It never rains but it pours...

And once it starts raining, the leaks start to appear.

We're often informed by commenters that the Diva lives in a state of utterly contented marital bliss, and now we've had our own confirmation.

He and his wife, Wanganui's Horizons rep Leonie Brookhammer are so perfectly suited to one another that they think and act alike - and not only when issuing press releases on Ms Brookhammer's behalf from the WDC Mayoral Spin Fairy (a task which she was neither mandated to do, nor funded for).

No sooner had the Diva upset the Spin Fairy than our Horizons rep did exactly the same thing in her official capacity. Such synchronicity! Such kismet! When have two such star-crossed lovers been so perfectly in sync?!

Indeed an impeccable (and utterly deniable) source tells LawsWatch that Cr Brookhammer has been spoken to by Horizons' lawyers as a result of her having spat the dummy at someone for "breaching an embargo". No one actually did, but since she has no concept of how embargoes work she reportedly launched into a diatribe of Diva-like proportions, insulting a staffer in the process.

And while we await what fallout may yet emerge from Fairygate, we're told the legal eagles are already circling Victoria Ave in Palmy...

Meanwhile, while the Diva informed a breathless e-coli e-column reading public just this Tuesday that:

Given Horizons' excessive rates demand for the 2006/07 financial year, I have decided that it is an opportune time to further research the idea of a unitary authority for Wanganui and, potentially, for our near neighbours.

I have formally written the mayors and chairpersons of all the districts/cities within the Horizons' catchment area, and advised them of our intention to explore the idea. Unitary authorities (an amalgam of regional/local authorities) exist in Marlborough, Tasman, Nelson and Gisborne.

Personally, I think this an idea whose time has well and truly come – having a tier of regional government in New Zealand makes for more bureaucracy and greater inefficiency. That said, it is obvious that some amalgamation of territorial authorities is also required...

But it seems that he's gone a little bit further than just "research". Through the same source, LawsWatch has learned that he has written to Horizons formally telling them that he is investigating the start of a unitary authority and leaving the auspices of Horizons.

Looks like St Michael (a brand of underwear, our informant assures us) is moving to set up a glorious Kingdom of the West, over which he will reign for 1,000 years...

Cue a barrage of predictable comments about Horizons' "inefficiencies" (cribbed from a WDC-issued, Diva-authored, Horizons rep attributed press statement, no doubt). Indeed they have a few - local representatives not turning up to meetings being one of the major ones - but it will be interesting to see how the people of Manawatu, not to mention the Local Government Commission, view such a unilateral annexation.

And we could be wrong, but we don't recall a WDC resolution authorising such a move. Unless it was one of those secret resolutions they have at diVision caucus meets of course. Any thorough investigation would require costings, financial modeling, an understanding of likely engineering and environmental expenditure in the foreseeable future... in short, it'll cost money. So without a resolution to authorise it, who's paying?

Horizons have so far refused to engage with what it calls the Diva's "slagging", but can it be long before we hear Garry Murfitt appealing to Wellington for assistance to repel the invaders, and see Local Government Minister Mark Burton emerging from talks with the Diva to tell a breathless public "I have in my hand a piece of paper..."?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Oh what a tangled web...

Yes Watchers, that sound you can hear is Guyton Street's spin whirring to a halt as the Spin Fairy leaves the building. Long time Mayoral apologist Helen Lawrence apparently didn't receive an apology for allegedly being referred to in exceptionally unpleasant terms by His Worship at a recent senior managers' meeting, and yesterday walked in and cleared her desk.

She wisely chose a Mayorless day to do so, lest she suffer learning first hand what her former employer thinks of people who exhibit any backbone when confronted with unacceptable behaviour.

Mindful that anyone of any age can read LawsWatch, and thus of our self-imposed PG rating, we won't repeat the comment that led to the walkout. Suffice it to say that had it emerged from the tattooed lips of one of the town's notorious bikies in Majestic Square, the rattle of dropped latte cups would have been heard in New Plymouth.

Unfortunately for the Diva, a close personal friend of the Spin Fairy happens to be amongst the senior management team. We don't know what he thought of the comment, but we do know it was passed on to her, and she was understandably not impressed.

