Incoming!!

Welcome, Dear Readers, to a LawsWatch summer special report. Today your favourite blogspot has embedded a reporter on Wanganui’s Direct Democracy Mayoral Spin Chopper One as it tours the mountains, lakes, forests, farms and beaches of New Zealand and beyond seeking out buy-election candidates for re-education Diva-style.

Our intrepid reporter is joined in turn by a fellow embedee from Notional Radio's Soporific Summer Series as we take to the skies at dawn on yet another beautiful January morning for the first sortie in Operation Re-education, with Colonel Laws and Tail Gunner Larry Mitchell.

But first, dear readers, turn off the sizzling sausages and join us for some background to this extraordinary example of Democracy in action...

"Cheap shots score no bullseyes" was the unusally provocative (for the Chron) headline above a story on Monday quoting buy-election candidate Allan Anderson's suspicions that the Diva might be being just a tad alarmist in his buy-election hyperbole.

"Is it safe to live in Wanganui? Or even to venture into the city?" he asked, rhetorically we hope. "… is it safe to walk the crumbling footpaths, drive on our dirt roads, drink the water or even flush the toilet? And, as for bird flu… just forget it. Update your will."

And hitting several nails on the head with a resounding bang, Anderson added, "This is the stuff of populist politics. Denigrate everything in sight and blame the previous administration. It sometimes works and helps deflect attention from one’s own shortcomings. But it does not make for harmonious and constructive decision-making.

"Instead of denigrating all that exists Wanganui needs to acknowledge that most of what is now coming to fruition – roads, footpaths, wastewater scheme and the revamp of the avenue/Mainstreet – was initiated by previous councils," he pointed out, adding presciently "it will take more than a mayoral mile to pay for our sewerage scheme." And our flash new swimming pool, and just about everything else on the buy-election bread and circuses agenda, he might have added.

Such a clear and down-to-earth analysis didn't go unanswered for long. The Diva promptly cranked up the spin machine to announce he was "disturbed" (we've known that all along - Ed.) and accused Anderson of having "no idea how serious the council's state of finances is".

So... because a candidate points out that the city needs to find money - money it doesn't have - to pay for sewerage let alone a swimming pool, that shows he doesn't understand how bad finances are?

Anderson had "obviously [not] read any council document over the past year or the reports of the Audit Office or independent auditors. His lack of awareness is just bizarre." Then leaping deflty from unwarranted assumption to unsupported conclusion, the Diva added that Anderson's comments "did highlight the fact that candidates might not be as knowledgeable as current councillors".

Oh those informed Councillors like Dotty "Professor Phard" McKinnon, perhaps? Or Muzza "what's with all these annoying meetings?" Hughes.

Candidates need not fear, however. The burden of forming their own conclusions will soon be lifted from their shoulders. Just like the present crop of spineless lackeys councillors, candidates are to be deluged with reams of Mayoral spin telling them how to think.

But now we return to our embedded reporter on board Spin Chopper One ...

Since this is the zenith of the holiday season, and candidates need all the relaxation and recharging they can get to prepare for the possibility of two years in the Guyton Street war zone (which is precisely the reason the buy-election was called for this time of the year - Ed.) - Colonel Laws' first stop this morning is a faraway beach on the Chatham Islands and he wastes no time rushing out with his whiteboard and laser pointer, and delivering his briefings to startled sunbathing candidates, one of whom was seen to stir slightly in his lounger and reach for the sunblock at the chopper's approach.

Gunner Larry Mitchell, the Diva's favourite report writer, has come out of retirement on his Puhoi farm, and is handing out remaindered copies of his $44,000 vanity publishing exercise, replete with lots of nice pictures and stories about the Diva's fancy fiscal footwork. One grateful candidate was seen tossing their holiday reading (a work of fiction by that psychopathic pollie Jeffrey Archer) into the surf and plunging into Larry's masterpiece, once the Diva has explained just why and how it is remotely relevant to the business end of WDC.

Meanwhile we can report that en route to the Chathams Gunner Mitchell was able to drop copies of his 50kg bomb on unsuspecting candidates sheltering high in the Southern Alps and walking the Routeburn Track.

Colonel Laws has however issued an official denial to rumours that yesterday's operation struck a snafu when Gunner Mitchell programmed the wrong coordinates into Spin Chopper One's GPS and large quantities of the Mitchell Report were dropped on a Norweigian ski trail, startling Prime Minister Helen Clark and her entourage and prompting her to call the Skyhawks out of mothballs for a defensive action.

Comments on this post are now closed.

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you

When the Diva took over the running of Winston's motley band of malcontents immediately after his ignominous departure from Parliament - an appointment that, in the spirit of open government and accountability espoused by the pair, was at first blatantly denied till journalists found a lycra-swathed form sneaking up the back stairs one day - the office was quickly renamed "Paranoia Palace" by its inhabitants. Well, those who weren't informing on their workmates to the Diva in the hope of personal advancement, anyway.

Paranoia and the use of informants has always loomed large in Diva's modus operandi and, judging by a comment left to our last post, still flourishes:

Anonymous said...
ALERT! Heard at council today that the mayor's office has somehow got hold of private e-mails circulating between WAG and arts supporters about the River Queen premiere. i'll say no more because I suspect you know who frequents here but forewarned is forearmed. He's about to go public with them.
7:53 PM, January 09, 2006

Shock! Horror! What can these unreconstructed Trotskyite layabouts have been planning, we wondered? Molotov cocktails on the red carpet? Overturning vehicles and barricading the roads to the theatre? Kidnapping the stars and demanding a ransom in oil paints and modeling clay?

