Nobody's (s)miling

Oh alright then. Commenters have asked us why we haven't gleefully posted on the flop that was the Mayoral Mile. As we said in response, mainly because it'd be like posting about the weather - stating the obvious.

That anything established by Mickey for Mickey is inevitably set to fail, either spectacularly or - as in this case - by slowly withering. For instance: Mainstreet Mayoral office any closer to opening, Mickey?

But the Watchers have been bombarding our inbox with little gems such as the fact that woeful Winc had to race down to the riverside market on Saturday morning and make an offer he couldn't refuse to the mobile coffee guy who's always there to get him to up stakes and move to Cooks for the Mayoral Mile.

Then you have the Chron saying there were about 1,000 there for Saturday night's premiere races. True perhaps, but Watchers tell us that by around lunchtime it seemed pretty deserted. Take away the Collegiate kids ("ringies") who are pressganged into competing, plus their doting parents, aunts, uncles etc and, in the estimate of at least one Watcher, "you'd be left with bugger all real attendees".

Obviously the Chron's sports editor David Ogilvie didn't get the Maslin and MacNicol memo regarding sycophancy toward all things Mickey, because he commented:

Something has to be done, though, about the general running of the night - was it a case of too many irons in the fire? The athletics people were becoming frutstrated by the other hoo-haa and they couldn't get things down that they wanted.

There's some mediation to be done, a proper power base to be established for the running of future meetings.

And he asks how, with minor sponsor Mickey supposedly standing down, future events will be funded. Simple, says, Mickey: "We’ve put it in the annual plan for next year".

So an event which was only ever established to promote Michael Laws (otherwise, as a commenter asked, why isn't it called the Wanganui Mile?) is to be left high and dry by it's progenitor and the full cost of running future events dumped on ratepayers.

Rob Vinsen's summation of the whole disaster, posted to LawsWatch a few days ago, is worth highlighting:

...the Mayor got the Council to underwrite the event for $64,800. He put in $10,000, they hoped to get another $10,000 from ticket sales etc leaving the ratepayer funding the rest providing everything went to budget (unlike the Boxing Day Concert).

Now, I attend most athletics and cycling meetings and the plain truth is that if the competitors don't have their mums and dads watching there wouldn't be a crowd. The Mayoral Mile is not a formula for mass participation - unlike say the Round Lake Taupo Challenge which attracts 16,000 starters and as many again supporting.

Why? Because Taupo is a) a challenging event, and b) it is also a relay, attracting teams of starters. Why would anybody travel to Wanganui to jog 4 times around Cooks Gardens? Quite frankly if any promotor went to the Council with a plan to run an athletics type meet and asked for $64,800 backing they would be laughed out the door.

No economic case could be presented that would support ratepayers funds going into such an event - unlike the Masters Games for whom the Council comes up with only $40,000 each two years. I don't see that the Mayoral Mile has a future if Michael Laws is not there railroading his Vision councillors into voting for it.

Coming on the back of the Bikes disaster, the Boxing Day Concert disaster, the $60,000 wasted on containers for the Masters Games thanks to Mickey's mad Splash Centre scheme and who knows what else that hasn't come to light yet, Mickey couldn't be trusted to organise the tea trolley at a CWI meeting, let alone the proverbial fesitivities in a brewery.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Danger: money

Funding of politics - everything from election campaign advertising to politicians' salaries - has long been a fraught topic. Given the standard of "representation" offered by elected representatives in most Western democracies since at least the mid-1980s most people are averse to being taxed to pay for what they see as unaccountable politicians living in the lap of luxury.

And they have a point. Like any service business, politics is suffering from not having done a particularly good job of serving the needs of its customers - so why should they keep paying? It's incredibly tempting to say that not only should they have to fund their own campaigns, but that once elected they shouldn't even get paid. That'll show 'em.

But, like most simple solutions, it doesn't work.