Counselled to take some leave and consider her options she apparently did so. We would imagine she also awaited an apology from the author of such potty-mouthedness, but alas she waited in vain.

So yet another outburst from the Mayor - this time very much in his official capacity - is likely to cause strife for Council. If Ms Lawrence does decide her humiliation and lost employment is worth being compensated for and brings in the lawyers, it won't be the first time the Diva's treatment of employees has ended up costing the ordinary person money. His treatment of staffers in the NZ First office when he was left in charge for a few months cost the taxpayer at least one five figure settement - an amount virtually unheard of at the time (and of course Winston went on to wrongfully dismiss another employee all by himself, but managed to avoid socking the taxpayer with the bill that time. We can only wonder what the Diva did to warrant such a large payout). Any settlement over this incident would come not from the Mayor but from Council - which means you, dear ratepayer.

And if she (or any other witness to the comment) wanted to, they could bring a fresh Code of Conduct Complaint. Even given the fact that Dotty has taken mindless sycophancy to new heights, we can't see how she'd help him wriggle out of this one.

And the fallout doesn't stop there. A senior manager now has, we imagine, divided loyalties. And Council has lost the services of someone who was very good - in fact far too good - at her job.

Lawrence was a former private secretary to a Cabinet Minister and was Land Information NZ communications co-ordinator when lured away by the Diva just over a year ago (late February 2005, to be exact), who said at the time:

We are very lucky to have her. Helen is widely regarded in Wellington and it is fantastic that her lifestyle decision to relocate to Wanganui has coincided with this vacancy. She will play a key management role in improving council communications – both internal and external.

She certainly kept her part of the bargain - the spin coming from Guyton Street was insistent and often impenetrable. Albeit aided and abetted by a press that is either lacklustre (yes, we're talking about you again, Mr Maslin) or fawning (and ears must be burning at the RCP about now) Ms Lawrence did a sterling job of keeping the Mayor's - and often only the Mayor's - opinions in front of the public. Unfortunately for the Diva, the internal communication system worked a little too well.

Who will replace her we wonder? Our pick: watch for the return of Antoinette Beck, the only employee not to have parted with the Diva on bad terms.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Let them eat cake (& waterslides)

Back in September LawsWatch looked into its crystal ball and predicted the ratepayers of Whanganui were going to take a bath over the splash centre extension they’d been conned to tick the box for in Referendumb 2005.

Since the champagne corks popped and Mr Unsworth clinked glasses with Mr Laws the swimming pool saga has picked up the velocity of an uncontrolled ride down a mythic waterslide. On Friday this week, with the ink barely dry on the mayor’s LTTCP protestations of penury, he will take the council into the deep end with an additional $1.3 million cash splash for this leaky project.

It’s not so long ago that he was asserting firm limits on the ratepayers’ contribution and talking up the community fundraising possibilities. One RAV’s worth of raffle tickets later, and a big thumbs down from the Lotteries Commission, he’s ended up with a highly-tagged contribution from the Whanganui Community Foundation that won’t even cover the cost escalation since the project got the go-ahead less than a year ago.

So as Vision’s rapidly diminishing credibility sinks beneath the putrid stagnant water of its most public failure to date, the mayor now tells us:

"It is time for Council to honour the Referendum '05 results and underwrite the venture immediately."

The messy dog-paddle race for safety has been, not surprisingly,a highly secret affair and the integrity of the referendumb process, never a major selling point for Vision’s brand of "democracy", is now well and truly the victim of death by drowning.

1. How does a referendum mandate for the council to put up $2.5 million over two years get stretched to cover the twists and turns of the present financial high-dive act?
2. How many of those who ticked the "right" box understood they were buying… twin hydroslides, a café and a small gym?
3. Will the mayor’s chlorine-induced amnesia block memories of this addendum to the Referendumb blurb?: "The additional operating expenditure of this project will need to be borne by the Splash Centre and not the Council. Council's contribution is the capital funding and some projects may need to 'cut their cloth' as a consequence."
4. Why is he blaming "some critics" for the $800,000 per year estimated increased running costs when the figure came straight out of a report tabled last September by council officer Keith Hindson? Is the financial estimates process now also subject to Deputy Dotty’s magic legal formula for delivering nil rates rises in revaluation years: namely, if the lawyer you’ve got doesn’t tell you what you want to hear keep looking till you find one that will.

