A shining light

There's a line supposedly used in a movie that's been used so often it's become something of a cliche. It's always said with an exaggerated overtone of menace... "It's quiet round here. Too quiet".

Radio Dead's long-suffering listeners have actually been treated as though their opinions were something other than a foil for a quick burst of abuse, then to be hung up on, followed by a lengthy, one-sided and self-important tirade. Viewers of a Game of Three Losers couldn't help but notice an altogether kindler, gentler programme on their screens this past week. Even this blog was notably lacking in the usual barrage of increasingly strident (and sometimes even ALL CAPITALS and MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!) defences of Mickey's worst excesses.

We can only conclude that Mayor Michael Laws is absent from this fair city. Perhaps taking a crash course in ghetto-speak in preparation for campaigning on the streets of Manukau. "Props to yo mama, homeboy. Vote for DJ Mickey Mad. Respect y'all!" followed by a burning of rubber and an upraised finger as the Mayoral hot rod drops a patch. Given the usual excesses of gangsta-speak, one can only wonder what new adjective and noun combination may be brought forth to describe the Mayoress.

Wherever he may be, Mickey's absence has encouraged at least one councillor to venture that rarest of statements, that most endangered of expositions:

An independent thought!

(We really wish we were podcasting at this point, because that deserved some sort of fanfare. We'll pause for a moment while you fetch a comb and paper and create your own, Watchers.)

In fact, he's had a field day and decided to come up with two on the same day. Fortunately, 18 months of inactivity hasn't entirely atrophied his higher brain function, so Cr Randhir Dahya's latest Council Comment (printed in Midweek and reproduced - but for how long, we wonder? - on the Council's website) makes good sense.

First, he opines that the poor public attendance at Council meetings means not many are interested in local authority affairs. But rather than promote ill-informed and cynically manipulated referendumbs as the panacea, Cr Dahya ventures that the answer may be found in - open debate with councillors!!

(Actually, podcasting probably isn't a good idea. The fanfare button would be getting a workout by now).

Those hardy souls who brave the public gallery at Wanganui District Council meetings must sit on their hands, bite their tongues and - if Mickey's having a particularly bad day - cross their legs. Not for them the privilege accorded attendees at most other council meetings around NZ and overseas, of being able to ask questions of, and debate with, the Mayor and councillors. To be fair, that time is usually limited to about 15 minutes, and questioners are usually asked to inform the CEO of their intention to speak and to provide their question in advance so councillors aren't caught on the hop. But regardless of the restrictions, people can at least raise issues and speak their minds, and if the question can't be dealt with it is at least formally recorded and receives a response in due course.

The best Wanganui-ites can hope for is a smirk or a snarl from the Mayor, depending upon his mood, and a few poorly-chosen insults from Deputy Dotty, who no doubt feels her verbal fauxs pas should be kept from public view - a feeling shared, we can assure her, by Watchers who've cringed their way through one of her little homilies.

But back to Cr Dahya, whose rush of blood to the head - and possibly other organs - continues on with another radical idea - that reducing councillor numbers isn't good for democracy. Let's let him explain it in his own words:

I wonder how many of you know a councillor to whom you can talk to openly and frankly. Not many I believe. Well, the chance of you knowing one personally is about to be reduced because council has voted to reduce the number of councillors. While there were good reasons put forward by the publicly endorsed returned councillors to retain the status quo, we were out-voted by the Vision team whose main argument was the referendum result. I still believe it's an erosion of democracy, which in the end is not what councils are all about. My belief is that democracy is about having sufficient representation on council so your views are heard - and to those who think a smaller council will see a reduction in rate on their rates bill, don't hold your breath.

He also makes the valid point that while trumpeting a reduction in the number of elected - and thus directly accountable - people on Council, Mickey and his mates are in fact loading it up with quasi-councillors accountable to no-one but him. Vision's List MPs, in other words.

It is interesting that despite believing council numbers should be reduced, we have just added a Youth Council Committee which numbers 18 and have seconded up to five interested people to the Sport and Recreation Committee. This will bring the number to 11. Then of course the Heritage Committee has added an extra five members bringing their membership tally up to nine. Add to that the number of businesspeople appointed to the council's Holding Company and Wanganui Inc...

At that point he loses his nerve a little and concludes that having these unaccountable people running Wanganui means the town has "sufficient numbers of people running the district, not just six to 10 councillors, which is very reassuring". Quite how we get rid of them if we don't share his confidence is hopefully something he'll address in a future column.

Right now, the fragile bloom of independent thought needs to be nurtured and encouraged to grow, so we'll take it easy on Randhir as he takes his backbone and brain out for some much-needed exercise.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Just click your heels together and say "patsy"

Dorothy Dixer: name given to a simple question asked of a minister by a backbencher from their own party. Often the question has been written by the minister or their staff, rather than by the questioner. Such a question is often referred to as a "Dorothy Dixer" and is used to give the minister a chance to promote themselves or the work that the government is doing in their area, or to criticise the opposition party's policies, or to raise the profile of the backbench member asking the question (named for Dorothy Dix, an advice columnist suspected of often writing the questions she then answered).

Alan "Dorothy" Taylor did sterling work asking the first patsy question of Mickey in today's e-coli e-column. Taylor's status as a paid-up diVisionary and member of the Community Board was not, of course, revealed.

Just as his connections to Vision weren't revealed when the Chron published his letter, headed "Chilling" on May 17, asking precisely the same question about forestry investments. Obviously he wasn't happy with Rob Vinsen's response three days later which asked whether Taylor himself did not in fact know about falling forestry returns. But Dorothy is in the business of asking questions, not answering them. We'd be interested, for instance, in answers to questions such as who provided the loan he admitted had funded his campaign expenses, despite his self-described success as a farmer? How much was it? When is it due for repayment? Will it, in fact, ever be repaid? Or is it being repaid in kind in some way?

Then on May 23 Alan Taylor of Westmere (could they be related? - Ed) and his wife Bronwen pen a lovely letter thanking the organisers of the Mayoral Mile (who could they mean? - Ed), as they have just returned from a very enjoyable weekend in Sydney that they won there.

Obviously, to perpetrate such a transparent deception upon his readers for his own self-aggrandisement isn't in Michael Laws's nature. No, in keeping with tradition, if he merely wanted to make himself look good he'd have done away with truth altogether and simply invented an entirely fictitious person (a la Antoinette Beck and many other correspondents to the Chron who, upon investigation, appear in neither the electoral roll nor the phone book), with which to launch the e-coli upon the brown waters of the Chron's editorial page.

That can only mean one thing: when it became known that his weekly wafflings were to grace that fearlessly independent though somewhat withered organ of Mr Maslin's, the diVisionaries' hands shot skyward and cries of "pick me, pick me!" echoed round the secret "caucus" meeting.

