Bad news bares all

Watchers thinking of attending tomorrow's Strategy Committee meeting had best take along hearing aids, ear trumpets and perhaps request the Council flash subtitles on a TV monitor because it'll be very difficult to hear, such will be the deafening flapping of pigeons coming home to roost.

Before we get to the meaty parts of the agenda (or the gristly bits, from Michael Laws' perspective) it's worth noting that the document highlights the functional illiteracy of one of Mickey's hand-picked flunkies, Senior Policy Advisor Stu Hylton.

Not only is there reference to "the amount of 'events'" but also this little gem: "The council’s officers who are currently trying the 'reign back' the types and frequency of events"...

Isn’t it cute, the way he puts quotes around his grammatical clangers? We wonder if he puts in hours colouring in title pages for the original reports, like some Watchers used to do in the hope that their teacher wouldn't notice the fact they couldn't spell. Or form a coherent recommendation. But then we went on to graduate from primary school...

Anyway, aside from lamenting just how hard it is to find good help nowadays, Mickey must be fuming at the performance of those other hand-picked lackeys, WINC.

Right there in what should be an innocuous introduction, Chairman Ron Janes drops a clanger:

This report will discuss the activities of Wanganui Inc (WINC) for the 17 weeks since my last report to the Strategy Committee dated 3 November 2006…

Seventeen weeks?! At the time of WINC’s "birth" concerns from Councillor Westwood et al that it would lack accountability were met with an assurance that it was perfectly accountable because it would report six weekly. And my what a lot of dirty smelly water has stagnated under the bridge in the last 17 weeks.

Of course the "discussion" isn't meant to include the mugs in the public gallery who actually pay for the Michael Laws Memorial Events Orgy. The proposal is to kick the public out at the end of the meeting but to let Ron stay to discuss "Wanganui Inc structure: Staff and commercial matters" which no doubt is about Mickey deciding to yank his bastard offspring back into the Vision family.

The remainder of the report is riddled with some quotes from Razor Gang Ron which we'll bet won't see the light of day in the Chronic (unless Mickey decides to turn on WINC and blame them for his shortcomings, in which case of course they will be published, well marinated in Guyton Street Spin Potion):

WINC continues working with a low year-end profit expectation but stable cashflow. The year-end predicted profit/loss is $5,000 profit versus a budget of $20,000 profit.

WINC has met with a number of the top 30 companies in Wanganui … feedback from companies has included: ...A view that events are getting all the attention and local business growth is being overlooked.

Yikes Ron, that sounds spookily like what John Martin said when he launched his campaign. Positioning to keep your nose in the trough under a new administration, are we?

But the comedy of errors doesn't end there Watchers. Ron goes on to say:

Branding: A successful launch of the new ... branding ... comment has been very positive and the brand family provides excellent leverage for Wanganui.

Of course the fact is, this is a joke. There have been numerous letters to the Chronic saying it’s dated, boring, stupid etc., and much derision around town, including from visitors. And most notably from mad Rana Waitai, who thought he was leaping in to help Mickey attack the tourism MRI but muddled it up with WINC's Mickey-inspired "branding" and called it a "wet dish cloth".

But wait, as the best snake oil salesmen say (and Razor Ron has sold his fair share of that particular ungent in his time), there's more:

BOXING DAY CONCERT:

Income $123,069; expenditure $220,321; loss $97,251... Facility costs – less due to some efficiency gains and a favourable rate from Cooks.

Yep, $97,251 of ratepayers' cash down the failing sewer and that's despite Mickey’s other tame lackeys at Cooks Gardens giving them mate’s rates so the venue cost came in at $16,640.89 versus a budgeted $25,000. If it wasn't for that, losses from that one event would have topped the $105,000 mark.

They even managed to drop a set of speakers during set-up which "likely will be covered by the crane’s insurer". And on it goes:

Security – $18,113 cf budget $10,000 – More due to WINC initially assessing we could make efficiencies with this but subsequently deciding in conjunction with the police and facility management that robust and quality security was important.