Comments on this post are now closed.

How to keep warm

As the hours, days, and weeks tick by towards the submissions deadline for the LTCCP, anxious ratepayers are said to be camping out by their suburban mailboxes in hopes that a paperboy or postie will deliver some hint from Taupo Quay, or even Guyton Streeet, of just what it all means.

Dedicated Watchers, having surreptitiously passed around well-thumbed, dog-eared copies of the three-volume tome in the underground pubs, clubs and galleries of Visionville-on-Sea, are now using them to mulch their gardens or turning them into cheap pseudo logs to keep their fires burning through the long winter of discontent ahead (like the Watchers pictured above at a recent local government retreat).

Others of a more technological bent have crashed their computers scrolling up and down through the hundreds of pages of LTCCP posted on the council website (http://www.wanganui.govt.nz/) under the ironically titled invitation to “Have your say”.

With the Diva now on record as declaring the most senior survivors at Mr Maslin’s withered organ to be illiterate in matters financial, it seems likely that the Chronic’s copies of Vision’s Mein Kampf have been piled against the inside of the editor’s door to prevent newsroom staff entering the hallowed space and asking why they’re not allowed to write stories that might upset the mayor.

With just 22 days left till submissions close LawsWatch urges its loyal readers to get down to 101 Guyton St and pick up their very own copies of the three-volume tome. Chocolate mice with large ears will be awarded to anyone able to:

1. Figure out just how much ratepayers’ cash is going to be spent on spin (aka communications) in 2006-07;
   
2. Figure out how a city that is in a “perilous financial position” can contemplate building and running a gold-plated swimming pool; and
   
3. Get past the mayor’s opening salvo without gagging and reaching for the gin bottle: In many ways, this LTCCP is all about correcting the mistakes, misrepresentations and omissions of the last LTCCP published in 2003.

The Diva’s determination to keep the public and what passes in Whanganui as the Fourth Estate away from any discussion about how ratepayers’ money will be spent over the next decade probably came as a relief to the understaffed toilers at the Chronic, and passed without editorial demur. However, in a brief window of openness, democracy and transparency, Mary Bryan was invited in to witness a nice little local government tableau as the council voted to adopt the draft LTCCP with no one seriously challenging the mayoral spin.

All we learned was that Don McGregor had his kilt in a twist over the plan to abandon community and rural halls, Barbara Bullock was disappointed $62,000 had been cut from the community contracts for sport, recreation and environmental groups, and Sue Westwood said the plan was economic driven and took little account of the overall well-being of the community.

A big oops!! had held the plan up while the mayor’s money boys tried to placate Wellington Watchdogs who quite reasonably, and as required by the Local Government Act, insisted on a balanced budget. This appears to have prompted tantrums from the boy mayor and in his latest e-coli he throws his toys in the direction of the Audit Office and the Office of the Auditor-General who “seem as inefficient as the very organisations they are seeking to hold to account. Perhaps it is time to audit Audit."

That said, LawsWatch salutes the toilers of Guyton Street. While the mayor conjured up daily media distractions in a vain attempt to boost his disastrous radio ratings, the finished LTCCP represents months of dedicated midnight oil burnt by staff trying to meet deadlines on an ever-changing playing field.

He ensured they were constantly distracted by a barrage of mayoral demands including gang patch bylaws, a yoof council set-up to rival the worst excesses of the United Nations and last but by no means least, the $500,000 axe of unspecified cuts hanging over their heads.

Should any similarly beleaguered ratepayers feel the need to prepare submissions in the 22 days available, our advice is Don’t Mention the Swimming Pool. In fact, the Diva wasted no time making clear the futility of attempting to engage with this council in what the Local Government Act calls consultation. Here are his first (and last) words on that subject:

"Any submitters to the annual plan – who want the council to spend more money on their particular interest (ie non-Vision interest - ed) – should note that the only way to achieve their preferred spending is by lifting rates."