Those readers who've ever had their offspring come home with an excruciatingly badly drawn picture looking like week-old roadkill, lovingly crafted by a somewhat simple child who clearly has about as much aptitude with a crayon as Dotty has with a dictionary, will sympathise with Mickey as he metaphorically pins the diVision children's embarrassing efforts to his very public refrigerator door.

So, dear readers, we'd like to enlist your help. We're making up not one but two lists of questions for Michael Laws to use in future columns.

List One: Questions he can expect to receive in future from adoring members of diVision.
List Two: Questions you've always wanted to ask, but just couldn't be bothered because... well, basically because you knew the answer would just be a plate full of distortion, obfuscation and deception, sprinkled with a dusting of vitriolic abuse.

We've come up with a few from the first list to help you out:

Likely future questions from diVisionaries

Don McGregor: Look here, old chap. Much as I completely admire and respect everything you do, Michael, I really must have a straight answer. This question is simply too crucial to be dealt with by your usual tactics of avoidance, attacking the questioner, randomly abusing the nearest staffer, and so on. In fact it's a question that I am quite certain is on the lips of every resident; a question that they have long wanted an answer on, not just from this administration but for many many years. A question that is critical to the very essence of democracy in Wanganui. And that question is: when the hell is the Mayor going to put me forward for the Queens Birthday honours list?

Muzza Hughes: There's nothing that can't be made better with discount whiteware, just remember that, Michael. I don't really have a question, since you said after that last Councillor Comment I wrote, that if I ever wrote anything again you'd take my pen and shove it... oh, my wife made me rub out that bit. Which is bloody hard. I keep telling her, crayons just smudge, they don't rub out.

Rangi Wills: Michael, I really hope you can help me out here. There's a rumour going round I might be Maori. Surely that isn't true?

Sue Pepperell: Hi Michael. Look, here's a picture of me and Sam in front of Te Papa. Ooo look, that's us going into the Michael Fowler Centre. And this is us outside Parliament. This is the lovely new home we have in Wellington. Here's my new office. And this is Sam's new office in Police HQ. Hopefully I'll see you in a month or so, if I can find time to pop up for the full Council meeting. Thanks for understanding why I can't make it any other time. So anyway, my question is: Why do the people of Wanganui doubt my commitment?

Nicki Higgie: Hello Michael. Ummm... just wondering if you remember me, actually? Small, blond woman? Very quiet? Bit dim? Hello...?

Dot McKinnon: Look, Michael. We had a deal. Sure, I was prepared to let you have your fun. You know I don't give a damn what you do with art galleries and museums and things because as long as the library is open so I can borrow the latest Jackie Collins, I'm quite happy with that and watching "Dancing with the Stars"... oops, sorry, I forgot, I won't mention it again... but anyway, the deal didn't say anything about leaving Wanganui with millions of dollars of debt, with an infrastructure wrecked almost beyond repair. It's not going to do much for my chances of taking over, is it? It's nothing short of an absolute betrayal of me personally and Wanganui as a whole. It's unprincipled, dishonest and dangerous. So my question is... oh wait... just give me a minute and I'll think of one... it was right on the tip of my tongue... oh never mind, just don't forget to tell me what you want me to do this week, and I'll follow it to the letter, as always.

Over to you, Watchers...

Don't forget to scroll down to the next post - the "Mickey for Manukau" poll is still open for votes!!

White shoes? Check. Attitude? Unchecked.

Godzilla vs King Kong? A minor scuffle compared to the Battle of the Titan(ic)s which may be about to break out in parts north.

For LawsWatch hears, from a usually reliable source, than none other than our Mickey has been asking around about the state of play at Manukau City Council, and other parts of the Dorkland conurbation, with a view to wreaking his particular brand of havoc up there.

This may see him pitted against another clapped-out politician renowned for his gentle and sensitive approach to governance - John Banks, whom the Herald on Sunday recently reported is considering a return to local plitics despite a resounding defeat to Dick Hubbard.

Banks at least made it to what could be considered the top of the mayoral tree, whilst Mickey is clinging to one of the lower branches. And such a battle is made all the poignant by the fact that as recently as his latest e-coli Mickey confessed he'd like to host a breakfast talkback show one day - something that Banks has also beaten him to. And his show actually rates. If both decide to compete for the same mayoral chair, expect displays of ego not seen in Auckland since the last time Paul Holmes was made to wait for a table.

And if "Michael Laws for Mayor" signs suddenly start sprouting around Manukau, what of long-serving Mayor Sir Barry Curtis, currently serving a seventh successive term, the second longest period as mayor in New Zealand. Curtis says he attends almost a 1,000 public events a year and keeping in touch with voters is one of the secrets to his political longevity. No "diary too full" excuses for Sir Barry, but then he has a quaint notion that being a mayor, rather than attempting to be a "celebrity", ought to be first priority.

Mind you, if he is tipped out by our Mickey, Manukau-ites probably won't notice a huge change. Their response to critics sound eerily alike. The letter that Curtis wrote to a ratepayer & former Councillor, Bill Kirk (80) who dared to question Sir Barry's stand on the Whenuapai Airbase as Auckland 2nd airport, included the claim that:

I believe I have more energy, knowledge and history of achievement than all members of the Manukau City Council put together including most of the staff.

And ended with this rather curious statement:

My support for you has vanished as a result of this newspaper article and no doubt you will see the results of this in due course.

Obviously Sir Barry likes his job, isn't about to retire (he tells the same unfortunate correspondent that he has "yet to see a younger person with the political fortitude, vision and courage, capable of taking on the fulltime responsibility as Mayor of Manukau") and knows how to play dirty. We'll keep our ears to the ground. At least that will make us the first to hear the stampede of JAFAs heading south when the news starts to spread.

We've asked our good friends at Manukau Citizen to poll the locals as to their thoughts on the matter. Meanwhile, we feel a poll of our own coming on...

Michael Laws for Mayor of Manukau?

Yes, please God, yes! Anything to get rid of him. And they deserve it up them, the smug bastards.
Yes, he's done a wonderful job of reigning serenely over Wanganui and the good people of Auckland deserve a term of his munificence.
No, having Mickey as our Mayor is our penance for voting for him in the first place, and we must suffer it alone. It wouldn't be fair to offload him.
No, there's still bits of the town left standing. The man still has work to do!
No, he's the best thing ever to happen to the town and I vote to have him as "Mayor for Life". And I'm not the Mayoress / John Maslin / The Spin Fairy (Mk II) / Dr Warburton / a WINC teat-sucker. Honest I'm not!

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Comments on this post are now closed. The poll will remain open till further notice.

Mickey is not amuse(um)ed

While to the best of our knowledge no one has yet lost their hand at the wrist for opposing Mickey (though several of his more enamoured supporters are rumoured to have somehow damaged their wrists whilst demonstrating the depths of their affection), Michael Laws's is clearly a regime which brooks no dissent whatsoever.