The problem for most people, disenchanted with the process and disillusioned by those elected through it, is that the notion of investing to improve the political process seems like an anathema. "Don't give them a cent; their superannuation is too generous; they waste our money on the baubles of office; hell, don't even pay them a wage" is a seductive battle cry. But it will have precisely the opposite effect - a fact that a political operator as canny as Michael Laws knows only too well.

That's why those who have done the research don't agree with him. In the UK the Power Commission, whose final report is well worth reading, was recently tasked with discovering "Why has disengagement from formal democratic politics in Britain grown in recent years and how can it be reversed?". It would have been easy for the Inquiry to appease the disenchanted by recommending less, not more, public money be invested in democracy. But it didn't. Amongst a raft of recommendations aimed at getting people to re-engage with the political process at all levels is this one:

State funding to support local activity by political parties and independent candidates to be introduced based on allocation of individual voter vouchers. This would mean that at a general election a voter would be able to tick a box allocating a £3 donation per year from public funds to a party of his or her choice to be used by that party for local activity. It would be open to the voter to make the donation to a party other than the one they have just voted for.

The Inquiry pointed out that "if 30 million people voted in a general election, there would be a potential pot of £90 million available to fund local party political and candidate activity". Why pay for politicians who are increasingly isolated and seemingly unwilling to listen? Because, as The Independent (the UK version) put it recently, "If you don't pay for politicians, the rich will".

At the same time as seeking to reform the political process to make politicians more accountable (and Power has many other recommendations seeking to do this) it's important to maintain access to, and equity within, our democracy by ensuring that lack of money isn't a barrier to running for office - and that an excess of money ought not to provide one candidate with an unfair advantage over his or her rivals.

Equally importantly, anyone who devotes their time to elected office needs to be remunerated - and for exactly the same reason. As Democracy Matters puts it "those without access to wealth are locked out of the system, unable to afford to run for office". If they don't earn their salary, then by all means sack them. Even institute some performance indicators which they must meet during their term. Make them subject to recall. But pay them - or risk a homogenous and unrepresentative council (or parliament or senate or congress); one at risk of widespread corruption.

Because to claim, as Michael Laws does, that holders of elected office ought not to be paid assumes one of two things:

1. Either that we are comfortable returning to the days when politics was the pursuit of "gentlemen"- wealthy landowners with independent incomes and time on their hands, elected by people who knew that their place in life was to be ruled by their betters. There were no women, no people of any ethnicity other than white, and of course no one who did an honest day's toil - they were too busy toiling.


2. Or that we want diversity but we're happy to have our politicians derive an income from sources other than the public purse. Inevitably, that will be business and other special interests.

Clearly the argument is populist nonsense, debunked perfectly by Laws himself: if a person is elected who is wealthy enough not to need the income, they can simply "put it back in the pot" by giving it to the body to which they were elected or, like him, devote it to private philanthropy within the community.

Similarly, allowing someone (in this case, Laws himself) to privately fund the election campaigns of people on a particular party ticket further erodes choice: why would someone less well resourced even try to run a campaign against a diVision candidate with access to the Mayor's deep pockets? And if they do run, what are their chances against an opponent who can afford billboards, glossy fliers and even electronic media?

By hand-picking the starters, it's possible to run a completely fair race but still bias the outcome. Then, as The Nation (Thailand) noted back in 1998 (in an article on increasing corruption in Asian democracies), "since for the most part only the rich people backed by wealth can afford to run for office, leading to effective control of the political system by economic elites that have the added advantage of legitimacy owing to their democratic election".

Even if election spending is capped, the candidate who didn't have to fund-raise from multiple donors, who got all their money from one source and could devote all their energy to campaigning, is at an unfair advantage. And more importantly, once elected they owe their allegiance not to a local branch made up of many people with divergent views but solely to one man or woman - their benefactor.

Unless we restore the people’s sovereignty over government, unless we reform our public institutions to meet the demands of a new millenium, we will squander our destiny... I have spoken against forces that have turned politics into a battle of bucks instead of a battle of ideas. - US Senator John McCain

Comments on this post are now closed.

Since when is politics a charity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Comments on this post are now closed.