Meanwhile, for some winter’s evening entertainment, we recommend Watchers curl up with the remote and watch Wanganui’s part-time mayor being relentlessly skewered and outsmarted by a bunch of his fellow has-been minor celebs. The lure of Prime’s dollars is apparently sufficient compensation for him to don a Vision tee-shirt and line up to be outsmarted by Mike Hoskins (for heaven’s sake) and outwitted by Paul Holmes. Last night Mr Holmes suggested that as a part time mayor, the Diva would be a worthy recipient of a long distance pen with which to carry out his long distance Wanganui governance duties.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Being a bunny at Easter

Much as we'd like to sneak round at night leaving a surprise on your doorstep (chocolate eggs for our readers, burning paper bags containing an unspecified substance for the Diva and DiVisionites) it sounds far too much like exercise, so here's some Easter cheer to keep you going over the long weekend.

First, a contribution from one of our readers, in keeping with the holy nature of the holiday. The difference between the Diva and God? God doesn't think he's the Diva.

Second, some of you may have missed the gem in last Saturday's Chron, buried at the bottom of a page three story explaining the DHB is going to do an "organisational assessment". It's not easy being a Missionary for Mickey, even at the DHB: Board member Philippa Baker-Hogan asked what an ideal organisation would look like and someone mentioned Wanganui District Council. This was followed by gales of laughter, and cries of "Order, order".

And if the phlegmatic outpourings of publicity-seeking wannabes in the Sunday Star Times don't fulfil your quota of weekemd reading, we'd recommend this article by Denis O'Reilly on the gang issue.

Called an "apologist" for the gangs by the Diva in his 5 March column, O'Reilly seems to be no such thing, echoing the point made by LawsWatch that:

The law around unlawful assembly gives the Police wide powers where three or more gang members are together. The Class A status of methamphetamine gives the Police almost free reign in terms of surveillance and entry. Proceeds of crime legislation enable ill gotten gains to be seized.

O'Reilly also finds himself defending none other than the Diva's old mentor (no, not Winston, the other mentor) Robert Muldoon, described in the same column as an "appeaser" no less. O'Reilly quotes Muldoon in 1982 as saying:

These mindless bullies may well have had an unhappy childhood. So did many children of my generation during the Depression. That does not give them a licence to engage in gang warfare against the peaceful enjoyment of their fellow citizens.

"Mindless bullies"? Hardly sounds like appreasement. But then, even when it comes to people to whom he owes a tremendous amount, the Diva never lets the truth get in the way of a handy bit of self-aggrandisement.

While you're there, have a look round the NZEdge site - lots of good holiday reading.

Happy Easter, readers.

Comments on this post are now closed.

The case of the missing appendage

It was nine o'clock at night upon the tenth of April - the most terrible April in the history of the world. One might have thought already that God's curse hung heavy over a degenerate world, for there was an awesome hush and a feeling of vague expectation in the sultry and stagnant air of Wanganui that night. The sun had long set, but one blood-red gash like an open wound lay low in the distant west. Above, the stars were shining brightly, and below, the lights of the shipping glimmered in the port.

The two furtive figures stood beside the stone parapet of the garden walk, with their heads close together, talking in low, confidential tones. From below the two glowing ends of their cigars might have been the smouldering eyes of some malignant fiend looking down in the darkness.

"Are you absolutely certain?" asked the shorter of the two, in querelous tones. "There can be no doubt, I'm afraid," said the taller man, noticeable not only for the deerstalker hat perched on an aquiline head, but for the large pipe he sported - nowadays almost always unlit lest Helen's Anti-Smoking Police offended his dignity with their accursed water pistols.

"It can't, of course, leak out to the public," said Dr Watson (for it was he). "It may already be too late," riposted Holmes (for it was also he). Almost everything Holmes said was a riposte. And let's face it, anyone who walked round in summer in a Harris tweed cape sporting a deerstalker and an unlit pipe had to have a riposte at the ready at a moment's notice.

"After all, the poor fellow quite clearly said, back in July 2005:

Mayor Laws has offered to lead the development of a group with the assistance of the Library Manager. It is envisaged that a structure, such as a charitable trust, will be set up. He has suggested that as well as seeking donations to add to the book stock the group could organise say two fundraising events per year; suggestions include a Masque Ball and a Celebrity Debate. Mayor Laws intends to launch the new group at a function to be held in the newly refurbished CouncilChambers.

and yet now he's simply handed Sally Patrick $1 million in the LTCCP. There can be only one explanation, and even the simple, docile folk of Wanganui will wake up to it sooner or later."