Latest people to come in for a Mayoral bombing run are the trustees of the Whanganui Museum. They wouldn't have been on Mickey's Christmas card list after steadfastly insisting back in February that they would keep the "Whanganui" in their name despite its defeat as the name of the town itself.

In a hint of the trouble to come, Museum Director Sharon Dell pointed out then that the museum is an independent charitable trust and has been since 1895, and that "iwi are an integral part of our governance".

The background, for those interested, is explained in a learned dissertation (1.07Mb pdf file) from Massey University. It's a widely well-regarded model for stewardship of a community asset, which is precisely why people have written crushingly long academic papers about it.

But for those who don't have the time, the crucial point to remember in order to understand our somewhat less-learned dissertation is that the trust is founded on the premise of joint Maori-Pakeha governance, and that it has a strong trust deed which cements it as an entity separate from council control.

This is why Mickey hasn't been able to run amok the way he did with the Sarjeant Trust Board, eventually gutting it completely. An independent entity, outside the micro management of the Mayor. Clearly an anathema to Michael Laws, who's been hankering for a chance to bring this unruly bunch to heel.

Enter Sharon Dell, whom Dr Warburton named last year as second in command to Sally Patrick. But hold on... Dell is employed by the Trust, the Trust is independent... so from whence does Dr Warburton (read: Mickey) think he derives the authority to effectively poach their staff?

After spending months trying to get somewhere with Warburton, a QC's letter was sent to him recently supporting the view that the Trust is the employer and the council can't just yank Sharon out from under their noses.

What's this? A dissenter in the ranks, challenging the Mayor's Meisterplan?! Suddenly Mickey Mayor's on his high horse and the Museum get a reply threatening to stop continuity of council funding. The total for 06/07 is $1.041 million including $768,000 operating costs and $117,000 council overhead, so such a threat spells real problems for the Museum.

It would, in effect, leave them to take their chances each year with funding applications. And the outcome of such applications is by no means certain, as the LTCCP tells us:

Regional Museum
The Council owns the Museum buildings and is responsible for employing staff on behalf of the Whanganui Regional Museum Trust. Museum services include collection development and maintenance, exhibition and visitor services, education programmes and research and advisory services.
Financial:
Wanganui District Council provides approximately 60 to 65% of the required funding. Some ordinary operational activities such as collection documentation and preservation, are supported by external grants and donations. If these grants and donations are not obtained, programmes may need to be reduced or cut. A lack of success in gaining grants will affect the Museum's ability to engage with the visitor industry, produce marketing collateral or be represented in generic marketing of the region. Success in funding applications depends on the confidence of local and national funding bodies in the institution and in some instances its charitable status.

So even without the Mayor's threat, the Museum is dependent on grants to fund around 40 percent of its activities - notably those which contribute to marketing the region, thus bringing tourism dollars to Wanganui. Having to divert these funds to make up any shortfall occasioned by Mickey's pique will therefore likely have impacts outside of those felt by the Museum itself.

Yet another community asset, founded in 1892 and housing objects of both national and international significance, and presided over without incident by a joint governance structure since 1992, is under threat - for no other reason than it has tried to assert its independence from Michael Laws. An independence that is guaranteed in its Trust Deed.

Nervous Museum Trustees are speaking to their LTCCP submission on Monday morning. We're sure they'd appreciate a show of community support, before and during. And we wish them luck in preserving an invaluable storehouse of knowledge and tikanga.

But aside from the fate of the Museum, there are other issues at stake here. Like, what's the Mayor doing in the middle of another staffing matter? And why, since he's clearly nothing more than Mickey's straw man, does Dr Warburton not find alternative employment more suited to his attributes? There must be a field somewhere that needs guarding.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Walking the plank

First, before the squawking starts, let us be clear. LawsWatch thinks the Riverfront project looks lovely. We agree it's a desirable addition to the town. But, like the Splash Centre, we wonder just how we're going to afford it and we're concerned that people were induced to vote for it without having the foggiest idea how much it would actually cost.

Here's what the punters voted for in Referendumb 2005:

Central City waterfront development

Year 1 $130,000
Year 2 $130,000

Reconnecting the riverfront to the city will turn the Whanganui River's edge back into the thriving commercial hub it used to be and reinforce our arts, culture and heritage strengths.

And here's what Mickey wants to do now (as per his latest e-coli) and presumably without further consultation with said punters:

My preference? The $1.6 million alternative. Do it once, and do it right ...that's my view.

Not surprisingly, given the increasingly ovine behaviour of our elected "representatives" on Council, he's likely to get his way.

That's a cost escalation by a factor of over six in just one year. Would all the people who supported it, making it number two on the list, have done so if they were in possession of the actual costs rather than a grossly underestimated guess? Who knows? And that's the point.

Yet again, people supported something on the basis of one set of figures, and that project is now going ahead on the basis of a completely different set - with Mickey all the while claiming this is the "will of the people". It's no such thing. It's the will of Michael Laws and diVision, aided and abetted at every turn by their "independent" lackeys. And - right or wrong - they, and only they, will be responsible for the outcome, including the effect on Wanganui's net debt and any future impact on rates.

You can bet your last dollar - and it's almost getting to that - that any project which is a success will see the credit delivered solely to Mayor Michael Laws and his diVision council. While anything that turns to custard will have the blame placed elsewhere.

Council has already made the policy decision to fund the development from asset sales...

...says Mickey. Ahhh those assets... Who knew Wanganui had the real world equivalent of magic beans?! No matter how grandiose the spending plan, no matter whether the reality is six times the original budget, those beans will keep on growing in value till they pay for everything. And if they don't... well there'll be a Finance Manager or a valuer or perhaps even a CEO (are you listening, Dr Warburton?) on whom the blame can be heaped.

Or there's always central government. They're already being set up to cop it if Vision's spend-now-hope-we-can-pay-later plans go wrong. Mickey musters all the false umbrage he can to inform us that:

I would surmise that a good 2% of your projected 3% rate rise this year is due to increased responsibilities placed upon us by the Beehive.

It's not "our" rates increase, Mr Mayor. It's yours. We didn't ask for it. And if you'd reined in your spending, we might have avoided having to pay it. These unreasonable imposts include, he says:

...micro-chipping dogs, earthquake-proofing buildings or paying six figure sums to the Audit Office to run the ruler over our draft LTCCPs...

Tsk, how unreasonable of central government to expect councils to be subject to audit when their estimates are only out by a mere $1.3 million or so. Per project.

But that's not the point (lest we fall for one of Mickey's red herrings and start debating the correctness or otherwise of central-to-local government, and vice-versa, cost-shifting). The point actually is, that unless Wanganui can do something about these rising costs, they have to be factored into the budget and - to use the Diva's own terminology - the town's cloth must be cut to suit.

