(Not) having a ball
At the behest of a Watcher we'll endeavour to shed some light on the shadowy depths behind the story on council officers receiving a rap over the knuckles for supposedly exceeding their authority and making a submission on public libraries that hadn't been approved by Councillors.
Sally Patrick, the librarian, is both devoted to her profession and very good at it and the library, as she often says, punches well above its weight (yes, Dotty!).
She's generally thought to have been a Diva devotee and she is very ambitious for the library and particularly supportive of what she thinks the Heart of the City will deliver. Someone, in other words, a sensible administration would be keen to work alongside and develop.
She got her book buying budget slashed by $50,000 in the annual plan but the Diva airly added that library to the growing list of fundraising commitments, promising he'd head up a fundraising group. He's since said they're going to have a masked ball (presumably right after a Vision secret caucus so they don't need to change).
So here's what caused the latest tantrum. At last week's Community Committee meeting there was an item about the Librarians Institute developing a strategic framework for public libraries to help make their case for government funding. Sally, incidentally, is on the working party to develop the framework, which called for submissions from councils.
Submissions closed September 30 and Sally, with Ian McGowan and Nicki Higgie, put together a two page submission with some fairly amorphous stuff about generally supporting the "vision" of the consultation document, while reserving the right to do its own thing to meet specific needs of the Wanganui etcetera.
The agenda item, in the name of Ian McGowan (who wasn't at the meeting) says:
Submissions on the document closed on 30 September 2005. A number of the council's elected members and officers have prepared a submission on behalf of the council which has been forwarded to the authors of the consultation document with the proviso that the submission has not yet been formally endorsed by the council.So no commitments made on behalf of Council, a very general two page submission (prepared by a member of the working party carrying out the study, another senior officer and a Councillor) and a clear statement saying it was not policy.
... The council now needs to endorse and / or amend the submission
Cue Diva histrionics: "You're now seeking from this committee retrospective approval for making a submission on behalf of the council? The reality is we do not set retrospective policy. We can't endorse this today".
Nicki: "But it was done on the proviso that the submission has not been endorsed by the council."
Then: "It's not as bad as it may look."
Sally (who's desperate to get off to a 6pm meeting by now, smiling sweetly (or was that gritting her teeth?)): "We look foward to your valuable input."
Sue Westwood: "A letter now needs to be written to the working party saying we want time to resubmit."
It could be that Cr Westwood stood fiercely behind the Diva, as some commenters have spun to Watchers. But it sounds to us more like an attempt to side-step a lengthy bout of posturing by the Diva over something that, in the scheme of things, mattered not one whit (sorry, Sally) and move on to more pressing matters.
Comments on this post are now closed.
32 comments:
Oh Helen
Old Chinese proverb say prime minister who lies down with dogs gets fleas ..
Hope she's got lots of calamine lotion handy.
So that's why Nicki Higgie is scratching herself so much!
Yet again, Laws watch has it wrong and Sue Westwood/the mayor/the council has got it right.
They said that it isn't possible to RETROSPECTIVELY validate an official council position, when the council has had no input and they reminded (Westwood & Laws) the meeting of Munneke who varied the Castlecliff Beach consents unilaterally & without councillor's imput or confirmation.
You can say what you like Carol - I'd prefer to have people I elected in charge & not council employees who are publicly unaccountable. Maybe that way we would have avoided the ruinous rampage of one Dave Foster.
I'd like to know why if Cr Westwood is considered such an opponent of Laws and regarded as one of this blog's champions, that she too backed the mayor on this?
Maybe because he was right?
Michael Laws ("retreat address"):Councillors taking indiv. responsibility for issues/areas
Michaewl Laws(LawsWatch blog re library submission) "...when the council has had no input"
So why, Michael, did the McGowan report say elected representatives had been involved in preparing the submission, one of whom presumably was none other than Councillor Higgie, to whom you gave the chairmanship of the committee that has responsibility for the library?
I'm not Michael Laws - I just READ council agendas and Chronicle newspaper reports and if I can see the problem (a council officer making a submisson on behalf of the WDC that hasn't been signed off by the WDC) then no wonder the mayor, Westwood and the entire committee saw something amiss.
I'll explain this s-l-o-w-l-y so the dimwit anon gets it ...
The committee structure of local govt debates POLICY. It is then ratified or rejected by the full Council. This library paper didn't go through either the committee or council but was, according to the agenda, sent as representing WDC. \Got it now??