"Couldn't it simply be because at that time, Sally Patrick was just another lonely figure up on Queen's Park?" Watson asked his mentor hopefully. "I mean, in the last annual plan, there was $50,000 cut from the library's book budget. That was why the Mayor offered to head up a Friends of the Library group and fleece the town's socialites for zillions of new books by holding a masked ball in the first place. But now Sally has agreed to go along with everything he wants, she gets $1 million. They'll surely just be be fooled into thinking she's been bought?"

"Ah, my dear Watson," said Holmes, whose attempt to drip condescension from every pore was ruined by the subsequent coughing fit when he forgot his pipe was empty and sucked in a lungful of cold Wanganui night air. "You forget that the Mayor also promised similar extravanganzas to fund the Splash Centre, with him at the helm. Yet that too has simply been given a cartload of money - most of it borrowed - in the LTCCP.

"Docile the Wanganui folk may be, but they have strange limits and one must learn to observe them. It is that surface simplicity of theirs which makes a trap for the stranger. One's first impression is that they are entirely soft. Then one comes suddenly upon something very hard, and you know that you have reached the limit and must adapt yourself to the fact."

"You mean, they may figure it out for themselves?!" asked Watson, clearly aghast. "But so far most of them have done nothing, aside from these mysterious 'Watchers' he has brought us here to find." At the mention of the name of these dread figures, both men looked furtively over their shoulders. Was that a faint tinkling of gin glasses coming from behind the water tower?

"Well when their rates notices arrive bearing increased demands despite the fact they were happy to let our employer mortgage their futures, and those of their children, by borrowing, I expect they may put aside their morning propaganda sheets and start asking questions, yes."

"And they'll notice this carefully concealed change of fundraising methodology?" whispered Watson, knowing as he did so that it would pain his dear friend to have to answer.

"Elementary my dear Watson," riposted Holmes, remembering not to suck on his pipe stem this time. "This isn't the first time he has offered to put on such a display, yet he never follows through. Even the simplest Wanganui rube will notice that Mickey's Balls are Missing. You know what we must do, Watson..."

"Yes, Holmes," muttered his companion. "But Wanganui is damned cold at this time of year. Why does it have to be my socks we put in the lycra shorts?"

Can't hurt, can't help

A rather unkind anon, after accusing LawsWatch of neither reading nor comprehending, reveals that he or she:

...perchanced upon a copy of the new by-law from the nice lady at the council front-desk and the gangs to have their patches banned are specifically named.

Well, anon, congratulations. Indeed you beat us - and almost everyone else - to the facts by several hours. At last, though, something has been released from within the bowels of the Guyton Street spin machine. We couldn't read or comprehend what was being kept under wraps, after all.

But the Gang Bylaw is now on display in all it's convoluted glory, and you can even comment upon it. We suspect you're right in assuming:

...there's been some big changes between the by-law proposed at the council committee and the one they finally signed off so I'm betting their lawyers looked it over and met the objections of the Vic Uni academic.

In trying to restrict the scope of the bylaw to exclude girl scouts and other menacing potential wearers of uniforms, the bylaw in fact names the gangs to which it applies:

GANG
(a) means any chapter of the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Hells Angels, or Head Hunters; and
(b) includes any other group of persons acting or going about together with the following characteristics:
(i) a distinguishing name; and
(ii) a perceived criminal element associated with that group of persons.

Though we admit it's unlikely, a quick change of name would exempt the gangs from the first part of that definition. It also leaves Wanganui wide open to gangs other than the named four. Then we're left with the tricky problem of defining a "perceived criminal element" associated with a certain group.

But let's leave aside the potentially costly and lengthy legal semantic quagmire for a moment and move on to the offence which the bylaw aims to stamp out, namely the wearing of patches around the town.

GANG INSIGNIA
(a) means the patch, emblem or badge denoting membership of a gang that is attached to the back of a Gang member's jacket; and
(b) includes the wearing of any colours in such a way that denotes membership of a Gang.

