsight, was describing the residents of Raetihi as genetically deficient a smart move? Especially now that we've welched on the river road deal?
Referenda, far from being a mechanism to further the interests of the whole community, are simply a vehicle to ensure Michael's popularity. Sad but true.
Anon said:
"Be fair to Vision."
Actually, fuck them. I hope that as a result of this misguided association with Laws, they lose their Council seats, their livelyhoods, their credibility and with any luck, their houses, too. Who do these people think they are, getting elected on a pack of divisive lies and then claiming to be "good for Wanganui." Fair? They're getting less than they deserve. I wish we could send them to Eastern Europe to see how far their bullshit would go where the people know how to treat politicians. Wouldn't you just love to see Higgie wringing her hands in front of an angry mob? That's only my opinion, though.
To Anon
Fortunately for the rest of the city your opinion counts for 1 vote. Its a funny little system called Democracy.
I would like to see you mouth off to those same Eastern European leaders (Which incidentally?) as it would be the last thing you do.
At least here you have the freedom to say what you think even if you do get called a single issue nutter.
Perhaps I was being a little bit extreme. I doubt the Georgians would put up with this stuff, though.
A few words about rage.
There is a simmering anger in the arts community about what has been done to the Sarjeant Gallery. The best analogy I can bring to this is perhaps the hostility evident between certain parts of our town over the Moutoa/Pakaitore debate. Others feel utterly incensed at the vandalism done to the Ballance statue. These issues with time have settled down to the extent that Ken Mair was invited to Chas Poynters farewell lunch. However, in order for that to happen several wrongs (real and imagined) had to be righted. The same is true in this case. The wanton destruction of the Sarjeant Gallery Trust Board was inexcusable, and will be a canker on Wanganui's "Heart" until it is reversed. There are good reasons why this should be so, all of which have been outlined, to complete silence from the people who are supposed to be most open, most ready to hear us: Council.
Are you suggesting if the old Trust Board publicly apologise for being too enthusiastic with the truth about the status of the Auckland $1 million contribution that Vision or the Mayor should apologise for being too enthusiastic about how it described the board? No?
I get the feeling you think the board is completely innocent and it was the evil mastermind who made it seem that way.
The Gallery board stuffed up and didnt have the decency to resign. At least this Mayor has proven that when he does cross the line (or in fact when one of his team did) he has the decency to take the blame and resign.
Are you seriusly suggesting that Dr. Robin Congreve would have been unable to make good his estimation?
The Board made it clear on several occasions that the Congreve cash was not on hand, but that they had every reason to believe it would be. It's all in the minutes. If you're going to attack Congreve's credibility like that I think you should at least give your reasons.
Show me the documents where the SGTB claimed otherwise.
And in any case, the SGTB did resign. And now it should be reinstated with credible members who will go out and carry on fundraising.
Yeah, you say the SGTB misled Wanganui? Prove it. Laws stated in the "First Hundred Days" that he had no idea how the erroneous interpretation came to be presented, having earlier blamed the Trust Board for it without a shred of evidence. Spin out of that one.
And they resigned because Laws' back-room bullying made their (voluntary) positions untenable, not because of the Auckland million.
Isn't it time for you culture vultures to accept that Cairncross & Milbank lied? And got caught?
Post a Comment