The lump under the rug
Given the Diva's recent attacks on the character of persons he perceives as opposing him LawsWatch cannot help but wonder what became of the second recommendation of the Audit & Administration Committee investigation into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.
Yes, there were two recommendations. The first was to recommend to the Council that the Diva hadn't breached the Code. That was well reported at the time and is trotted out at appropriate moments to justify most of his sprays.
But the second has vanished without a trace. LawsWatch, though, not only has the hide of an elephant but the memory of one too. For those less well endowed, here's the full text:
THAT it is also recommended by the Audit and Administration Committee that the Wanganui District Council proceeds with the review of the Code of Conduct as already resolved by the Council at its meeting held on 21 February 2005.Can there be a single Councillor who believes that the Diva's conduct over the past few days has brought glory upon Wanganui and counts as appropriate behaviour for an elected public servant? Yet with a toothless Code of Conduct - which Dotty's committee have decreed must always take second place to their rather liberal definition of "free speech" anyway - any action against the Diva has all the positive attraction, and likelihood of a similar outcome, of banging one's head against the proverbial brick wall.
The fact remains this was a formal recommendation to Council from one of it's committees which has been completely ignored. Council can of course resolve to reject a recommendation - though that would be very unusual - but that involves dealing with it in a formal process. In this case it would also mean formally revisiting one of it's own decisions and overturning it.
Instead, it seems to have been swept under the rug to join the unsightly pile of other things Councillors simply aren't allowed to think about.
A formal review might call for public submissions, so the people of Wanganui can tell their Council just what is, and what isn't, acceptable behaviour from their chief employee. It might even be chaired by an independent person, such as a retired judge or QC, to ensure that no one person could unduly influence the eventual recommendations.
Of course, none of these things can happen while this recommendation remains buried. Time to update the Order Paper, Dr Warburton.
P.S. Don't forget the buy-election poll is still open, and can be found below.
Comments on this post are now closed.
11 comments:
With respect to LW, that last comment in the last post was not what the Chronicle reported.
Carol Webb & Matt Dutton said - and this is the direct quote - that Rex Widerstrom is the Webmaster and they're disassociating themselves (I'm supposing because they've now been named and their photos being the paper).
Rex W said - as he said again - no, I'm just the tekkie guy who gave them start-up advice.
So how about a new poll:
Who do you believe?
a) Rex Widerstrom
b) Carol Webb & Matt Dutton
I'd plump for a).
You're entitled to your opinion, anonymous at 4.47 pm, but you've co-operated in providing us with a perfect example of the point we were making.
Subject of this post: What became of an important Council recommendation?
Subject of comment: Who's really behind LawsWatch.
Our riposte: Who the hell cares? You're being blinded by Mickey's smoke and mirrors, just like he intended you to be.
In response LW, I'm not being blinded [otherwise I wouldn't see the keys to type this :)]
It's just that there is no REASON for anonymity anymore and I am concerned that two leading Wanganui dissidents have been not entirely truthful with us peasants.
I guess I'm naive but political debate and contest should be between known entities. The whole anonymous thing did leave people to make comments that were all personal and not political.
The mayor is not an evil entity which seems to be the view of some. He does good things & bad things and the best credible attack on the latter is to be credible oneself. If I had to accuse this blog of anything, it is immaturity and that gave Laws the lift to get underneath and played the wronged card.
I've talked to quite a few people these last 72 hours and the issue is why some sex case in 2002 is relevant to Wanganui in 2006. It's ho-hum rather than outrage.
What has concerned some though is that Laws found out. There was another problem to with the RQ protest which also got found out by him. I'm not saying there's a Stasi in Wangas but he has sources that seem to rat. Just an observation: don't shoot me.
So the question of the missing CoC recommendation is resolved how I wonder?
Is this something a Cr. could raise at a Council Meeting?
Or would administration point it out
for agenda inclusion ?
I don't care who makes or reports on this blog, I just want it to keep going. It just might keep Laws on his toes, and it's now about freedom of speech.
Mr Dutton was always entirely open about what he contributed to this blog. He and Ms Webb were two of many people who contributed occasional bits and pieces, thougts, archived documents and so forth. Their self-imposed absence from that group is regrettable, but not terminal, and they're no more "responsible" for this blog than, say, a person at a protest march is "responsible" for the crowd. It just happens to suit the Mayor to paint Mr Dutton and Ms Webb as lone malcontents.
Much as it pains those of us for whom the word has hippy connotations, LW is a collective, and one whose composition tends to be changeable.
It's always been the ethos of this blog that we'd protect informants, and no one is obliged to paint a helpful target on their back to assist the Mayor to aim his spray. Anyone who doubted the validity of that policy need only look back over the past few days.
As for your comments about leakage (the informational sort, not the sprays) we tend to share your suspicions. But then again, baseless paranoia is one of the hallmarks of this blog ;-D
Is this something a Cr. could raise at a Council Meeting?
Or would administration point it out for agenda inclusion?
Correct x 2. Normal procedure is for Council staff to bring forward matters referred from Committees to the agenda of full Council. That is, however at the discretion of the presiding chairperson (usually the Mayor) of any given meeting.
It is also something that any Councillor is free to raise at any time. Given that some seem to have found their spines over the holidays, perhaps we can expect some action when meetings resume.
Dear LW,
I think we can all accept that the blog should protect its sources if they divulge information. That is not the ame as identifying the collective because - if I can use this previous example - it gives Laws the opportunity to identify others with impunity leaving them to do what? Publicly deny? For example, Emma Camden/David Murray are strong supporters of Carol & Matt and publicly identified as being anti-Laws.
The demise of SOS was regrettable because it provided a FACE and a very credible one. It was not the mayor that stopped that organisation, it was a lack of puff.
There is also another public impression abroad & that is that this blog is run from west Australia. That is not an impression that goes down well in an ethnocentric place like this!!
It worries me - as a supporter of this blog - that no candidate is taking the opportunity to place their spiel here.
What does that tell us?
The demise of SOS was regrettable because it provided a FACE and a very credible one. It was not the mayor that stopped that organisation, it was a lack of puff.
I've heard SOS is very much 'out there', just working in different ways. Also waiting for Nick's new 'Friends' to appear so they have a more positive outlet.
Anon Said
It worries me - as a supporter of this blog - that no candidate is taking the opportunity to place their spiel here.
What does that tell us?
****************************************************
I don't think you should read too much into that. The candidates who are standing up against the Vision Party are not the type of people who would use a blog anyway. They would rely on a more conservative method of campaigning.
Post a Comment