Like the family facing the rising cost of petrol prices, we can moan about the injustice of it, blame big oil and greedy government taxes, and generally rail against our misfortune. We might even be right. But regardless, we're going to have to make fewer trips to the fast food joint and waterslide heaven, wait to see that new movie on DVD, and generally scale back our expenditure. Not put in a new backyard pool, re-lay the garden path, and hope the garage sale will pay for it.

And certainly not obtain the agreement of our significant other to take on the cost of such project by telling him or her fibs about the actual cost.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Thought for the weekend

In keeping with our tradition of bringing you a "Thought for the Weekend", here are several:

1. Sue Pepperell is quoted in the Chron as saying she'll prop up Mickey's regime because she's "committed". On present evidence, that's precisely what ought to occur.

2. The Chron clearly has no understanding of irony. After publishing Pepperells carefully-crafted defence of her absence it notes:

Ironically she will miss the next community development meeting because of work commitments in Auckland.

Irony, Mr Maslin, is the incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. Ms Pepperell's absence is to be expected and thus not at all ironic. Much like the Chron "investigating" any issue involving Michael Laws and publishing only his view and that of anyone who supports his position.

3. Pepperell (or more likely her Guyton St ghostwriter, one M Laws), makes liberal use of a favourite technique known as "lying by omission" in her absence defence. Pepperell's claim of having missed only "a single council meeting" is absolutely true. But of course most people, who couldn't give a rat's about the difference between full council and a committee, will assume this means all meetings. No mention is made of her committee attendance record - and of course the Chron never thought to ask.

"Among other common lies, we have the silent lie - the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all" -- Mark Twain, from his essay: "On the Decay of the Art of Lying".

4. And last, another game of "Who am I"?:

• Upon being elected, embarked on a "neoliberal austerity" program.
• Began using referenda to advance his own power and influence.
• Has endeavoured to restrict press reporting of his administration, which critics have accused of being "too insecure" to be able to defend itself in an open debate.
• Won a subsequent election claiming this "represented the free will of the people" despite a low turn-out and the fact that more people voted against him than for him.
• Has emerged as one of the area's most controversial leaders and, whilst widely criticised, has many fierce defenders.
• Has attempted to drive those who oppose him out of the area he controls.

Michael Laws? No, but close... Robert Mugabe.

Comments on this post are now closed.

When spin becomes rort

It'd be one thing if the spin spewing forth from Guyton St these days was original. At least that would be entertaining. But the merry-go-round of Spin Fairies and other, more pressing, concerns such as defending absent councillors seem to be affecting the Diva's rotational ability, because all that's emerging lately is reheated tripe.

Back in the 1980s, boasting of lower taxes while cranking up user charges made the people in power look fleetingly smart. After years of Muldoonist protectionism, we willingly suspended disbelief and looked only at our (slightly) larger pay packets, ignoring the fact that we were now paying for things which had once been provided from the common taxation pool.

But now, regular reports that direct plus indirect taxation is a greater burden on most than the mainly direct taxation of old have all but debunked those claims. Even the most ardent neo-conservative would blush if asked to run the line that everyone is better off under such cost-shifting. We're not debating neo-conservatism vs socialism, or any other philosophies come to that, merely pointing out that using smoke and mirrors to make cost-shifting look like reductions in the overall burden on tax- and rate-payers is long discredited.

But not for our Mickey, who clearly adheres to the philosophy that repetition of an untruth often enough will lead to it eventually being perceived as fact. For Michael Laws runs about Wanganui mouthing "nil rates rise" at every possible opportunity, while steadfastly ignoring the issue of user charges - a performance worthy of Basil Fawlty at his "Don't mention ze var!!" best. But like Basil, Michael's obvious reluctance only serves to highlight both the issue and his inability to sensibly address it.

First former councillor Stephen Palmer, then Cr Ray Stevens both publicly raised the issue of excessive user fees and charges. But the most comprehensive explanation we've seen was a press statement prepared by occasional LawsWatch commenter Rob Vinsen.

While Mr Vinsen has been quiet on the blog of late, a Watcher obtained a copy of the statement which was originally handed to the Chron, but was later rewritten as a Letter to the Editor, necessarily omitting some of the detail.

Mr Vinsen points out - and we're sure even Michael Laws would agree with this bit - that there has been a "philosophical change in policy since the Vision dominated Council took control".

He makes the claim that Vision - and their accommodating cronies on Council - have increased user fees and charges by 63 percent in the past two years, effectively to pay for the low percentage increase in rates over the same period. And he backs this up with examples (which we'll come to in a minute).

Vinsen's certainly makes a prima facie case. Staff cuts aside, Council has limited room to move on expenses, and limited scope to derive income other than from the pockets of its residents. They're under pressure from the Audit Office to produce a balanced budget, and costs are rising. They've also willingingly accepted (on our behalf) the burden of additional costs for pet projects. Therefore if income is to meet outgoings and increased income can't come from rates, it's a matter of raising user charges till the books balance.

That's led to a 50 percent rise in parking fees (and a likely further rise this year) as well as dog registration fees. That this hasn't gone unnoticed by ratepayers is confirmed in no less an authoritative publication than the Mayor's own e-coli e-column:

From a preliminary assessment by council officers, a good proportion of the submissions centre around the divestment of rural/community halls, and dog registration of all things!

Gosh, people have noticed that they're being sold a duck (or rather, a dog) and started complaining. How extraordinary! The majority of people are concerned - primarily or solely - with their own back pockets. That's why they'll vote for a Mayor who promises "no rates rise" no matter how short-sighted and destructive his other policies may be. But it's also why they'll turn on him - and viciously - if they find they've been conned.

Vinsen goes on to note that there have been "significant increases right across the regulatory activities" and comes up with the figures to prove it. Looking at the LTCCP figures for income from "Regulatory Services" (which in 06/07 is to include, for the first time, parking, which used to be in the CBD activity column) we find:

User fees ($000s)
04/05: 953
05/06: 1,134
06/07: 2,275 (inc parking)

Parking fees have risen from $450,000 in 04/05 to a projected $730,000 for 06/07. Perhaps after emptying your change purse into that suddenly voracious parking meter just so you can stop for a coffee in town, you'd be advised to lower your blood pressure by looking again at your "nil" rates rise demand.

Both Vinsen and Stevens allege that these extra fees are being siphoned off into other activities – and Vinsen provides an analysis of the LTCCP which backs up this claim. From here on we'll quote Vinsen directly:

Each Council activity attracts a charge for meeting council overheads – this provision is used to fund the costs in the Corporate Management activity.

LTCCP overhead contribution for Regulatory Services ($000s)
04/05: 85
05/06: 82
06/07: 588

So the extra income from user fees, including dog registration fees, are generating a 600 percent increased contribution from regulatory activity to corporate management costs this year.

