The council's briefs are showing
The Watchers try to make sense of yesterday's council meeting, for your edification:
OUR BELOVED LEADER will soon hang himself in the refurbished council chamber. Watchers reached for the airline bags when he confided that he won’t be waiting, as did his predecessors, to be kicked out of office to join the portrait pantheon but will soon be up on the walls, in black and white. Oh, and expect a queue to form any minute of "civic minded citizens" wanting to write cheques for a series of stained glass windows he wants to grace the chamber … no doubt confident he won’t then hock them off, along with the Sarjeant artworks, to help fund the Laws Memorial Memorial.
RON (RAZORGANG) JANES isn’t, it seems, content with getting his foot in the council door as chair of Wanganui Inc. He now wants to kick it down. A letter he sent to the council proposing a non-councillor replace GK Taylor on the Monster Inc board, thus reducing the council to a minority role in how up to $200,000 of council money is spent yearly, was buried in the confidential hole after Barbara Bullock called it degrading to councillors and the Diva labelled it free and frank. Apparently this move by Janes to further alienate the council from the city’s the economic development had the backing of Chamber of Comics president Warren Ruscoe. Wise heads and observers of Janes’ previous incarnations, including the District Health Board, warned about the dangers of letting him too near council business. Sue Westwood, Barbara Bullock, Randhir Dahya and Don McGregor raised the alarm, and the council decided to tread with caution and make any appointments to Wanganui Inc subject to their approval.
DEPUTY DOTTY might have been stranded by snow on the Mainland but Watchers were left in awe of the sleight-of-hand with which the Diva firstly passed on her wish to nuke the economic development committee she has chaired for the past year (because, see above, its functions have been usurped by the Janes Gang) then propose her as GK Taylor’s replacement as chair of the powerful strategy committee. Ray Stevens apparently had put his name forward, then withdrawn it, then changed his mind, but he was very much an also-ran. Barb Bullock wasn’t invited to the strategy party but she did get GK’s chair on what could well be the poisoned chalice of the splash centre working party. Of course the Diva himself will be there to make sure no one puts a flipper wrong.
THE DIVA suffered a defeat on whether the H-in-Whanganui issue should be decided by the white vote in Referendumb 2006. Sue Pepperell was joined by fellow diVisionary Marty Lindsay and all the independents (except pseudo-Ratepayers/Maori man Rangi Wills) in voting down the Diva’s move to get the box ticked in February. However, softer water, fluoridated water, the rural ward, and a cut to councillor numbers got through – the latter after a warning by Randhir Dahya that the gullible ratepayers could expect another Diva-led crusade with a simplistic message (in this case, cut councillors and save money) but would find it harder to find councillors they knew. It was also suggested, by Don McGregor, that fewer councillors would increase the workload for officers and another staff member might be needed.
YOOF MATTERS whizzed through, in the absence of any identifiable Yoofers, after Sue Pepperell presented a report calling for urgent action in setting up a youth committee as a separate, "political" entity to the WYC’D ones. WYC’D get to organise the "social" stuff and fundraise for it, while the 15 baby politicians, drawn from secondary schools and Ucol as well as "community youth representatives" "will work to affect change at a political level". Wonder what Morgs thinks of that?
HELEN CLARK had a rough weekend. After holding her breath throughout the vote count, she then had to put a clothes peg on her nose and deal with the Diva on Sunday night. The subject of his planned Great Art Sale came up and she took an even deeper breath and said she’d meet him in Wellington as soon as the little business of a workable coalition is sorted out, to discuss how the government might help with conservation funding for the Sarjeant collection. She’d probably rather have Winston as Treasurer than provide political capital for the anti-arts boy mayor, but that’s politics for you.