And how do I know about the late and not lamented Mr Munneke?- because we in Castlecliff have had to put up with him being in cahoots with everyone except the residents.
You still havent answered the basic Q, LW. How come all of council supported the mayor including his so-called council opponents.
Can anyone tell us what was in that Library report? Can it be posted so that we can all assess its contents - we're a bit blind out here at the moment.
Does anybody, apart from the mayor, think it’s acceptable for the chairman of the board to be publicly slagging off his senior managers.
As a shareholder in the organisation that Laws chairs, I find it disgusting and dangerous.
That's the real issue here, isn't it?
How come all of council supported the mayor including his so-called council opponents.
We've answered it in the lat paragraph. Because it's a piffling two page report on a topic of no importance and, as Kenny Rogers reminds us, you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.
...think it’s acceptable for the chairman of the board to be publicly slagging off his senior managers... That's the real issue here, isn't it?
Yep. We could care less about some submission to Wellington that doesn't affect the way Wanga's library is run. The issue is whether the submission could and should have been dealt with by saying "righto, we'll have a look at it and if it needs amending we'll do so" or throwing a hissy fit, duly reported - as nothing else seems to be - in the Chron.
Nothing reported to date suggests the submission set any policy at all (which we agree is the prerogative of elected representatives). It merely voiced lukewarm support for something discussed in Wellington and reserved the right for Wanganui to make decisions in its own best interests.
Exactly! Council officers doing the job they're trusted and paid to do but Mickey shoots from the mouth first. On the other hand he could be right...those pesky librarians, half of them are Trotskyites and the other half are nymphomaniacs...better keep a really close watch on them, eh Michael?
You still havent answered the basic Q, LW. How come all of council supported the mayor including his so-called council opponents.
I'm not Lawswatch but I'll have a go: the motion eventually carried was some piece of pointless flammery that changed nothing, decided nothing and meant nothing. Support or not was irrelevant to the practical outcome. It was all intended solely for a press release to the Chron. and nothing more. In fact I bet you're bored of it already Michael.
None of this deals with the real issue which is why WDC officers prepared a report ON BEHALF OF THE WDC without it being discussed or debated by a council committee and signed off by a full Cuncil meeting. The objectors here are very abusive but the mayor & Westwood seem to have got the process right. Also Laws - if you read the Chron report - didn't slag off his council officers. Read what he actually aid (it's the bit in quotes). He's not responsible (not yet anyway) for what the Chronicle sub-editors do and haven't we all complained about them already on this blog?
I read an earlier thread that suggested theres an element of Pavlov's dogs to this blog, and there was some truth to that.
The mayor does nothing so - it must be wrong. That isnt very smart LW.
The only direct quotes of the mayor with regard to the 'Cpuncil Officers Reined In' story -
1. “The point is that council sets policy, not council officers,” Mr Laws said.
2. “If the beach was a woman, they wouldn’t want its legs shaved.”
Thanks for pointing me to that, anon. It doesn't justify LawsWatch's hysteria at all.
"Council sets policy"
for libraries? I sincerely hope they don't let local body politicians anywhere near setting policy for libraries beyond how much gets spent. Your desperate need for attention is showing Michael.
You're an idiot. Of course Council sets policies for institutions and amenities owned by ratepayers - libraries, art galleries (horrors!), civic halls, sports grounds.
If this argument/response is the nonsense Laws & his lot are trying to stop then all power to them, altho' they obviously don't need my help. They have all their opposition foaming impotently inside here.
No, you're an idiot. How long do you think public libraries will survive if we change the policy they operate under every three years? The reality is that we employ Council officers to do a job. They were doing it until Mickey interfered. Now Wanganui might have no input into the "Librarians Institute developing a strategic framework for public libraries to help make their case for government funding."
Perhaps Mickey could have offered to help them out of his salary.
There's a tug of war going on here between the proposition that people should be allowed to get on and do their jobs without interference, and Laws' need to scrutinise and interfere with every function of Council. This is why our education system went from being top in the world to 20th or so: politicians just can't leave things alone. If it ain't broke, pass me a screwdriver. As Laws himself has said, they are the ultimate nosy bastards.
We can only hope that Michael gets done with his tinkering before we need a serious repair job. As so many of our amenities do.
More stpudity from those who can't understand the concepts of governance and accountability.