So, no patches (at least, no patches on the back of a jacket) and presumably no bandanas or similar clothing. Assuming we can nail down the definition of a gang and ensure every possible permutation of existing and yet-to-arrive gangs fits that definition, then that definition seems a reasonable catch-all. Of clothing, that is.

But anyone who knows anything about the development of gang culture knows that their members develop a whole raft of ways of identifying themselves. According to the Polk County Sherriff:

Gang members use hand signs, graffiti, jewelry and tattoos to represent their membership in a gang.

Can we next expect a "Bling-bling Blyaw"? And free laser tattoo removal courtesy of the Mayor? And it's not just jewellery and tattoos:

A gang may also wear their "colors", wear certain types of clothing, tattoos, brands, or likewise imprint their gang's name, logo, or other identifying marks on their bodies. Many gangs also adopt certain types of hairstyles and communicate through the use of hand signals and graffiti on walls, streets, school work, and school property.

So what's next? The "Wanganui Bad Haircut Bylaw"?

The only reason the likes of Black Power and Mongrel Mob haven't adopted these methods of identification is that they've never had to take off their patches. If this bylaw succeeds in doing that, anyone who thinks they'll hold a quick chapter meeting and decide to disband is living in a fool's paradise.

And no, despite one anon spluttering:

You obviously prefer to have dirty criminal mongrel mob standing over you rather than agree to anything ML suggests... Crazy. No brains.

...we have no time for the Mongrel Mob or any of the others. But if you believe the Diva's latest piece of grandstanding is going to do anything other than act as a minor annoyance to the source of a major problem, then we'd respectfully suggest that it's not us who are crazy.

Nor is the lack of a patch going to dilute the carefully cultivated menace these ratbags exude. Would you be any less intimidated walking past a group of gang members simply because they weren't wearing patches?

In short, the bylaw will be effective in only one aim - garnering publicity for the Diva, and support from those of an inflamed neck who don't realise just how ineffective it will be.

Lest LawsWatch be accused of being "soft on gangs" whilst trying to point out the innate fallacy on which the bylaw is founded (a.k.a. "doing a Barbara Bullock") we would point out that there are plenty of effective laws on the books which could be used to deal with the problem, yet they're rarely used in these circumstances.

Only the police can answer why that is - perhaps they don't have the resources to process the large number of additional offences that would hit the system if they enforced the letter of these laws. Or perhaps their crime figures wouldn't look so spiffy if they actually recorded offences police choose to overlook.

Crimes Act 1961

86. Unlawful assembly—

(1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled, as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled—

(a) Will use violence against persons or property in that neighbourhood or elsewhere; or
(b) Will, by that assembly, needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to use violence against persons or property in that neighbourhood:
Provided that no one shall be deemed to provoke other persons needlessly and without reasonable cause by doing or saying anything that he is lawfully entitled to do or say.

98A. Participation in organised criminal group —

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who participates (whether as a member or an associate member or prospective member) in an organised criminal group, knowing that it is an organised criminal group, and —
(a) knowing that his or her participation contributes to the occurrence of criminal activity; or
(b) reckless as to whether his or her participation may contribute to the occurrence of criminal activity.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a group is an organised criminal group if it is a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective or one of their objectives—
(a) obtaining material benefits from the commission of offences that are punishable by
imprisonment for a term of 4 years or more...
(c) the commission of serious violent offences (within the meaning of section 312A(1)) that are punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more...

(3)A group of people is capable of being an organised criminal group for the purposes
of this Act whether or not —
(b) only some of the people involved in it at a particular time are involved in the planning, arrangement, or execution at that time of any particular action, activity, or transaction; or
(c) its membership changes from time to time.

And that isn't the only Statute which could be used - depending on the nature of the activity, there are others - or indeed other parts of the Crimes Act may apply.

Since so many anonymii misrepresent (wilfully or otherwise, we don't know) the point of posts, we've taken to adding the "slow readers' version" at the end; which in this case is: Assuming it can ever adequately define a gang (which we doubt), the bylaw can't hurt. But don't be deceived into thinking it can do anything much to help, either.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Please tell us that's pea soup

There's some debate going on in comments at present between various anonymii as to just what the Auditor General does when presented with an LTCCP such as the one excreted in secret by the Wanganui District Council recently.

