Turning the tables

Mickey just loves his referenda. Careful manipulation of the facts and an electorate where around half the people are too disinterested or disillusioned to bother casting a vote make it easy to derive the outcome you want. And if that fails, you can always throw away the votes and cook up the result yourself (c.f. The Demon Profession, re the NZ First list).

Of course he doesn't describe it that way. The diVision "democracy policy" says, grandly:

Vision Wanganui will, literally, give power to the people. A real and direct influence upon all issues of local significance and a more effective input into Council decision-making. We will also pioneer the concept of ‘direct democracy’ and ensure that Wanganui leads the rest of the country in its decision-making processes. We will create a genuine partnership between the Council and its ratepayers and residents.

Etc etc... but buried beneath the rhetoric is this:

1.2 Citizens themselves may institute a district-wide referendum if 10% or over of those enrolled on the Wanganui District Council electoral roll gather the requisite signatures. Any subsequent referendum held would be binding upon the council (provided that the outcome did not breach any government legislation or legal guidelines).

Hold that thought, Watchers, and turn your attention to the latest piece of Mickery... sorry, trickery, from the Mayor who promised "nil rates increases": a rates increase. Of 1.8 percent, no less, on top of a 3 percent increase in 2006/07, for a grand total of 4.8 percent over three years.

And that's if you accept that 2005/06 actually brought forth a nil rates rise, which slobbering lapdog "senior reporter" John Maslin inevitably does. That of course was Michael Laws-speak for "some people will get screwed while some will benefit, for a median rise of nil". But who's counting, right? Certainly not Mas, who was editor at the time.

We could pause at this point to recite (somewhat predictably, we admit) our usual mantra: that this additional impost on ratepayers wouldn't be necessary (and Michael Laws would be our "Person of the Year" rather than Midweak's) if it weren't for the construction of monuments to Mickey's reign (e.g. the Splash Centre) and his personality (an enormous, and growing, legal bill).

But we're often asked whether we have alternative solutions to Wanganui's problems. In this case, we do.

A quick trawl through Wikipedia reminds us of California Proposition 13 (1978):

Proposition 13, officially titled the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation," was a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of the state of California. The initiative was enacted by the voters of California on June 6, 1978. It would eventually be upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article 13A of the California Constitution.

The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which capped real estate taxes:

SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Its passage resulted in a cap on property tax rates in the state, reducing them by an average of 57%. In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. Proposition 13 received an enormous amount of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States. Passage of the initiative presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country that is thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980.

In fact Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado and Florida all went on to copy key provisions of the Proposition 13, while voters in 18 other states passed nearly 40 statewide tax-limiting measures. And bear in mind, Watchers, that in the US local councils not only fund the more prosaic stuff like sewage and water but also pay for police, fire brigades etc. So when Proposition 13 was advanced the naysayers predicted anarchy. Of course it never happened, and in fact the state grew faster than ever.

The measure is not perfectly drafted. For one thing, it had the unexpected result of capping rates from commercial properties and thus shifting the overall burden toward homeowners. The share of state revenue from residential property taxes has steadily increased, while the proportion from commercial properties has steadily declined. But having been enacted in the US for over quarter of a century, it's easy to see where Proposition 13 succeeds (stopping Councils raising rates to pay for their own follies) and where it fails, and to draft something better.

So here's our solution. Getting ten percent of voters - stung by an average 4.8% increase to cover Mickey's profligacy over the past three years - to sign a citizens-initiated referendum imposing a rates cap similar to Proposition 13 ought not to be hard.

Once the thing is signed, march on Guyton Street and deliver it to Michael Laws (cameras in tow, of course, so he and Antoinette Back can't lose a few reams of it between the front steps and his office). Then sit back and watch the fun, and start thinking of what you'll spend your extra money on once Mad Mickey's Expenditure Tango trips over its own shoelaces.

More on Proposition 13 (and well worth a read) from the Cato Institute, Cal-Tax Research, PBS, and the full text of the law is here.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Another one bites the dust

As the future prospects of one tyrannical egomaniac start to look somewhat short-term, we felt it an opportune time to publish this piece, contributed by a couple of Watchers who want to remain anonymous.

A look back, if you will, at the reign of one lunatic while the world breathes a sign of relief at the demise of another. Wouldn't it be ironic if what brought both of them to an end eventually was the use of gas? But we digress...