Civil servants - whether national or local - operate within a system that ensures that their broad policy is set by the elective body that governs them and then are let to work out the detail agst that broad policy. When they require some kind of steer from their governance body (and that much appears obvious from the fact the library required permission from council in this instance) then the governance body has not just a right but a duty to scrutinise actions made on their behalf.
More people in this blog need to understand the difference between governance and management, which means governors set policy and managers carry it out.
We can only hope that Michael gets done with his tinkering before we need a serious repair job. As so many of our amenities do.
6:25 AM, October 18, 2005
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It was the last council that ran down all the amenities so how can this council can be held responsible? The WDC has no money and don't you read their accounts or the independent reports the WDC commission on their finances? If they can solve the high rates, high debt, shit amenities triangle then they'll be miracle workers not local body politicians.
we can blame them if they do nothing about it, and instead mount a series of demoralising attacks upon the people whose job it is to prevent such decay.
An example? Laws attacked the Sarjeant on the radio the other day, saying it's "their" fault the collection requires restoration. Then he admitted that his council intends to spend nothing on restoration, which has been the problem all along - it's just been shoved in the too hard basket. Now, instead of harnessing his energies to help fix it, Michael seems far more interested in making trouble, and a name for himself.
"operate within a system that ensures that their broad policy is set by the elective body that governs them and then are let to work out the detail agst that broad policy"
So in the context of the library, the working party, which included a councillor, within the broad policy that governs them, had written some things down, clearly marked as requiring ratification, and sent them off to help the national association develop strategy for funding applications. This is within your definition of "working out the detail within that broad policy". Furthermore, a Vision councillor, Nicki Higgie, at Laws' own behest, had taken this ball and run with it. Now she's incompetent? Either way you look at it it's an own goal for Vision.
It was a real kick in the guts for Nicky. She's been working so hard, trying to do all the things Michael says, fundraising for this, meetings for that, Friends of the Sarjeant (setting up, according to ML, a new governance body for the Gallery), Friends of the Libray (a fundraising group only), and generally getting on with the job. "We're going to break all the rules" yelled Michael when he started in the job, but clearly that doesn't apply to anyone other than Michael himself.
You keep missing the point: even a working party requires council assent before it sends stuff in the name of WDC. According to the Chron report, this one didn't.
It's interesting how Laws Mob is so fond of citing any vote (or even the fact that she has been photographed with a glass of wine in her hand) by Sue Westwood that doesn't oppose Laws as justification for their position.
Cr Westwood is a bit like Helen Clark who found herself putting a closepeg on her nose and dealing with Laws mate Winston.
Westwood has Wanganui's best interests as her bottom line, unlike the Vision lot, and more than once has intervened to shut down Diva-style tantrums and "move forward". She knows as well as anyone how counterproductive, not to say embarrassing it is for meetings to be hijacked, and committee chairs to be undermined, by Laws' tantrums.
All she said was that a letter should be sent to the librarians association saying the council would be revisiting the submission... and that was after it became clear that as usual the Diva was going to get his own way, anyway.
I didn't read that in my chronicle, anon. What's your source?
Oh, I'm just a watcher, dearie. One of the many.
If we all relied on the Chron we'd really be up shit creek.
You keep missing the point: even a working party requires council assent before it sends stuff in the name of WDC. According to the Chron report, this one didn't.
So did Michael get Council assent to put his column on the local govt. website, complete with WDC crest, then? Doubt it.
He even sent them his speech notes for the retreat. Under the WDC crest.
http://www.localgovt.co.nz/
So, given that Mickey is now presenting his speech notes as being representative of Council's opinion, and emphasising it by using the coat of arms, will you now be attacking him for "sending stuff in the name of WDC"?
You dimwit - have a look at the website and you'll see the personal views of all councillors are communicated. Thet aren't representing those as WDC policy and neither was the mayor. He was saying this is my personal viewpoint and that much is evident from his speech notes.
You dimwit have another look at the URL I gave you. Hint: it isn't the WDC website. So far only Mickey's columns and press-releases have appeared there.
"At last week's Community Committee meeting there was an item about the Librarians Institute developing a strategic framework for public libraries to help make their case for government funding. Sally, incidentally, is on the working party to develop the framework,"
Sally had better watch out - sounds as though she might have to be spending a lot of time with the Diva, explaining the minute details of library administration to him so that he can be sure she's pushed the correct line on the working party. I think this item should go on the next referendumb, in fact. It's only democratic that everyone should have a say in how things are done in libraries.
Post a Comment