No less an authority than the Mayor himself told anxious ratepayers that "it's difficult to escape the conclusion that we are receiving extra scrutiny this time as a consequence of inadequacies in the last LTCCP published in 2003".

But "the AG does not query monetary specifics of the LTCCP they question processes that were followed in order to reach the LTCCP conclusions," claimed one anonymous, in supposedly defending Council.

With the spin from Guyton Street taking off in opposing directions, Watchers' trying to follow it all risk having their heads mimic that of the girl in The Exorcist.

So here's the real oil, starting with the Local Government Act 2002, from whence the Auditor-General's authority derives, specifically under sections 84(4) and 94 of the Local Government Act 2002.

84. Special consultative procedure in relation to long-term council community plan —

(4) A statement of proposal to which subsection(1) or subsection (2) applies must also contain a report from the local authority's auditor on —

(a) the extent to which the statement complies with the requirements of this Act; and
(b) the quality of the information and assumptions underlying the forecast information provided in the statement; and
(c) the extent to which the forecast information and proposed performance measures will provide an appropriate framework for the meaningful assessment of the actual levels of service provision.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the report under subsection (4) must not comment on the merits of any policy content of the statement.

94. Audit of long-term council community plan—
(1) The long-term council community plan must contain a report from the local authority's auditor on —
(a) the extent to which the local authority has complied with the requirements of this Act in respect of the plan; and
(b) the quality of the information and assumptions underlying the forecast information provided in the plan; and
(c) the extent to which the forecast information and performance measures provide an appropriate framework for the meaningful assessment of the actual levels of service provision.
(2) A report under subsection (1) may be in the form of confirmation or amendment of the report made by the auditor under section 84(4).
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, a report under subsection (1) must not comment on the merits of any policy content of the plan.

There's a whole raft of checklists, presentations and newsletters from the Auditor General explaining the procedure and setting out what it is they're looking for. While we can't claim to have read every word, this section of the document handily entitled "Audit guidance for assessment of significant forecasting assumptions, uncertainties and risks underlying financial estimates in LTCCPs":

Audit Procedures

The Auditor should, as early as possible:
1. Ascertain the significant underlying assumptions (SAs) the Council intends to apply in preparing the LTCCP.
2. Review the completeness and reasonableness (neither optimistic or pessimistic) of the SAs having regard to:
• the capacity of the Council and its policies and strategies;
• the source and reliability of supporting evidence;
• the categories of assumptions listed in Appendix 1;
• assumptions being applied by other Councils to comparable circumstances;
• the inter-relationship between the SAs (the should be consistent); and
• the past performance of the entity and other similar entities or information which can be otherwise corroborated.
3. Immediately raise, and seek to resolve, any issues with the Council.
The Auditor should, throughout the course of the audit:
4. Be on alert for any inherent assumptions whose reasonableness should be assessed and should be disclosed in the LTCCP.
5. Ensure the SAs are applied consistently over the 10 year period of the LTCCP (this should be covered in key controls testing. If it has not it will need to be covered as part of this testing).
The Auditor should, towards completion of the audit:
6. Ensure all SAs of which the Auditor is aware are adequately disclosed.
7. Ensure any SAs with a high level of uncertainty are identified and disclosed and an estimate of the effect of the uncertainty on the financial estimates is given.

Clear now? Good. But what it all seems to be saying is that no, the Audit Office can't comment on whether, say, extending a swimming pool when you have no money is in fact a foolhardy decision.

But they can comment on whether the Council has adequately assessed the risks involved, including the effect on adequate levels of service provision, and whether the significant underlying assumptions on which the plan is based (such as "we'll somehow raise $300,000 when all we've managed so far is a car raffle") are reasonable.

So, put simply, the Audit office isn't allowed to tell the Diva that rushing headlong towards a fiscal cliff face with his eyes shut isn't a good idea, but it's quite within it's rights to question whether he's fully cogniscent of the extent of the splat when he hits the bottom.

Won't that be interesting... when it finally comes out, that is.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Is that a bylaw in your pocket?