How To Build Your Own Fascist State
In 13 Easy Steps (and counting)

1. Choose a number of well meaning, completely inexperienced, not particularly bright people to run for council, convince them they must always vote with the group even if it might contravene their consciences and then support them with enough financial backing (ask Joan Street about this) and professional promotion to assure they are elected and feel indebted to you. It is helpful if these people do not have a long association with the community (self evident).


2. Take back your extra vote. (Minutes of Triennial Council Meeting 22 October, 2004)


3. Install your freshly elected neophytes in positions of power on key council committees. (Audit & Admin: Laws - Chair, McKinnon - Deputy Chair; Strategy: Taylor - Chair; Community: Pepperell - Chair; Economic: McKinnon - Chair, Wills - Deputy Chair; Hearings: Hughes – Chair were the first ones to hold these positions this term) They will turn to you for advice about pretty well everything that comes up. Hey presto, you control the committees! Juggle the membership of the committees around. (3 times in the 24 months so far) This will keep any fast learners from being too effective and let them know that they have to keep following orders to keep their perks. If something awkward and newsworthy, like the 'Osama Bin Loggin' business happens, barge right in and take over. (Randhir Dahya was Environment Committee Chair at that time and was completely cut out of the loop when headlines became a possibility) NB: The importance of marginalising independent councillors with knowledge specific and useful to committees can’t be overemphasised – keep them away from positions where they can be effective.


4. Change the way council minutes are recorded so they focus on resolutions rather than debate. (Chron meeting report 7/12/04 Sean Hoskins)


5. Disregard due process. It is amazing how frequently and easily you can get away with this if the majority of councillors around the table don’t know how local government is supposed to run. (COC, Representation Review)


6. Gain control of the media by whatever means is necessary. Flattery, bribery and bullying all work well, separately and in various combinations (the method is surmise, whilst the control is self-evident).


7. Use the media to ridicule and abuse anyone who opposes you (too many to list, just grab a recent handful).


8. Steamroll over any dissension around the council table. (Quote from November 25, 2005 Admin & Finance Committee meeting re concern about public’s lack of information on growing debt servicing costs, raised by Westwood and Bullock: "They are not for discussion now, they are not for discussion next month, they are not for discussion next year".)


9. Use referenda to lull people into thinking they are participating in the decision making process. Select issues (a) which will create division and acrimony within the community (e.g. fluoridation and spelling of the city's name) – this will weaken potential coalitions which might be an effective opposition and might have the bonus effect of attention by the media if enough dissent is created; (b) are subtle and/or complex and depend very much on point of view (e.g. abolition of urban & rural wards); and (c) have great populist appeal (e.g. Splash Centre, riverside development). NB: Be very optimistic about the costs of these projects – you can always ratchet up the numbers after the suckers have ticked the boxes. It is extremely important when using this process to keep information about the issues to an absolute minimum and as vague as possible (such as information on reducing councillor numbers in the last referendum glossy).


10. Clear the decks of any council officers knowledgeable enough to work around you. These people will recognise that the changes you instigate are funneling power away from the electors and into fewer hands, so get rid of them. The more competent they are, the greater stumbling block they represent (Kevin Ross & Keith Hindson (demoted) are the only remaining originals).


11. Snatch decisions which have considerable significance to the community away from council by declaring them 'management issues' (Wanganui Inc. and Queen’s Park).


12. Pay careful attention to the calendar and clock. Scheduling of events, timing of meetings and rearranging the order in which issues come up at meetings, or whipping items off or on to meeting agendas can be powerful tools to help achieve the results you want (e.g. the timing of the by-election, various canceled and rescheduled meetings, the councillor numbers debate)


13. Use the word 'efficiency' to justify all of the above.

We have not added step 14, which would be "Reduce the number of Councillors", even though Dotty has listed it among Vision's 20 miracles. You never know, they might not get to do that.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Fool me twice, shame on me

Just whose hand is up whose bum?

It's alright Watchers, you haven't stumbled upon the online edition of some odd fetish magazine, we're talking in terms of muppets.

We've already told the tale of Neil Kirton, former Associate Health Minister in the NZ First / National coalition government, whose career was eventually derailed by Machiavellian Mickey's meanderings.