The massive increase in the Corporate Management activity in Overhead Contribution recovered from all the Councils activities should be of concern to councillors.

Corporate Management operating costs ($000s)
04/05: 2,338
05/06: 2,328
06/07: 4,817
07/08: 5,572

Vinsen points out that it seems obvious that expenditure which previously wasn't classified as corporate management now comes under this category, and warns "councillors should be very vigilant in monitoring this 107 percent increase... and Council should be asked to explain these extra costs, especially considering the restructuring currently being undertaken".

Then there's the issue of the change in accounting methods. For any set of figures to have relevance, they need an historical basis for comparison. But as Palmer and Vinsen have both pointed out, the LTCCP no longer lists the previous years costs, and expenditure is no longer itemised under the various activity headings - an uninformative "operating costs" total is all the information anyone is given. Imagine receiving an annual report which not only made no reference to historical performance but didn't tell you whether the company's increased expenses were due to the rising cost of materials or a huge payout to directors. You'd be trying to sell your shares before the NZSE delisted them.

Vinsen says the "previous method of itemising expenditure was transparent, and the public (and councillors) could monitor costs better". Of course it was, and of course it did. And equally as obvious is the reason why it's no longer done that way - so that precisely the opposite applies.

On Vinsen's evidence, ratepayers are being rorted.

He concludes by urging other independent councillors, as well as Ray Stevens, to explain to the public why they are approving these massive increases in user fees (63%), overhead charges (600%), and corporate management operating costs (107%) in this year's plan.

In the unlikely event that one of them is brave enough to do so, our email inbox is, always, open.

And while on the topic of just how flaccid Mickey's spin is becoming of late, what can one make of the defence he's made of having Cr Sue Pepperell based in Wellington.

Cr Pepperell's partner is on secondment to Police HQ in Wellington and, not unnaturally, she joins him as often as she can.

Err... they're not temporarily bunking at a Terrace B&B Michael, they're listed in the phone book at a Wellington address. If their intention is to return to live in Wanganui it's simple - let Cr Pepperell tell us when that will occur.

She continues to fulfil her council responsibilities, attends more council meetings than some stationary representatives...

In fact her record of attendance at committee meetings during May shows she turned up only for the Youth meeting. "Stationary" representatives? We were a little puzzled as to who this meant till we realised it was a synonym for "nailed, petrified, rooted, screwed, asleep, barren, closed down, dead, deserted, down, empty, gathering dust, inactive, inert, passive, quiet, redundant, rusty, sleepy, uncultivated, vacant, void, waste and workless". Our hats are off to you, Mickey - you've come up with a word that deftly encapsulates every single member of your "team".

...and has single-handedly created the best youth committee and youth council in the country.

As a commenter has already pointed out, whilst no one should under-estimate Sue's work on youth issues, to say she has "single-handedly" created the youth presence on Council ignores the work of many people - Council staff and the youth themselves included.

Sue is a hard-working, independently-minded councillor making a real contribution to Wanganui. That is more than can be said for her male detractors.

Clearly he's referring to David Murray and Ross Mitchell-Anyon, who raised Sue's absence in the Chron. They both happen to be male. And the relevance of that is...? We didn't detect a hint of sexism in their letters - indeed they read like many that were written at the time of GK Taylor's departure. Can it be that Mickey thinks prefixing "detractors" with "male" will somehow demonstrate the kind of sensitive, feminist side that's been noticeably absent when dealing with female Council employees lately?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Et tu, Sue?

It's hardly news to most Watchers that Vision councillor Sue Pepperell now works and lives in Wellington. Indeed, her address and telephone number are readily available via the online White Pages and the matter has been widely reported, including via a press release from Tearaway, the magazine she formerly edited, which heralded:

...a much stronger presence in the important Wellington scene, as "Sue has some excellent connections there, especially with government departments".

It's even been mentioned in the Chron which - given they're the last to know anything - means eveyone in Wanganui must know it by now. When GK Taylor headed off to pastures new, there was a strategically timed by-election. But what's to happen this time? Taylor's appointment to a position with the Halberg Trust was trumpeted by Michael Laws as soon as it happened. But we still await official word of Sue Pepperell's big move.

Now, as we learned during the debate as to whether, and when, Taylor would resign the law is silent on whether a councillor must live within free-calling distance of the town they represent. So:

1. The last triennial election was held on 9 October 2004.
2. The next one is therefore scheduled for late 2007.
3. The Local Electoral Act Section 117 (1) clearly says that if a vacancy occurs more than 12 months before the next scheduled election, then "the vacancy must be filled by an election under this Act".

Therefore, if the Diva can continue to avoid officially acknowledging Sue's move until after October he gets away without having to hold an election to replace her. Given that GK Taylor's resignation - months after he'd actually left Wanganui - was clearly stage-managed to deliver maximum political advantage to Michael Laws, it's likely that this situation will be too.

If he can avoid any demand for a by-election till 12 months (or less) before the next election, then Council can decide to either appoint "a person named in the resolution who is qualified to be elected as a member" (i.e. anyone they choose) or simply leave the position vacant.

The last thing Michael Laws wants is an outspoken critic elected to Council. Better to hide the facts and then leave the role unfilled till the election, thus setting himself up to boast (falsely) that he's "saved money" by cutting councillor numbers even earlier than was planned.

But isn't this one of those "important questions" which Vision pledged to put to the "will of the people"? After all, what's more important than our democratic representation?

Meanwhile, the Mayor's concern over declining police numbers seems to have faded. In his 13 December 2004 column he revealed:

Each fortnight, local Police Inspector Sam Hoyle and I update each other on the issues on our respective watches... It was during one of these briefings that the issue of Police numbers came up – and how Wanganui had lost six front-line cops because of demands elsewhere.

Inspector Hoyle, it seems, was sent to Wellington on a three month course and has decided not to return. So we're one very senior policeman short!! Yet not a word from Guyton Street - no protest, no farewell, nothing.

There's only one thing for it citizens. Time to get out that spotlight, point it at the clouds, and pray for the return of... MayorMan!!

Meanwhile, who could this thoughtful article in the Sunday Times be talking about? (read it before you click the link):

Neither quite left, nor quite right, he is a typical macho... leader, whose charisma is meant to stand for the empowerment of his people, mostly poor[er] than the urban elite.

[His is a] new type of authoritarianism... built on a mixture of showbusiness, intimidation, paranoia, huge wealth, and public handouts... The ideal is democracy by referendum, stripped of messy party politics or independent courts.

[He] as well as his [councillors], appear on television to denounce journalists who dare to criticise the revolution.

That [he] is applauded by many people... is not necessarily a sign of democracy; many revolutionary leaders are popular, at least in the beginning of their rule, before their promises have ended in misery and bloodshed.