Attendance/sales: 2100 paying attendees, plus corporate box holders at approximately 200, and comps of 200.

So the ratepayer subsidy for each paying person was $46.31.

And it looks like Antoinette Beck was called in to survey the bikers at the cemetery circuit (what can she have been up to?!):

There was a 93% awareness of the concert at Bikes. Of those at the Bikes 28% 'needed to get home or were tired'. 14% thought 'it was too expensive'. 7% said 'the performers didn’t appeal'.

So what did Antoinette do with the other 51 percent we ask, and did it have anything to do with all those hay bales?

Never fear though, Watchers. This wasn't an example of yet more gross wastage of public money in the name of Making Michael Laws Look Good. Because we can all benefit from what Antoinnete calls "learnings". (We presume this is something she learned from Borat (renowned author of "Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan") during the time Mickey sent her into exile.

The learning from this includes:

• An international act should be sought if cost structured in this manner.
• A lack of exclusivity likely had a negative impact.
• The Bike racing does not necessarily bring a crowd that attends a concert and accommodation is already stretched.

Gee, who'd have thunk it. But now we've spent all that money on proving what good common sense ought to have told us in the first place, the bad news for Mickey must surely be over, right?

Wrong.

A year ago there was a ludicrous spin job done on the BERL report on Wanganui’s economic performance wherein the Chron helpfully confused absolute and relative rankings, to the benefit of Mickey of course.

The Wanganui district economy has come third on the BERL (Business and Economic Research Limited) local authority rankings in 2005, skyrocketing from just 56th place the previous year... Mayor Michael Laws said the result was a stunning achievement for the district.

Now BERL (in the person of Jiani Wu and Dr Ganesh Nana) are delivering the unvarnished bad news. And even John Quisling... sorry, Maslin and Kirsty Macnicol won't be able to spin this as something it's not, though we're sure they'll try:

Executive summary

All Key Performance Indicators except business units growth, had negative growth in 2006. It includes resident population growth, real value added growth, GDP per capita growth, employment growth, productivity growth and business size growth.

GDP decreased by 3.2 percent compared to a 2.2 percent increase nationally and employment growth, at -0.1 percent compared to a 2.2 percent increase nationally... These outcomes resulted in the decrease of GDP per capita at the rate of 3.2 percent. Productivity growth, at -3.9 percent, was still worse below the national decline of 1.0 percent.

Absolute rankings

Overall rank 2005: 28; 2006: 57. All indicators are down (Ed: they even use a filled-in black downward pointing arrow, just so the Chron don't try to substitute another phrase like, say, "up") except for resident population growth.

Nero had his fiddle... Mickey has his cha cha.

Meanwhile, the proposed Gang Bill has been mugged again, this time by the editorial writers in Mickey's old stamping ground. Hawkes Bay Today (sister paper of the Chron) asks:

...more importantly what practical benefit will it bring? The "patch" is a manifestation of tribal, gang behaviour. It's not the other way around. It will be simple enough to circumvent such a ban using other common symbols, from hairstyles to body piercing and tattoos. And if they are to be banned, who is to choose what skin adornments or haircuts are acceptable?

It would be tempting to put any such law to a simple, if expensive, test: If Mongrel Mob members were identified by their Gucci loafers (as members of Britain's hoodlum "Chav" subculture are by their beige-checked Burberry caps) then luxury designer footwear would have to be barred from treading inner-city streets.

Such a ban is little more than a gesture. It satisfies the need to be seen to be doing something but is unlikely to curb boorish and criminal behaviour, which ought to be the real targets

A gesture? Ah yes, of course. That's one of the few things Mickey's good at.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Will gas cause rude noises?

A Watcher writes to remind us of a Wanganui Chronicle article published over a year ago (28 July 2005 to be exact) titled, "No sneaky sale of gas utility, Laws promises".