Now it seems he, like his mentor, has slunk off into the far reaches of local government. Perhaps Mickey and Neil are the type of people who are convinced that someone, somewhere, desperately needs pint sized despots to tell them what to do.

Anyway, Kirton has all but disappeared from view, being either unable or unwilling to sink to Mickey's depths and cling to the sort of sad "celebrity" which comes from having people chuckle over their newspapers at your misogynist xenophobic clubland rantings.

Supposedly, when Kirton crashed and burned from the heights of Cabinet to the depths of Hawkes Bay, the association between he and his former mentor cooled somewhat. But can it be coincidence that he and Mickey are having the same fevered dreams?

While Napier City Council has unanimously decided to drop plans to cut councillor numbers from 12 to 10 following their hearing of submissions which were universally opposed to the move and coming to the realisation that cutting numbers would not reduce costs, the Hawkes Bay Regional Council is squabbling amongst themselves. Well, squabbling with one fractious member who wants to chop numbers - none other than Neil Kirton.

Council chairwoman Eileen von Dadelszen is trying to point out that whether there is nine or six councillors will not make any difference because "cutting their number will only mean fewer councillors are paid more".

"The only savings which can be guaranteed by having fewer councillors are for such things as travel reimbursement, agenda production and mail outs, meeting costs and training, and conference expenses", she says, which amount to an estimated $20,000 a year. So Hawkes Bay doesn't even save the cost of a dunny.

But Kirton, who wants to cut Hawkes Bay's democracy by a third, swears that reduction will save ratepayers $120,000.

Mrs von Dadelszen said Mr Kirton's comments on salary payments to councillors "had clouded the debate over the representation review" which we think is a polite way of saying he's fibbing worse than... well, worse than Mickey.

"The opportunities exist to reform local government in Hawke's Bay and cutting politicians is just the start," he says, no doubt clicking his heels together as he surveys a map of Poland... sorry, Napier and Hastings. If he continues following Mickey's plan, next to go will be superfluous employees such as those who actually carry out manual labour, to be replaced by the really useful lieutenants like spin fairies and lawyers.

Where could he have got these ideas from, let alone the means of selling them to a population which simply hates politicians and thinks any scheme to cut them back must, by definition, be a good thing? We just hope he remembers what happened last time he adopted a strategy authored by Mickey. After all, he hasn't got much further to fall.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Behind the facade

There's a bit of debate in comments over the quality of the information provided to voters on which to base their decisions in referenda particularly, of late, the decision on reducing councillor numbers.

So let's do a little post-modern deconstructionalist critique thereof, shall we Watchers?

Advantage 1: Some savings may be made in administration costs through reducing the number of councillors (telephone/travel/printing etc).

No doubt a few postage stamps will remain unused. And a few less agendas copied. Fewer phone calls? The Mayor prefers to send out his "What to say and how to vote" commands by email anyway. And if anyone thinks there won't be the unseemly scramble to grab whatever ratepayer-subsidised travel is available just because there's fewer hands shooting out to claim it, they're dreaming.

Advantage 2: It may be possible to reduce the amount paid out each year for councillor salaries and reduce the overall salary pool.

Demonstrably wrong. Illegal, in fact. So either a deliberate lie or the much-vaunted "Working Party" couldn't get such a basic fact correct.

Advantage 3: Groups tend to work better with smaller numbers.

Unsubstantiated opinion at best.

Gosh, yes. And an individual tends to achieve a lot more working alone than when he or she is forced to sit in a lengthy meeting to get sign-off on everything. So why 10? Why not the eight originally suggested? Heck, why not Field Marshall Sir Michael Laws, Ruler for Life?

Why run companies with boards? Why not just let an all-powerful figure run the whole shebang, like say Alan Bond or Conrad Black? They'd never stuff it up.

Of course fewer mind applied to a problem means fewer solutions, less diversity, less chance for alternative viewpoints to be heard. But then that was the plan all along.

Advantage 4: The rural community board could play a more prominent role.

Yes it could. But where's the strategy for it to do so, especially now the rural ward is to be disestablished? Without a plan for it to do so, that doesn't even amount to a hollow promise. It's simply baseless speculation.

Disadvantage 1: Fewer councillors may result in each councillor being paid more.