Update (4.10pm): Fascinating slip of the keyboard in comments on the last post: "On losers - Webb, Dutton, widow Turney & Camden. What do these 4 have in common? The only audience at today's council meeting. And now they write to each other on this blog. Hilarious." 9:47 PM, September 19, 2005We didn't even need to don our deerstalker and light our calabash pipe (a favourite disguise of Watchers) in order to deduce that the commenter therefore isn't a member of the public, but was at the meeting. That leaves... staff (unlikely, my dear Watson), councillors (possible) or... a lonely Diva, with nothing better to do at quarter to ten than sit at a glowing terminal, glowering at LawsWatch. But, my dear fellow(s), the final and most damning clue is, who else would see people taking an interest in civic affairs and exercising their democratic right to attend a meeting (something Council spends money advertising and encouraging) as losers? Take him away, Inspector Lestrade.
Comments on this post are now closed.
44 comments:
I thought Nicky Higgie wanted the H back in Whanga - so how come she didn't vote against it going on the referendumb along with Sue P and the other "thinking" councillors?
A copy of Ron Janes' letter would be fun :)
I wonder if Michael & Nicki will give Helen Clark the message that building work needs doing before there's any point conserving paintings.
It's doubtful whether Nicky is able to grasp a concept like, as Sue P has pointed out, a referendumb on an issue that is so important to Maori being tossed out to the population at large carries the obvious danger (especially in the diVisive political climate locally and nationally) of it becoming a racist football.
Nicky does want the H back in "Wanganui". She just doesn't understand how referenda simply favour populism over policy.
A couple of issues arising from today's Chronicle that perhaps someone could clarify.
Cr Bullock is reported as the new chair of strategy, not Cr McKinnon.
Stephen Palmer joins Ross Mitchell-Anyon in writing in support of the mayor's plan to sell work(s) to conserve the paintings. Both were previous members of the SGTB - a rift between them & the arts community?
A curious thing is the 'H' debate because the antis consisted of both those OPPOSING the idea and those SUPPORTING the idea. Which means those opposing the idea won, because the status quo remains.
Wanganui stays without an 'h'. Isn't that what the mayor wanted? And isn't that just a machiavellian way of ensuring that he just got his way. Dumb, people.
"Cr Bullock is reported as the new chair of strategy, not Cr McKinnon."
Sean got that one wrong. Bullock's name wasn't even mentioned as a contender, though she probably would have liked the job and would have been a good choice.
Giving it to Dotty was a stitched up deal. There's no way the Diva was going to give the most powerful committee chairmanship with its precious casting vote to anyone outside the nuclear diVision family.
The fact that the economic committee got the chop, and from now on there will be no transparency or public/media scrutiny of the council's economic development work is neither here nor there in Diva Land.
"Wanganui stays without an 'h'. Isn't that what the mayor wanted? And isn't that just a machiavellian way of ensuring that he just got his way. Dumb, people."
That's a pretty complicated thesis you're advancing there. Mickey proposed the H debate go to the referendumb in the first place. What's really dumb is that the arguments used by the no-voters can be advanced against referenda per se.
"Stephen Palmer joins Ross Mitchell-Anyon in writing in support of the mayor's plan to sell work(s) to conserve the paintings. Both were previous members of the SGTB..."
This shows the danger of allowing politicians to manage community assets.
Who else would you suggest other than democratically elected representatives of the community?
You?
...the danger being that they start proposing ill-considered political "solutions" to hard-basket problems.
Actually, I was going to propose you :)
Someone has to make such decisions and at least democratically elected reps are accountable and have a public mandate. There is no real alternative and that former councillors like Mitchell-Anyon and Palmer are agreeing with Laws might suggest that the idea (as Palmer states this morning) has both merit and broad popular support.
There was also a warning in Palmer's letter this morning and that was that blind opposition to the mayor is self-defeating. Carol and Matt should take note of that because many of their arguments are negated by their perceived hatred of this current mayor and administration.
"...their perceived hatred ..."
This
"perception" has been created and maintained by Lawsmob.
"There is no real alternative..."
Yes there is, as Nicki Higgie has averred.
"...and that former councillors like Mitchell-Anyon and Palmer are agreeing with Laws might suggest that the idea (as Palmer states this morning) has both merit and broad popular support."
Or it might suggest that they haven't really thought it through. The established ethics in this circumstance say that any works we are unable to care for should go to another gallery.