Due to technical difficulties, the latest mayoral e-coli was unable to be published in the usual fora. LawsWatch is happy, in the interests of democracy, to bring you this exclusive:

Greetings loyal subjects, devoted voters and contented employees of Council...

What a week it's been! First, the horrific revelation that none other than Barbara Bullock was mugging old ladies, selling P to school kids and driving her motorcycle through parks and reserves.

Well I didn't exactly see her doing any of those things, but since I've painted her as running fast and loose with gang members simply because she's concerned that a hastily-drawn-up bylaw risks violating everybody's civil rights, I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions as to what she gets up to in her spare time.

Then I was appalled and saddened to find that Horizons has become so "bloated and irrelevant" when I had my back turned. Really, do I have to micro-manage everything? As if my work isn't cut out ensuring there's enough paper clips at the WDC, I keep hearing reports that the regional council is so wasteful that Wanganui's elected representative thereon fails to attend most of its meetings and when she does show up is rarely on time. Any idea who it is, readers? If I ever find the name of this slacker, I'll be having a very stern chat, let me assure you.

I believe some of you have expressed a degree of unease about the solution I propose, though - a unitary authority. Personally, I can't see any problem with an all-powerful local authority reigning over the central North Island. After all, would you deny the citizens of the Manawatu the benefits of my leadership and vision? And with all that Horizons money that's wasted on nonsense like the environment, rivers beaches etc in one big pot, imagine what you'll be offered in our next Referendumb?! Want an outdoor ice skating rink in Moutoa Gardens? A 24 hour buffet restaurant in the shell of the Sarjeant Gallery? An artificial ski slope on Durie Hill? You can have them all, and more besides, under my beneficent rule!! First the Sudetenland... sorry, the Manawatu... then who knows where?!

Talking of the kind of exciting developments planned for my first term, alas the Splash Centre still the stuff of secret meetings. Don't worry though, Council has now assumed "immediate control" of the whole shebang. So now, instead of just me, Marty Lindsay and that notorious bikie chick Barbara Bullock paddling round in it, the project will benefit from the sharp minds of people like Dotty McKinnon, Muzza Who, and that other fellow... you know the one... keep forgetting his name... sits there and nods whenever I look at him, raises his hand whenever I raise mine... dusky looking chappy... anyway, the important thing to remember is that these people hold your financial future in their hands, Wanganui, so you can rest easy at night.

I don't know why there's all this fuss about openness and transparency anyway. For goodness sake, haven't I shown you people my munificence?! I mean I just gave $5,000 to the lawn bowlers... sure they're my rapidly-depleting-through-natural-attrition voter base, but don't think I'm shoring up support, dear readers. Not at all... it was only when they agreed to name the tournament the Mayoral Mixed Open Pairs that my cheque was proffered.

Anyway, who wants to be laying awake at night worrying whether you can afford the inevitable rates rise to pay for all the baubles I offered you? You see, readers, it's purely out of paternal concern for your nocturnal well-being that I've decided to keep our rates discussions secret too.

(Ed: we'd like to provide a link to the relevant Chronicle story, which appeared on 31 March, but conveniently it's not on their website. We thought this one, headed "When carnage strikes" was it, but it's about something else entirely).

We'll be sure and send you a pretty coloured flyer when we've decided precisely how much you're in for, and what we'll be splashing out on (note the pun, readers? It's my little way of hinting at where a fair sized portion is headed).

Meanwhile, don't forget it's radio ratings time, so please ensure you tune in. I've already got the lawn bowls club pretty well locked in with that $5,000 I should think, so it'll only take a handful of you to get me out of the margin of error. Radio is a cut-throat business, which is no doubt why, when our sister station The Rock ran a competition to find "NZ's least attractive man", I'm told I won hands down. I was terribly worried that this somehow meant that all the time I spend on my appearance was for nought, till several people reassured me by pointing out that the competition was for NZ's least attractive man, not least good looking, and that you can still be handsome whilst being very unattractive indeed. So that's a relief.

Oh dear, it looks like I've used just about all the space LawsWatch is prepared to give me, so I don't have room for the usual family news. You'll just have to take my undoubted virility as read till next week.

Michael

P.S. I was nowhere near Winton on Friday night, so there. It wasn't me. Honest.

Comments on this post are now closed.