May? Let's state it again: LGNZ and other authorities confirm that the pool for payment to councillors is fixed and unalterable. They will get more. So again, ill-informed at best, blatant lying at worst.

Disadvantage 2: There may be no salary savings overall if the remuneration pool stays the same.

May?! This is perhaps the one incontrovertible fact in the whole issue and they've got it wrong a third time. Or lied a third time. Take your pick.

Disadvantage 3: Councillors would have a greater workload.

We are - gasp - in agreement with the Mayor on at least one thing. For the money they're getting paid there are many councillors who don't do nearly enough to justify it. But many of the offenders are under his leadership. So why not tackle the issue with a diVision wake-up call?

What of course will happen is that the handful of councillors who work hard for the community will now be forced to work even harder, whilst the free-loaders who barely bother to read an agenda and the double-dippers who make a comfortable living getting themselves elected to multiple public offices will continue as always. Unless the Mayor shows some leadership. Well, Mickey?

Disadvantage 4: It may reduce the opportunity for some groups in the community to be represented around the council table.

Yes, it may well. In fact there are many - including this blog - who are convinced that it will. Given that it's acknowledged as a potential disadvantage, where is diVision's strategy for coping with this? Where is the commitment to seeking out and embracing alternative points of view from all in the community? To distilling the opinions of as many residents as possible - after all, we all have a stake in Wanganui, whether we're diVision voters or not - and synthesising the best possible solution regardless of ideology... all right, we'll stop now. We know it's diVision we're talking about, Watchers. We were only joking.

Disadvantage 5: Councillors may have less contact with individuals in the community.

Simple maths suggests less councillors = less contact. That's bad for democracy. A lot of the contact councillors have with people isn't in a formal setting but while they're active in the community in their other roles - shopper, dog walker, pram pusher etc. Rdduce the number of faces and you reduce "face time".

Again, this could be at least partially compensated for by implementing diVision's pre-election promises, such as that of a "Mainstreet mayoral office" in which Mickey, Dotty and the dwarves would regularly sit, waiting to hear what ordinary citizens thought of them. Now that would be fun.

We've claimed the information that went out with the referendum was biased. Perhaps that wasn't quite the right word. We can think of several others: incomplete, poorly researched, misleading, and just plain stupid.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A discordant note

Sometimes it'd be possible to write posts to LawsWatch months in advance, it's all so predictable round the Council table. Of course that's what happens when a tyrannical Mayor is mindlessly supported by those either too stupid (yes, we mean you, Nicki, Muzza and Dotty) or to too craven (yes, you Sue Pepperrel, Phillippa et al) to do anything other than precisely what he tells them to do.

Whilst there were a few minor uncertainties in last night's vote - chief amongst them being would Rangi Wills' testicles being found in time for the meeting or would all his contributions be rendered in a wavering falsetto - the eventual outcome was as predictable as it will be damaging to democracy. And no, Rangi, you didn't redeem yourself by voting against the measure when you knew Mickey had the numbers to defeat it, when you could have voted a week or so ago to have the matter put to Council where it would have been overturned.

Points, though, to Randhir Dhaya and Don McGregor who, despite a less-than-stellar performance on other issues, at least remained consistent in their outspoken public opposition to this measure. And even if they and the other non-diVision councillors were, as Laws was so quick to accuse them, interested primarily in self preservation it doesn't make them any less right - just right for the wrong reasons.

In fact, Don McGregor gets an extra point for making the very salient point that referenda are a "valuable tool" but no substitute for democracy. As opposed to the worthless tool sitting... oh, but let's not descend to the level of some commenters. Not a good look, is it Bob?

Before we look at the result, and reaction to it, let's take a step back to pre-election days and remind ourselves of diVision's much-heralded (at the time) "Democracy Policy".

We're still waiting, by the way, for item 2.1 ("establish a mayoral office on Mainstreet"), 2.2 ("ensure that the mayor and councillors are available at that office and at allotted times to meet with residents and address any specific concerns"), 2.4 ("institute quarterly suburban meetings to ensure that the Mayor and councillors go to their constituents rather than vice-versa" - yes, the Mayor has fronted public meetings but when was the last time someone like, say Nicki Higgie, paraded her blind ignorance in front of an open meeting of ratepayers?), 4.1 ("create a "Residents' Rights Charter" that explicitly defines the service standards a ratepayer and/or resident may expect from the Wanganui District Council"), 4.3 ("initiate a Wanganui-wide discount/loyalty card for all ratepayers")...

