If only, perhaps...
So far, not a single candidate has opted to take advantage of the free, unedited publicity opportunity offered via the Buy-Election Blog. We hope it has nothing to do with the fact that the "price" of this opportunity is that readers get an opportunity to comment and question. Watchers will continue the policy of rejecting comments that are simply insulting, so candidates need not fear they're simply setting themselves up for a torrent of abuse. But they do need to be willing to engage, and their pledges and policies will remain beyond the buy-election, to be measured against their subsequent actions.
Perhaps most are still away on holiday - we're aware of at least a couple that are elsewhere, on long-planned-for trips with family. Which is, of course, precisely why GK Taylor's resignation and the subsequent buy-election were stage-managed by the Diva so as to occur at this time.
While minds are turned to sausages, vintages, and (occasionally) sunshine, it gives Watchers time to reflect somewhat more philosophically...
Here, for instance, are the reasons you can complain to the New Zealand Ombudsman about a Council (or indeed any other agency that comes under the Ombudsmen Act 1975):
...whether the act, omission, decision complained of:While it gives the Ombudsmen a reasonable degree of flexibility, that definition concentrates very much on breaches of law and due process. Contrast that with the UK, where a specific Local Government Ombudsman exists, and explicitly provides for a much broader range of matters about which citizens can complain:
(i) appears to have been contrary to law
(ii) was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory
(iii) was in accordance with a rule of law or a practice that is or may be unreasonable, unjust, oppressive of improperly discriminatory
(iv) was based on a mistake of law or fact; or
(v) was wrong.
An Ombudsman can also consider whether a discretionary power has been exercised for an improper purpose or on irrelevant grounds or after taking account of irrelevant considerations, or whether reasons should have been given for the decision or recommendation.
The Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO) investigate complaints of injustice arising from maladministration by local authorities.The law does not define maladministration but according to the LGO it means that "there has been a fault in the way the council has or has not done something". The LGO, in its leaflet, gives the following examples. It would be maladministration if a Council:(Our emphasis). We'll leave you to ponder what could be done about the state of governance in Wanganui if a similar law were enacted in New Zealand.The LGO however can only investigate a complaints if you can show that you have been caused 'injustice' as a result of maladministration. This could for example be:
- took too long to do something
- did not follow its own rules or the law
- broke its promises
- treated you unfairly
- gave you wrong information
- did not make a decision in the correct way.
- you did not get a service or benefit you were entitled to
- you suffered financial loss; or
- were caused distress or upset.
Comments on this post are now closed.
20 comments:
Interesting post from Joan Street in last thread about Mark Simmonds being most anti-Laws candidate. She is right because Simmonds (& Ruscoe) backed Martin which might explain why the Chamber of Commerce is so toothless these days. They make no noise on anything, they are a disgrace.
Simmonds partner Angela Paul stood in 2001 but despite a good campaign, she was not elected. She would still be the better of the two candidates. John Martin nominated Mark Simmonds this time and its a ballsy attempt by Simmonds because they have a large security contract with the council.
On the basis of the UK example, this council would not be quivering in its boots. It hasn't broken its promises (it promised to shaft the Sarjeant), it hasn't given out false info and it has made all its decisions democratically. You may not agree with what it's done but due process has been observed, LW!
Interesting post from anon about a council election without Vision. It would certainly have been a case of the bland leading the bland.
Just because someone is caused "distress or upset" is unlikely to get any UK type intervention. Sue Westwood would file a petition after every council mtg if that was the case.
Joan Street says Mark Simmonds which seems a real case of deception. Margaret Campion stood up for the Sarjeant extension when Simmonds (& Street) were nowhere.
Simmonds is a security officer, but Margaret is a people person.
Morgs asked:
Why any candidate would stand up with their person and their policy in full view only to be attacked by gutless no-names, I have no idea.
___________________________________
The reason people don't like using their names, Morgs, is precisely because of the abuse that has been directed at people from day one.
The "mayor" is at it again in the Chron. today, and the message is clear: get involved in debate, but how I say when I say, and I'll control the microphone if you don't mind. Let's take the charge of cowardice being levelled at myself among others. Is there a shred of evidence to support such a claim, or is it just a conveniently abusive term being applied with little thought other than intimidation? People will say that I have personalised the debate, and to some extent that's true, but it is Michael's behaviour that I have called out, not his person. I was warned before I got into this that "if you go up against Michael Laws, you can expect abuse, hate mail, nuisance phonecalls, the works", and that warning has proved accurate in every regard.
It's intimidation that is intended to neuter debate by silencing dissent, and it's working. Or not, as the case may be. Morgs, get down from your high horse for a mo. Calling it a buy-election is no more than an observation on the part of the Watchers, IMO.
I agree with Morgs. If you deride the by-election to elect a new civic leader as a "buy-election" then no-one will take this blog seriously. And how is it a "buy-election" given that there are 12 people willing to put their time, effort and money on the line? They deserve praise not ridicule. I'd still like to know why Rob Vinsen isn't standing.
joan street says
i agree that mgt campion SHOULD be the ideal candidate-but i feel that ml would have her for breakfast-these are not ordinary times-and so simmonds would have a louder voice and would battle with michael.today`s letter from ml sounds so convincing,doesn`t it-and he always gets his timing right!