No, not our Mickey, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. And not our Sunday Times but the UK version. But the parallels are spooky.

We all know Mickey went to Ecuador for some excreable TV programme or other. That's just across the Colombian border from Venezuela - a short llama ride away, in fact.

Could it be he met Chavez in a mud hut somewhere, schooled him up on populist authoritarianism Laws-style, and sent him off to Venezuela?

If so, we owe the world an apology...

Comments on this post are now closed.

A matter of record

When does the revolution start? an anonymous commenter asked yesterday after reading Michael Laws’ latest bilious attack on staff and studying the emerging casualty list from CEO Dr Warburton's ongoing massacre.

Readers with long memories (and nine months is a very long time in any place subject to the daily indignities associated with Michael Laws’ presence) may recall that at the time Dr Warburton put down the boning knife at his meat plant in September 2005, an assiduous Googler at the LawsWatch cave discovered the good doctor was no stranger to mass redundancies or the Employment Court. We provide a refresher below particularly for the edification of those of his latest victims now talking to their lawyers.

A seemingly well-placed but somewhat shy anonymous commenter has said there’s more to come and that all will be revealed tomorrow. Meanwhile, the toll of those getting the Warburton Handshake almost certainly includes the following:

Rosemary Hovey (Community development manager & long-time friend of organisations struggling to make Wanganui a better place);

Keith Smith (Community liaison officer & in-house union man);
Philip Shackleton (Economic development manager surplus to requirements with the rise and rise of Wanganui Inc);

Irene Pearson (Shackleton’s executive assistant & former PA to Chas Poynter);

Jenna Lees (plucked from the Chronicle less than a year ago by the mayor as his inaugural events manager then flicked off to Wanganui Inc; not even being Little Lucy’s godmother could save her from the chop when she apparently didn’t measure up to the standards for WINC’s newly advertised Events Czar job).

Librarian Sally Patrick is being tipped to continue to rise like a souffle and add "community" to "culture" in her portfolio. Though in a city where both concepts are being laid waste by the Vision barbarians one assumes she’ll have plenty of time to read her magic million worth of new library books and join the mayor and his favourite developer in poring over plans for the grand new library/museum he wants to build her on the Queen’s Park forecourt, the likes of which haven’t seen since the Mugul emperor Shah Jahan knocked up that nice white marble edifice in 1631.

Meanwhile, Dr Shipman’s sorry Warburton’s list is not the only list being talked about by LawsWatch commenters and folk about town. It seems these times are not only stressful for the CEO but the mayor himself is exceeding his usual quotient of offensive interactions with staff and even a councillor. The reason for the hasty departure of Helen Lawrence two weeks ago from her media post at the mayor’s side is but the tip of the ice-berg it seems and on Saturday the Chronicle reported a terse exchange at the council table when Cr Sue Westwood took exception to an "objectionable" comment from his worship and his subsequent cleverly crafted apology for "any offence he may have caused".

And as the sand continues to pass through the hourglass at 101 Guyton Street … in the CEO’s office, Dr Warburton’s busy denying any political influence on his choice of victims and Mickey Mayor is singing the same tune in his usual out-of-key register.

So, when does the revolution start? Perhaps staff could consider a buy-out of the council’s remaining assets before Mickey flogs them all off to fund his swimming pool, and have a shot at running the show themselves. They’ll have to be quick though as the Northern Advocate revealed a little over a year ago. Now, gentle readers, for your edification here’s a little refresher from LawsWatch 9/11 2005 edition:

It seems Mr Warburton is no friend of the union, having recently laid off about 60 workers at the Kaitaia Timber Company. While Warburton's company, Tanner Group Ltd (TGL) announced it was closing its three mills at Kaitaia, Kerepehi and Tairua because it couldn't make a profit, EPMU timber industry organiser Megan Jones said the workers believed they were capable of running the plant profitably and wanted the opportunity to do so.

According to MP Sue Bradford, TGL told workers on a Friday that they had until Monday to come up with a way to keep their plant open. "So over and above the simple fact of the closure, local people have every right to feel bitter towards the way the Tanner Group has gone about this... we have a company that has obviously kept its workers in the dark for some time and has then attempted to make itself look good by offering a fig leaf of consultation."

The Union also tangled with Tanner Group last August, when the company lost an Employment Relations Act case in which it was alleged to have "threaten[ed the] applicant with disciplinary action over [a] term of employment that had not been directly and expressly negotiated and [the] contents of which remained uncertain between parties".

So hopefully Council staff have dotted the i's and crossed the t's in their employment contracts.

Update (7.40 pm): Idly surfing the web, we came across this example of how Mickey's mate and mentor rewrites history to suit himself. Said with an air of certainty and a "I dare you to doubt me" demeanour, it does alas fool enough of the people enough of the time - at least long enough to ensure Winnie and Mickey stay in power. It's a tactic employed frequently by Michael Laws - promulgate an absolute distortion of history with an air of unimpeachable certainty, then watch as it's picked up and repeated ad infinitum in comments on this blog and elsewehere as though it were true. But inevitably there's someone round with a long memory...

Comments on this post are now closed.

A rash of spinelessness

What has happened to Cr Don McGregor?! First off he criticised the Diva's plan to "divest" (i.e. get rid of) community halls. Then he was heard to opine that "It could also be argued that ratepayers were not fully informed on other items voted on in the referendum". Could he have snuck off to some exotic plastic surgery clinic and had a spine-ectomy?

His concern over the lack of information provided to tick-happy voters in Mickey's referenda was motivated by the fact that whilst 75 percent of country ratepayers (who could be said to have some intrinsic knowledge of rural needs) voted against doing away with wards - and thus separate rural representation on Council - the votes of their city cousins (who were given no information on the impact of such a measure) tipped the balance to 53 percent in favour.

That it's taken him a year to realise what Watchers figured out before the first voting forms ever landed in their mailboxes - that a referendum is only as good as the information provided to the voters - we'll leave aside for the moment.

Because Cr McGregor has now done what no other councillor on this Michael Laws-led Council has done before - he's stood up for the people who elected him - those who live in the rural ward.

At yesterday's Strategy Committee meeting he spoke against reducing the number of Councillors from 12 to 10 saying there was "no valid reason" for doing so other than that such a move would be "politically popular". That sounds dangerously like a statement of principle to us.

Pointing out that ten was an arbitrary number, McGregor asked, rhetorically, "why not eight, nine or 11?". Or perhaps just one - Mayor-for-Life Field Marshall Michael Laws? (we said that, not Cr McGregor, though we suspect he may be starting to think it...)

He was supported by Cr Randhir Dahya, who said the reduction wouldn’t provide better decision making. Of course it won't - but then it was never designed to. Ten is simply an easier number for the Mayor to control than is 12, but represents a high enough number so as not to unduly alarm the populace about the erosion of democracy.

