Since when is politics a charity?

Much discussion in comments as to the disposition of the Mayor's salary and his support for the idea that elected representatives ought to perform their duties for free.

One anonymous commenter even went so far as to locate a back issue of Community Link (15 December 2005, for those other anonynmii who keep every word written by and about Mickey in their scrapbooks) to note that:

For the 12 months from inauguration in late-October 2004, Mayor Laws has donated his net salary to the following purposes:
Event Sponsorship $17,720
Public Art Commissions $10,552
Additional Staff & Wages (2) $5,625
Mayoral Entertainment $4,738
Upgrading Communications $3,030
Charitable Donations $2,029
Bank Fees/Misc $1,250
Total Distributed $44,944

The events that have gained sponsorship from Mayor Laws include the Mayoral Mile ($10,000), Stayz/YMCA Salsa Spectacular ($3,200), Storm Relief Fund ($2,500), Bridge-to-Bridge Swim ($1,000), Red Eye Mural ($500) and Reclaim Wanganui Vigil ($500).

That's around $45,000 from a total income of $71,000 less tax at 38 cents in the dollar, so there's no denying he gave the lot away.

But let's look slightly more closely at those figures as we eagerly await the release of details of this year's largesse, shall we? Yes, we've already reported on this when the figures first came out, but it's a useful preamble to the next post, which will deal with the funding of political campaigns - specifically those of diVision's candidates.

Event sponsorship and art commissions, which make up over 60% of the total, are entirely at the personal whim of the Mayor. Sure it's his money, but most wealthy philanthropists establish an independent trust to make the hand-outs. That way they can't be accused of using their charity to favour some groups, events or people over others. Which is not to say the events or the art he sponsored aren't worthy of support - just that most donors keep themselves at arms length from the actual distribution of funds, having first set parameters for the type of event they wish to support. That avoids any perception that, say, if you disagree with the donor you might as well forget applying, no matter how worthy your event or good your art.

Additional staff and wages are, in fact, completely improper. If the WDC pays your wages, you answer to the CEO and you act solely in the best interests of the public of Wanganui. But if Mickey gives you a "top up", who's your boss? Where do your loyalties lie, especially if his interests diverge from those of the rest of Wanganui?

And if WDC wages need topping up to attract a suitable calibre of person to the job, that's a policy issue that needs to be considered as part of the budget round. No one expects David Warburton to dig into his handsome salary package to top up the pay of his PA, do they? And imagine if he did - what possible reason would people attribute to such unwarranted generosity? Setting aside that Warburton wasn't reading from The Bill Clinton Manual of Staff Relations, some might uncharitably assume he wanted some goings-on kept quiet.

Which is precisely why no employer, Warburton included, explicitly subsidises an employee's wages from their own pocket.

Upgrading communications is merely a euphemism for "paying to print and deliver party propaganda on behalf of Vision". If that's charity, then Labour just found the perfect excuse for their pre-election "pledge card" spending.

Mayoral entertainment apparently used to be paid out over and above the Mayor's salary. In this case it totals more than 10% of the Mayor's nett income. And according to official records it was spent on activity such as a celebration of the outcome of the referendum. That's a political victory celebration, for diVision and its supporters. If Chas Poynter had held a champagne knees-up to celebrate winning a vote and tried to charge it to the ratepayers, how many would have been happy to pay?

It's entirely right and proper that Mickey foots the bill for such things himself - but to imply that it's somehow a charitable donation is disingenuous in the extreme.

Which just leaves actual charitable donations of a little over $2,000 and bank fees of $1,250 (on what is presumably a simple chequing account?! Change banks, Mickey!).

Of course this strategy of feigned nobility isn't new. It's carefully designed to buy publicity which, to someone like Mickey, is more precious than gold. We reproduced this Tom Scott cartoon back in December and it's worth repeating again:


Comments on this post are now closed.