Monkeys see, monkeys didn't do

After a humourous but not entirely accurate listing of the dramatis personae in the film festival debate in comments to the last post, scriptwriter goes on to say: Summary - no film festival and no one really knows why it cant get funding and proceed especially as both sides (lawsmob and lawswatch) are saying they support it.

Ooo! Pick us! We do!

1. Mickey promised and didn't deliver (refer earlier post re acquired situational narcissism, one of the symptoms of which is that "speech becomes impressionistic and lacking in detail". Details like delivering on your promises).
2. Council couldn't even promise, let alone deliver - on some issues because it's so riven with internecine strife and diVision, on others because a fair percentage of them seem incapable of coming to grips with the issues, and often both, as it was in this case.
3. NZFC are a bunch of pseudo-intellectual twits who obviously think Wanganui is "too provincial" to give money to. How fortunate we are that NZ On Air thinks Mickey wearing a Wanga T-shirt on his scrawny chest while cavorting on "NZ's funniest fading celebs" is worth $800k of your taxes. Now that would have taken Marion et al a long way.

Now, let's take a closer look at points one and two. In a story headed Council likely to review funding of community organisations published in the Chron on 3 February 2005 (while the Film Festival was going through the application process) it was reported that:

Wanganui District Council is likely to immediately review its community contracts scheme, despite having already received applications for 2005-06.

The community committee yesterday recommended, at Mayor Michael Laws’ suggestion, that the funding, philosophy and operation of the scheme be immediately reviewed. It also recommended current applications be held in abeyance until the review is complete and contracts be made available after a total sum, as set out in the annual plan, was finalised. Council will consider the committee’s recommendations on February 21.

The contract scheme is council’s way of funding community organisations and in 2004-05 council entered into 78 contracts with a total value of $463,348. Applications for 2005-06 close on February 14 and some have already been returned...

As funding under the current system wasn’t available until the start of the 2005-06 financial year anyway, successful applicants wouldn’t be getting their money any later. If council did its job properly, no-one need be inconvenienced, he said.

Not all committee members were convinced by Mr Laws’ rationale and were split Vision: (Mr Laws, Crs Sue Pepperell, Murray Hughes and Marty Lindsay) and non-Vision (Crs Barbara Bullock and Sue Westwood).

Cr Bullock predicted a "real fiasco" and said changing mid-stream was inappropriate and unfair. Organisations wouldn’t have time to reassess their budgets, a comment that drew nodding from city missioner Shirley-Joy Barrow, who was in the public gallery.

Cr Westwood said as late as last Saturday council had advertised it was still going through with the contracts. "I do not and will not support at this table changing policy mid-stream, without due process having been gone through and following our responsibility."

Cr Dot McKinnon said while she agreed with some of Cr Westwood’s comments her concern was if no review took place now, council couldn’t make any changes to the scheme until 2006-07. "It just seems a long way away at the moment."

In November council resolved to continue the usual process for contracts and review it after this round of distribution.

Mr Laws told the Chronicle last night he thought council had made a mistake in November. At the time it was lurching from crisis to crisis, such as the annual plan not being audited in time and forestry returns not as expected.

"There was just this whole series of crises that blitzed the council in the first month." It had been easier to put the community contracts issue to one side.

So, to recap. In November Council decided to stick with the status quo and review the process before the next round of applications in 2006. So the 2005 process wasn't ill-considered, or even not-considered-at-all. It was a decision, and one on which a number of worthy organisations (including, it seems, the City Mission) relied upon in planning for the coming year.

Then, on a whim, it was changed less than two weeks before applications closed, because in the Diva's opinion the entire Council had "made a mistake" in reaching its earlier decision.

Unsurprisingly, the diVisioners played follow the Leader. Perhaps, as Dotty explained, they just couldn't wait to play with their new toy, even if it meant it got broken and the other kids couldn't use it. That isn't how you share out the toys at playtime, let alone run a city.

---

P.S. Morgs Hunter-Bell has copped some flak in comments recently, as has Marion Campbell - from opposite sides of the debate, it seems. Say whatever else you like about them, but Morgs and Marion both fronted up, answered questions and explained their actions. As we've said before, that beats the heck out of almost anyone else in Wanganui in a position of any responsibility, whether at Council, business or community level. If commenters insist on personally attacking people who are willing to be held accountable, then no one can blame them for not wanting to enter the debate.

Comments on this post are now closed.