In particular, our correspondent quotes the passages which say "Mr Laws said council had to find a way to deal with ballooning debt... Council had debts of around $25 million, which were projected to increase to $55 million by 2008-09..." and has Mickey saying "'That debt is largely a consequence of the new sewage treatment facilities and the wastewater separation project.'"

True enough. But then, as this Watcher so accurately, if rhetorically, enquires: "Based on this fact, how on earth can this 'Heart of Wanganui' project be pulled off? This is not good governance, and by no means financially [in] the best interest of Wanganui". Indeed.

Even if one unequivocally accepts that the proposals contained within the Heart of Wanganui plan are good for the city (and we're not, at this stage, saying they don't have the potential to be) it's still legitimate to ask, as our correspondent has, whether or not they are affordable for a city already faced with "ballooning debt".

So let'sadd a question of our own: Faced with the unavoidable debt mountain created by necessities such as sewers and wastewater, and trying to find a way to fund the grandiose schemes of its Fuhrer Mayor, how tempted will Council be to ask itself, even rhetorically, how much it might get if Wanganui Gas were put on the block?

Despite the Mayor's attack on the Chronicle for daring to suggest back in December 2005 that Wanganui Gas might be sold, Deputy Dotty managed to confirm that it was indeed a possibility in her River City Press column of 27 October that year:

I note that there have been some letters to the newspapers recently about the potential sale of Wanganui Gas. Well, I would suggest that we do not panic as there are a myriad of options available that could ensure Wanganui ratepayers are gaining maximum value for their investment funds, and the outright sale of Wanganui Gas may not even be an option.

Wanganui District Council Holdings’ directors are researching the value of all of Wanganui’s investment assets and in due course there will be various reports on their findings. Such investments include harbour and city endowment land, the airport, forestry, the port and Wanganui Gas.

Whatever recommendations are made, these will be debated in council and wherever possible put out to consultation. Give the director’s (sic) a chance to get their feet under the assets table and suggest some options that might enhance our asset value (Our emphasis - Ed).

While there have been reports on the value of the city and harbour endowment, and forestry, and recent debate on the figures for the airport, we can't recall any such report on Wanganui Gas.

There's no doubting that the gas company represents a significant asset. Council's recent acquisition puts it in an ideal position to capitalise on not only the existing returns but also the company's significant potential. Of course there's the recent DHB contract and the lucrative supply contracts with commercial customers in Auckland. But Wanganui Gas is a big enough player to have looked at entering the Australian market (pdf link) in 2003 before later withdrawing (MS Word link).

Not only does that make it the jewel in the crown of Wanganui's asset base, but it also means it's a desirable takeover target if Council decided to divest it's shareholding - a task made much simpler now that it owns 100% - and might, by Mickey's own calculation, enrich Council's coffers by $20 million if they did so.

Mercury Energy has already sniffed around the company back in 2001 and there'd no doubt be many other interested buyers. All of whom would want "commercial confidentiality", of course. As with Council's purchase of Vector's shareholding, when Mickey explained "it’s one of those incredibly delicate confidential matters where we have to notify that we're having a meeting but we can't say too much about it."

Quite how such a process is reconciled with his promise that "there will be no sneaky sale" remains to be seen, if in fact such an event occurs. The anti-sneaky pledge was wrapped in talk of yet another referendum - presumably one with the same cast iron, no-wriggle-room sort of figures people were presented when asked to decide on the Splash Centre, or the "comparative costs" and "assumptions" connected with the Heart project.

We're not predicting the sale of the utility - at least not yet. If it happens, it's likely to come after Wanganui has referendumised itself into more debt by opting for an unaffordable "Heart" on top of an unaffordable "Splash". Then, when your assets are sold, you'll only have yourselves to blame.

(Yes, we know the illustration bears no relation to the post topic. But with so much confusion in comments on the last post, we thought perhaps some readers needed a pictorial clarification of the facts).

Comments on this post are now closed.