Cr Dahya also pointed out that less councillors meant less opportunity for a wider spread of community representation on council.

Of course the Diva immediately resorted to his old refrain - that Council was merely implementing "the will of the people". Sixty percent of people who voted in the referendum agreed with a reduction in councillors and 40 percent wanted numbers to remain at 12.

We've no doubt that's the case, just as it is if people are asked if they want to reduce the number of MPs. Because what springs to mind when asked that question is whether people are happy with the ineffective, greedy, scheming, lazy, stupid or just plain bewildered nincompoops who seem to make up the majority of people who manage to get themselves elected. Could we lose a few and not suffer? You bet we could.

Which neatly avoids the real question (just as it was designed to do) which is, what can be done to ensure that these people perform their duties properly once they're there? And how can we ensure a better quality of person gets elected in the first place? This isn't the place to canvas answers to those questions; but the point is, most people will vote in a knee-jerk way for a reduction in the numbers of elected officials, most of whom they see as ineffective for various reasons, and especially when they're unaware of the negative effects such as reduced public access to decision makers, less opportunity for talented people to contribute, less diversity, and so on.

However Cr Marty Lindsay soon came riding to his boss's rescue in a scene which wouldn't have been out of place in "Brokeback Mountain". Just as the injuns were looking dangerous Marty said, a tear welling in his eye, that voting for a reduction in councillors wasn’t something he wanted to do, but he had to, to honour the referendum result. A brilliant piece of logic, that - only the Mayor is elected to lead (after all, it's he who makes all the running on the issues), while councillors... well, they're just there to do what someone else tells them to do, even when it's against their better judgement.

Hopefully Don slipped him the name of the spine-ectomy clinic.

In the end Council was split, six votes for and six against. Chairperson Dotty used her casting vote to see the motion was passed. Now there's one elected representative who's absent even when she's present.

Note to Mr Maslin: Not a good idea to accuse our firemen of having rashes, especially when the first line of the story opines that they were "probably lucky they didn’t have time to jump in the shower yesterday morning"... If your house catches fire, you might be left scratching.

This follows Saturday's headline: "We can doe trhe job, says community board". UK paper The Guardian is so famous for its typos that it's almost universally known as The Grauniad. It surely can't be long before Wanganui's local rag becomes known as The Crinhocle?

Update (6.40pm): And while we're on the subject of elected people who could well be dispensed with... thanks to Murray McCully's newsletter we're thrilled to report that our bauble-eschewing Foreign Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters MP has chosen a crack team of Official Observers to... well, observe, we guess... the elections in Fiji. The unfortunate three chosen for this tough, thankless assignment are none other than:

• NZ First MP, former NZ First President and longtime Winston buddy Doug Woolerton. Considering his hand was on the tiller while at least two NZ First party lists were thrown overboard with concrete shoes on, he certainly knows how to spot a dodgy election.
• Susan Baragwanath, just pipped for MP-dom by being ranked number eight on the NZ First list, now given a consolation prize.
• David Major former Salvation Army officer and now a "Polcy Advisor" to... you guessed it, none other than the same Winston Peters.

Aside from Woolerton's list-rigging experience, none of these three know any more about running an election than do you, dear readers - which amounts to how to tick a name and stuff an envelope in a box. And the best part is, you're the ones paying for this week-long Club (Politically) Ded holiday. Makes appointing your kid's godmother to minor position look fairly reasonable by comparison.

And while these three reject the baubles of office in Fiji (forecast temperature tomorrow: 30 degrees), we do hope you enjoy your weekend in wonderful Wanganui, Watchers (forecast temperature tomorrow: 15 degrees. And raining by Sunday).

Comments on this post are now closed.

We hear...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

No accounting for stupidity

So asset sales could net up to $7 million for Council, according to the Chron. Who's their source? None other than that well known qualified valuer, Michael Laws esq. Backed up, as he always seems to be, by experienced real estate commentator Dr Warburton.

Of course the Diva has every right to proclaim to the populace his estimate of value. But oughtn't any reporter worth his ballpoint check with an independent source? A local valuer? Valuation NZ? REINZ? All of the above?

But - in a startling change from our usual policy - let's take the Diva at face value and assume an inflow of $7 million into Council's coffers. That'll mean we can pay the $5.4 million for a new Splash centre - avoiding Wanganui going into even more debt than it presently faces - and at least retire $1 million or so of debt, right?

Not according to Dr Warburton, who says it's "hard to say" because "money comes in and goes out". Excuse us? That's the kind of answer we'd expect if we asked Homer Simpson to balance his chequebook, not the CEO of a multimillion dollar enterprise to assess likely future ratepayer liabilities.

In a startling change from his usual policy, the Diva was more honest. It's not going to clear debt, or even make a dent in it. It'll be swallowed up by schemes both necessary and grandiose. "It’s reducing the need for council borrowing," he said (our emphasis). "Put it this way: we have to borrow an extra $20 million over the next two years".

Yet still he adheres to the touching refrain that a fifth of this newly minted debt mountain ought to be spent on a swimming pool because that's "honouring the democratic wishes of Wanganui people". As long as he keeps singing that tune, we'll keep chiming in with the discordant note: they wished for no such thing, Mickey, because the level of debt, and the implications thereof, were never made clear.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Thought for the weekend

Mr/Ms Plod here... You don't seriously expect me to believe that the Bullocks and Westwoods sign up to anything Mr Laws suggests unless it is a) rational b) popular c) nailed down...

5:44 PM, May 05, 2006

It doesn't matter what anyone here thinks. Most of Wanganui accept the council's decisions and move on.

5:45 PM, May 05, 2006

On that much, at least, we agree anonymous.

We have become a nation of mindless rabble incapable of judgment and easily ruled by the illogical notions and faddish devisings of self-appointed social engineers.... Where knowledge and reason fail, the pigs will lurch and waddle on their hind legs, and the other beasts will gawk in admiration and envy.

Richard Mitchell, The Underground Grammarian, Vol. III, No. 3, Mar. 1979.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Yes it's long, but read it anyway

Our apologies in advance to the commenter who pleaded for shorter posts. Our fingers have been worn to stubs these past few days, but such is the puffing of smoke and flashing of mirrors emanating from Guyton Street as the LTCCP comment process heads into the final straight that some depth of analysis is called for. A number of commenters have disputed our attitude toward Council borrowing and spending (particularly on the Splash Centre). We can't answer them all point-by-point as it'd take more words than anyone would be prepared to read.

But most have a similar refrain, and someone calling him (or her) self "an ordinary plod" made a comment in response to the last post which seems to pretty much cover most it, so we'll respond to that point-by-point.

Like most of your analyses LawsWatch - this latest effort is flawed on a number of levels. I note that you don't publish postings about your stuff-ups but here goes anyway. All the below info is from publicly available sources either council agendas or minutes or Chronicle reports.