"Broad popular support". Yeah right. Hence all the people grossly offended by the suggestion, which, incidently, is akin to selling half the Splash Centre's gym equipment to upgrade the other half.
Palmer, Ross and Micket want to sell paintings: perhaps Mickey will soon join Palmer and Ross on the political scrap-heap.
The key message in Stephen Palmer's letter comes at the end, ie
.. as long as he intends to reinvest all proceeds into the care and development of the gallery and its collection and as long as he doesn't put off potential donors by an indiscriminate fire sale.
Palmer could have added,
and as long as he doesn't scare existing donors into taking back their works.
The trouble is, the horses have already bolted on the last two. Potential donors are nowhere to be seen and existing donors, like the Spurdle family representative quoted in Saturday's Dominion Post, are running scared. Likewise those who donated money for the extension.
As for the first caveat, that's stretching the credulity of anyone who has noticed Laws' months-long anti-Sarjeant, anti-arts crusade, and who has observed his pork-barrel promises for favoured projects.
Wake up Stephen, what might have seemed reasonable under a sane administration that had respect for Wanganui and its treasures, and the Sarjeant staff's professional standing and expertise, is simply a no-go area for this mayor and his lackeys.
Here's a question: if the Sarjeant staff are so "professional" then how come we need half a million dollars cash to repair works that have deteriorated under their "care"? The staff and the SGTB need to take responsibility for the fact that the collection is under threat - they have done a dreadful job. It doesnt surprise me at all that former Crs Palmer & Mitchell/Anyon are supporting the mayor's ideas because they seem equally culpable for letting the collection get into its current state. Bill Milbank's gong was for what exactly - running down the collection?
I'm hearing a whisper that Sue Pepperell went feral yesterday and garotted WYC'D while the other councillors let her. Any update?
Ron Janes makes a very valid point about GK Taylor's replacement on the Board of Wanganui Inc.
The perception of Wanganui Inc as simply being an arm of the WDC threatens to preclude potential sponsorship. Only 17% of the current funding of Enterprise Wanganui, for instance,is from the WDC. EW attracts funding from private sector sponsorship, government agencies, and others for the rest, and Ron is suggesting to Council that some of these funders are uncomfortable with a politically dominated agenda
Destination Wanganui is also concerned about the lack of Tourism expertise on the Wanganui Inc board, and this wont be provided by another Councillor appointment.
"if the Sarjeant staff are so "professional" then how come we need half a million dollars cash to repair works that have deteriorated under their "care"?"
Who do you think it is that's been trying to draw our attention to the problem for the last 15 years? The Gallery staff are not professional restorers. The problem, as noted ad nauseam in Council minutes, is that the building needs repair.
The Gallery staff have done such a fantastic job with such limited resources that Bill Milbank was awarded a QSO.
Are you jealous of that, anon, or do you just hate success?
Rob Vinsen's contribution shows that as with so many issues around this council, there various facets that need to be debated.
But surely one of the big questions that should concern all ratepayers and councillors is the lack of transparency of giving responsibility for such a big part of council business to an organisation that meets in secret and only tells the council what it chooses to tell it, via reports from its chairman?
The problems at the Sarjeant can be laid fairly and squarely at Council's door. It is Council that has failed to plan for conservation work. The biggest threat to the Sarjeant collection is Vision Wanganui and their blind ignorance.
The Sarjeant Gallery is a huge tourist drawcard and a vital part of New Zealand's heritage. Its staff rightfully take credit for that. Which other provincial gallery creates touring international exhibitions?
It's hard to see how this council could complain about that. After all, just about every agenda has a long list of business to be taken in secret and Laws has no qualms about suppressing stuff like Janes' letter.
When did we last see a debate about, say Cooks Gardens or River Queen funding reported?
Laws and the diVisionaries rode into office on promises of transparency etc but have since shown themselves to be a bunch of backroom dealers who stack bodies like Wanganui Inc with their mates.