I think Laws is losing his grip on reality, if he think the arts people are the only ones in town his managed to piss off, he's got a serious problem.
anonymous @ 8.03 pm said: [This Council] hasn't broken its promises... it hasn't given out false info and it has made all its decisions democratically.
To name but one: the promise of open government contained in the now-vanished "Democracy Policy". "False" information is a somewhat subjective term (on both sides of the debate) but the flood of Spin Fairy-authored press releases, faithfully reprodued verbatim in the RCP and sometimes even the Chron, come close. And how would we know whether decisions are being reached democratically when: a) Vision pre-ordains the outcome of votes at secret caucus meetings; b) a lot of material which ought to be accessible is taken in Public Excluded and Council resists LGOIMA requests; and c) a lot of business (and money) is being channelled through Wanganui Inc., a non-accountable body?
Morgs, we take your point. But our use of the term "Buy Election" refers to the bread and circuses being provided by the Mayor over this period (including one on polling day itself) to distract the populace from the real issues - and of course the timing of the election over the holiday season to begin with.
It's meant as no disrespect to the candidates, but to highlight yet another perversion of the democratic process by the Diva.
The candidates have been assured that:
1. Their posts about themselves and their policies will be unedied (other than for spelling and grammar if necessary).
2. Comments will be strictly moderated, more tightly than we do here since they're not elected yet, to ensure robust debate but no pointless abuse.
3. They will of course have commenting rights themselves (and we've offered to step them through the process you undertook to get a Blogger.com name so their comments are identifiable and no one can pretend to be them).
4. Where ertain issues arise in comments or in the news that warrant it, we'll write a new post introducing the topic and each candidate will be allowed equal space to put their views on it.
5. Watchers will not make comment (positive or derogatory) about candidates in posts on that blog. If necessary, we'll do that here. The idea being to keep the Buy-Election Blog as "clean", issues-focused and useful as possible.
Can't say fairer than that, now can you?
Can't say fairer than that, now can you?
1:24 PM, January 05, 2006
________________________________
LawsWatch, you didn't answer anon's criticisms which is that this council IS open. That it takes commercuial stuff in secret is normal for any council anywhere. They have also given Wanganui a chance to get directly involved in decision-making via their referenda. You might like what the outcomes were (including sending the Sarjeant to Siberia) but that's democracy for you.
How do you know it pre-ordains council decisions via secret meetings? It should implement its election policy so that's expected but what of the rest?
Yeah Pip - the same people that didn't like Laws last time and he still won. Simmonds or Campion? I'd go for Campion because she's not a blowhard but does quiet but effective work for the arts and the community. Apart from run his own business, what has Simmonds ever done for Wanganui?
You should set up a seperate blog for the by-election candidates. Just posting here would taint them.
Errr... yes, anonymous @ 1.34 pm. That's precisely what the Buy-Election blog is. Separate to this one, and run under slightly different rules, as outlined above.
A comment was made "I'd still like to know why Rob Vinsen isn't standing".
Thanks for the compliment. I seriously considered it after John Martin decided not to run. Prior to that I felt that a John Martin - Vision candidate matching would see John winning handsomely - but in a split vote Council elections are a lottery. My preference is to run once again for the Regional council as I have an interest in environmental protection and waste management. The recent utterings of Cr Leonie Brookhammer re "sandwichgate" encourage me to believe that I can overtake the small majority she enjoyed over me at the last election. I believe that Mark Simmonds is the man for the moment for the Council by-election.
Joan Street, I think you're wrong about Laws having Campion for breakfast. She knows the ropes, and she knows Mickey too.
You're missing my point, Morgs. People who might otherwise have been involved before the blog was even created have decided to stay away because, in one case and I quote "I'm not getting into a slanging match with Michael Laws."
Laws' approach to debate creates this environment.
Morgs Hunter asks: but then when you get rid of all the angry people, who's left to be reading the site? Is the audience enough to warrant the time spent on posting an e-campaign?
We won't get rid of the angry people, Morgs, just enforce slightly stricter rules of politeness so the candidates don't get scared off.
As for the audience numbers, well that would remain to be seen. But surely the candidates are being asked to write these profile pieces for the weekly newspapers and maybe the Chron? All they need do is send us a copy.
An eror in the link contained within a comment we posted at 2.17 necessitates a corrected re-post since we can't edit comments (even our own):
anonymous @ 1.31 pm asks: How do you know it pre-ordains council decisions via secret meetings?
Because the Diva told us so, albeit he wasn't intending to.
It should implement its election policy so that's expected but what of the rest?
Firstly, it's how it's implementing that policy that concerns us. Referenda only work if the populace is first thoroughly educated as to the choices placed before them, including costs. How many who voted for the Splash Centre would have done so knowing they were voting for $2.6 million in borrowing, for instance? Secondly, "the rest" should be conducted in the open, with room made for genuine debate (and yes, dissent) and without the critics being attacked as "naysayers" and "malcontents".
2:17 PM, January 05, 2006
Post a Comment