And of course everything published on the Council website (direct from Mickey's spin) and in the Chron (re-hashes of Spin Fairy press releases) is beyond reproach. We don't claim to be perfect, just more accurate than that litany of obfuscation. Mr/s Plod continues:

The new Splash Centre will have no additional operational expenses for ratepayers so Palmer is wrong. If he uses that logic then no wonder he was turfed off council in '04.

Let's start by defining the size of the problem. Keith Hindson reported to Council on Monday 12 September 2005 that operating costs would increase by between $300,000 and $525,000 (at 2004/05 prices) in addition to the Centre's current funding of $342,000 per annum.

Then, at the Community Committee meeting on 7 December 2005 Denis McGowan, Danny Jonas and Eric Sim informed councillors that "overall operating cost if the proposed development proceeded would be 147% of the current cost, leading to a projected community facility’s charge for each ratepayer under Swimming Pools of $57.25". In other words, a rates increase.

Then at the Strategy Committee meeting on 15 December 2005 received a further report which informed them that:

The current cost to the Council for the Splash Centre is $334,000 per annum. This includes the management contract, repairs and maintenance, associated property costs and interest payments etc. The forecast cost to the Council to operate the original pool and new extension in today’s dollars is $825,000. This includes $100,000 of interest repayments on the $1,500,000 capital funding identified in the Long-term Council Community Plan (LTCCP), a doubling of the property and maintenance costs as the facility will double in size. The management contract would rise from the current $243,000 to $556,000... An allowance has been included in the LTCCP for increases in operational expenditure in 2006/07, however there is still a shortfall of $329,000 which needs to be addressed.

So will people such as Mr/s "Ordinary Plod" flock to the Splash Centre in sufficient numbers to make up this shortfall? Council's own report doesn't know, and predicts the possibility of increased entry charges:

The projected increase in patronage is 50%. However, Sport and Recreation Wanganui are targeting a 100% to 120% increase in patronage as new markets become available. It must be noted that these forecasts are based on the existing entry fees. Increases in entry charges have not been considered at this stage, but it is a decision the Council may need to consider in the future as means of reducing the Council contribution towards the operational cost of the facility.

Let's pause to recap, to help those who are daunted by long posts such as this:

1. Operating costs will rise from the current $334,000 per year to $825,000.
2. Council reports project the imposition of an additional community facility charge for each ratepayer of $57.25.
3. A further report predicts the possibility of increased user charges.

"No additional operational expenses for ratepayers", Mr/s Plod? Perhaps, perhaps not. Indeed the Diva seems to support your assertion, despite Council officers' professional advice to the contrary. According to a response on 29 April 2005 from Ian McGowan to a Watcher's enquiry :

Mayor Michael Laws says... additional operating expenses of the two major projects (i.e. the Sarjeant Gallery and Splash Centre Extensions) would need to be borne by the organisations responsible for running the facilities and not by the Council. Council's contribution is the capital funding and proponents of some projects may need to cut their cloth as a consequence.

But the Splash Centre isn't cutting it's cloth (or rather it's water slides). It's going with the full blown all-the-bells-and-whistles plan. And if there isn't going to be a $57.25 additional community facility charge once the new Centre is operational, then that will also have to be found by the Splash Centre.

So maybe ratepayers won't pay for it as ratepayers; instead they'll pay for it as swimmers. That makes all the difference. Unless they're detered by the increased user charges and stay away in droves, causing the Splash Centre to turn to Council...

Of course no one has actually made a decision on this, but we'll move forward anyway, and hope all is well. Yep, there's some fine fiscal rectitude for you.

And talking of decisions, let's move on to part 2 of Mr/s Plod's rebuttal:

If you're going to convert one asset to another (land into Splash extension) you haven't sold it but converted it from a land asset to a community asset. You could use that money to repay debt but then you'd build no new community amenities ever until all your debt was repaid and Wangas would stand still. I was one who voted in the referendum for Splash and I'm delighted it will be built and available to my kids as are most of my mates and neighbours. You obviously don't have kids or swim.

We do both, actually - well some of us do, and others do one or the other. But that's not the point.

First point: people weren't given the choice between debt repayment and the Splash Centre, because they were never asked whether debt repayment was a priority. The referendum was like offering a mordibly obese person a choice between cake and pavlova, not cake and a diet.

Second point: Asset sales equivalent to the cost of the project chosen in the referendum were meant to have been realised before the project proceeded. Our authority for that? None other than Michael Laws:

Mayor Laws... said that funding of referendum items would be based on the conversion of old Council assets to the new Council assets, therefore, for a referendum project to proceed the Council must first sell an asset to gain the funding required. (WDC Minutes 26 April 2005)

Third point: The people of Wanganui were meant to have been specifically consulted on asset sales before they occurred:

6. Asset Sales - Vision’s democracy policy ensures that the Wanganui public has the final say – by referendum – on all "issues of significance". That includes asset sales. No assets will be sold by the council without the prior consent of the Wanganui people.

Perhaps we missed that consultation? In case you're not even sure what these assets are, LawsWatch revealed in November 2005 that:

There are 48 properties listed for sale, across three portfolios and divestment funds may only be used as follows:

• City Freehold: pay off debt or reinvest in assets or services offering greater amenity value to the District.
• City Endowment Fund: all capital (divestment proceeds) must remain within the City Endowment and net income can be 'dividended' to Council or reinvested.
• Harbour Endowment; all capital (divestment proceeds) must remain within the Harbour Endowment. Net rental income is payable (effectively a negative rent) to River City Port Ltd under the terms of the company's lease from Council (as administrator of the Harbour Endowment) to be used for port operations.

So let's see if we can summarise what's wrong with the process:

1. The complete figures (which we've presented here over past months) ought to have been put in front of people in the referendum. Those figures, of course, would have included:
   
   • Rising construction costs
   • Increased debt servicing costs
   • Increased operating costs
   • The possibility of an increased community facility charge.
   • The possibility of increased user charges.
2. The option of debt repayment should have been offered as a referendum choice, with the benefits clearly enunciated.
3. If it was intended that the Splash centre be funded from asset sales, the specifics of such sales should have been put to that referendum or a prior one, in order to meet Vision's own policy pledge.
4. Assuming permission was granted by the people of Wanganui to sell specific assets, the value of those assets should have been realised before work commenced on the Splash Centre - after all, this is what the Diva pledged just over a year ago.

We're not picking on you, Mr/s Plod - in fact your contribution is well thought out and diverse views are always welcome. But your reliance on Mayoral spin and Chronicle "reportage" means you - along with most of the rest of Wanganui - aren't getting the true picture, and you're contributing to Mickey's disinformation campaign by spreading it.

Comments on this post are now closed.