Read your last entry - can't have been the Diva, it seems. Check out his latest column on his website.
www.michaelformayor.co.nz
A good attempt at sleuthing L/W but I penned that entry and you're right about getting the info from a councillor. Altho' it does confirm that LW IS the Code complainants & SOS remnants as we all knew and was publicly denied by you lot.
Baited breath, Morgs...
"...denied by you lot."
Now I'm confused, anon. First it was carolmatt, now there are more of them? Now they're "you lot"? How many Watchers are there, do you suppose? ;-)
Check out this link then think about the last time you saw the Diva telling porkies. (We may not see the body language when he's on this blog lying himself stupid, but the signature prose gives him away every time):
Tell Tale Signs that Somebody is Lying http://teenadvice.about.com/od/peerpressure/a/blliarliar2.htm
This one, for instance:
Anonymous said...
A good attempt at sleuthing L/W but I penned that entry and you're right about getting the info from a councillor.
you're hilarious.
Altho' it does confirm that LW IS the Code complainants
It confirms no such thing. The Code Complainants (or at least some of them) do inform LawsWatch from time to time. So do a lot of other people, some of them anonymously (at least we assume they can't have such silly names as appear on their emails). Rob Vinsen comes here, and signs his posts. So does Joan Street. We're about to publish a contribution from Morgs Hunter-Bell, for instance. Are they all "Watchers" as you define it? More to the point who cares? There are Laws Watchers everywhere. Get used to it, and try debating the issues rather than trying to distract from them.
Okay, so we spend another night watching the mad ravings of Michael Brian Laws while the issues around his administration and his life get debated in the pubs, coffee bars, shops etc.
He might think he can sabotage informed debate here but Wanganui's a big place and its residents aren't stupid. They're talking about you, Michael and they're not singing from the Diva song sheet.
Let's see now. Fundraising for some pretty stained glass windows is now on the Diva's agenda. Not to mention the swimming pool, of course. Does anyone think there is, realistically, any chance of this happening?
"Wanganui's a big place and its residents aren't stupid. They're talking about you, Michael "
But won't that sort of talk be an offence under the Good Neighbours bylaw or whatever it's called that Michael's going to push through?
Check out this link then think about the last time you saw the Diva telling porkies.
What a helpful link, anonymous. A search of the site also turned up this quiz, which we'd recommend every Councillor taking, preferably before and after every meeting at which the Diva is in attendance.
Wstruck me on election night was Laws' posturing to the great unwashed viewer to look at him as a possible political party consultant/advisor to ring in these troubled times.
He wasn't giving so much his opinion on the voting trends of the night but putting forward a case for employment in the next 18 months.
He did a great job on the night & most unbiased observors appreciate that. More important he was putting Wanganui on the map & you can't get better than TV3 and Tv1 at primetine when the whole of the nation is focused. He'll never please you lot but then he doesn't need to.
More important, anon - he doesn't WANT to.
That's right, he doesn't. Which makes him an entirely inappropriate choice to hold any sort of public office. Laws takes the election campaign bile with him into office, then uses office to make it worse. Notice how Helen Clark has talked about healing the divisions in this country. Michael exacerbates them deliberately to enhance his "popularity".
Some of the diVision Councillors appear to have noticed this.
I suppose that's why they vote with him on all the key issues! Plus Cr Wills of course.
Roll on the by-election :)
Dear LawsWatch,
On the by-election, what's our poll showing as to the preferred candidate?
Supposing an anti-Laws candidate is elected, that still gives him & his team (Rangi Wills included) the majority on council. It would move from 8-5 to 7-6 and even if one of them were absent then he still has the casting vote. I wouldn't be putting too much store in the by-election delivering a different vote or having any effect upon the way this current council operates.
You're assuming that diVision will always vote with Michael, and that is a heroic assumption.
Probably depends as much on the by-election result. If that implies dissatisfaction with Vision, some Crs. may think twice about their allegiances.
It's nice to see the Chron has reinstated the "What would you change about Wanganui" in that page two First Person feature. And guess what, there's another citizen saying she'd change (cue drumroll) ....
the mayor
Post a Comment