Oh heck, let's just say we're waiting for everything they promised aside from referenda, which can of course be easily manipulated by controlling the flow of information given to voters prior to the event, then waved about as a "mandate" for doing whatever you want. And if anyone knows about controlling - or simply inventing - information given to electors, it's one Michael Brian Antoinette Beck Laws.

So let's zero in on item 3.5: "Immediately request a Local Government Commission review of representation arrangements in Wanganui with the intention of reducing the number of elected councillors to eight instead of the current twelve (estimated saving $100,000 per annum)".

When the plan was to drop four councillors, the estimated savings, on diVision's own estimates, was $25,000 per councillor. When it became evident that even the placid burghers of Wangas wouldn't swallow a council that small - and, perhaps, when Laws realised he'd got more diVisionites on to Council than he was expecting and thus didn't need to slash numbers quite as much in order to maintain absolute control - the ideal number suddenly became 10.

Using diVision's own formula, that saves Wanganui $50,000 a year. We did a quick scan of the Council budget to see what that might buy ratepayers, and the first item we came across worth $50,000 was "a toilet to be built at the Orient Toilets to accommodate mobility scooters".

So... we lose a sixth of our democracy and gain the price of a dunny.

That's assuming, of course, that the measure actually does save $50,000. There's no reference to any supporting facts in diVision's pre-election propaganda, just as there was no reference to facts in their pre-referendum propaganda.

So, if smaller councils are such a spiffingly great idea, you'd think Local Government New Zealand would be championing the idea. Apparently not. Hot off the press is the latest issue of "Local Government" magazine (an independent publication not affiliated with LGNZ):

The push to reduce councillor numbers across the country will not mean savings for ratepayers and could have an adverse effect on local democracy according to Local Government NZ.

Between 50 and 60 local authorities are reviewing their representation in line with the Local Electoral Act, which stipulates that councils must review representation every six years.

Many of them are locked in debates over reducing councillor numbers and abolishing ward systems, moving towards electing councillors at large from the community. However, LGNZ's governance manager Mike Reid says it is not necessarily the way to go.

"As far as remuneration of councillors goes there are no savings whatsoever for ratepayers," he says.

"The same amount of money will remain in the remuneration pool, it will just be shared among fewer councillors."

Some councils have used the idea that reducing councillors would also reduce costs as a selling point for smaller councils, however others have pointed out that - unless the councillors decided to hand back their pay rises - there would be no cost savings.

LGNZ is also concerned that a reduction in councillor numbers might lead to an erosion of local democracy, with fewer councillors meaning that councils would be less representative of thecommunitiestes.

"There is an impression that the drive to reduce councillor numbers is being partly driven by councillors looking to increase their wage packets and by mayors and CEOs who feel that a smaller council is easier to control," he says.

Mr Reid believes that many councils are assuming the Local Government Commission, which will rule on any proposals put forward by councils, is in favour of smaller councils, but that is not necessarily the case.

"The Commission that did the 2004 review had a clear preference for smaller councils, whether they would admit that or not. We (LGNZ) complained bitterly about that and in the end the Government fired three of the commissioners. It is not Government policy to have smaller councils. The policy is for more diversity on councils."

Oh dear... unlike the ovine diVisionites, the Local Government Commission don't see their purpose in life as being to do Mickey's bidding. And unlike Nicki Higgie, who proved beyond a doubt that stupidity welded to zealotry is perhaps the greatest danger to democracy admittinging to having been "lobbied by many people" but "hearing nothing over the past week that had changed [her] mind", the Commission will actually consider submissions from Wanganui people concerned by the change.

Meanwhile, we challenge Cr Higgie to deliver some of the promised savings by doing as LGNZ suggested and commit to handing back her pay rise if elected to a slimmed-down Council. Well, Nicki?

But the award for most pathetic quote over the whole affair goes hands-down to Philippa Baker-Hogan, who pleaded that the diVisioners "weren't all the same" and asked people not to "judge a book by its cover". Before voting precisely the way Mickey told her to. Did someone suggest the Nuremburg defence, Phillipa, or did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Comments on this post are now closed.