No, these emails - which went to multiple members of the Wanganui Artists Guild (WAG) merely canvassed the idea of some sort of low-level protest over the anti-arts climate being whipped up by the Mayor (movie making ironically being, in some eyes at least, an art form).

WAG - unlike the more outspoken SoS, which was unashamedly an activist group - have been involved in trying to reach the ear of the Mayor and councillors and the artists involved in the group are generally trying to focus on their work and not let the Mayoral-driven anti-arts juggernaut ruin not just their livelihoods but also their creative processes.

In short, a more harmless bunch of people one could not hope to meet, unless perhaps one attended a SciFi convention.

Anyhow, a WAG member posited the idea of some form of protest. Emails circulated debating the issue, with some saying it ought to be light-hearted.

Fortunately for the artists wiser heads prevailed and the consensus was the River Queen "premiere", whilst unashamedly being driven as yet another Mayoral Look-At-Me Day, was nonethless Wanganui's chance to celebrate a notable achievement and not the time and place for protest. Anything in the nature of a protest would look churlish, petty and ultimately be self-defeating. So there hasn't been and won't be any meeting, and no protest will be going anywhere near Mickey's Big Day Out.

So keep those emails, those accusations, and that paranoia firmly under wraps, Mickey. There won't be any reminders of how you talk up one part of the arts - the part that lets you join the parade - while talking down the other parts.

But what of the Diva's informant, we wonder? LawsWatch suspects this rat in the ranks is, as usual, someone well rewarded by the Diva in another sphere altogether who's then willing to act as a Fifth Columnist among their artist friends.

While most artist types aren't known for their sharp political instincts, how long can it be till the informant is outed? And then what? Tarring and feathering, but with oils and decoupage?

The moral of the story surely is, that if the Diva behaved like an elected official ought, and gave respect and consideration to the various groups within the community, recognising and attempting to balance their various and at times conflicting needs, Wanganui wouldn't need to be run like East Germany circa 1956.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Question time

Last time we sat round rubbing our crystal ball (that will do with the double entrendes - Ed.) it failed us abysmally.

So we'll leave it demurely covered by a gypsy scarf in a corner of the cave and instead ask our readers their answers to an interesting question put to Watchers by an email correspondent:

Given the performance of the Vision team up till now, the brand must have lost most of its pre-election shine. Seems even Ms Baker-Hogan was a last minute and somewhat reluctant recruit. So who amongst the present crop of Vision Councillors, do you think, will sign onto the ticket at the next election?

To which we'd add: will there be any defections mid-term? (Watchers, incidentally, doubt there will be). And will the supposedly non-Visionites like Rangi Wills just quit the pretence next time and wear the party colours?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Can you say "conspiracy theory"?

Not content with constantly banging on in the many other fora available to him, from his radio show to the Council website to his own website to (some suspect) LawsWatch comments, the Diva is back polluting the Chronic letters page with his imagined conspiracies and trotting out the tired old "malcontents" line. Still, it makes a change to see the Diva doing his own dirty work for a change - his usual attack dog, Bob Walker, must be on holiday.

If simply disagreeing with someone else's point of view makes you a "malcontent", then the Diva himself is a professional malcontent - he gets paid to disagree with people who call up his radio show. It's a nonsense, of course, and would simply be a harmless rant if specific people weren't named in his letter.

The only conspiracy here is that the Chron has held back any anti-Diva letters received during the week and ran them in a block, presumably to support his conspiracy theories.

And the crime commited by these people who, unlike the Diva - who clearly was given a sneak preview of the block of letters from "malcontents" - have no opportunity to defend themselves? Why, they're "trying to influence the upcoming council by-election".

Nothing better illustrates how anti-democratic the Diva has become. The democratic process is all about trying to influence the outcome of elections, votes, and other functions of democracy.

Isn't that what the Baker Hogan billboards are all about? (even though advice of her connection with Vision is restricted to a postage-stamp sized logo in the top corner). Wasn't that what the manipulation of Taylor's resignation and scheduling of the buy election is all about?

If writing letters to the newspaper or leaving comments on a blog are actions that ought to be perceived as somehow shady or immoral, what then does that say about the rumoured links between, or approaches from, the Diva to the likes of Waitai, Anderson and Hunter-Bell?

Incidentally, in his book "The Malcontents" (subtitled "The best bitter, cynical, and satirical writing in the world") Joe Queenan includes works by Candide, Mark Twain, Flann O'Brien, Machiavelli and even de Sade. Not bad company to be keeping, Chron letter writers.

---

Now poison of a different kind. We don't usually devote blog space to the various computer viruses, worms, spyware etc that infect the Internet. But a vulnerability has been discovered in Windows that is so serious it warrants our (and your) attention.

All that's needed to trigger this vulnerability is for the user to open and email or visit a webpage with an "infected" WMF (a type of image) file on it. Nothing to download, no click required. The end result can be anything from a complete takeover of your PC to immediate and irreversible damage requiring a complete re-format of the hard drive.

Full details are on the respected ZDNet site, which includes a patch (Microsoft's "official" patch won't be out till next week). We value your visits here (yes, even you Mickey) and wouldn't like to lose you to a nasty infection.

Comments on this post are now closed.

If only, perhaps...

So far, not a single candidate has opted to take advantage of the free, unedited publicity opportunity offered via the Buy-Election Blog. We hope it has nothing to do with the fact that the "price" of this opportunity is that readers get an opportunity to comment and question. Watchers will continue the policy of rejecting comments that are simply insulting, so candidates need not fear they're simply setting themselves up for a torrent of abuse. But they do need to be willing to engage, and their pledges and policies will remain beyond the buy-election, to be measured against their subsequent actions.

Perhaps most are still away on holiday - we're aware of at least a couple that are elsewhere, on long-planned-for trips with family. Which is, of course, precisely why GK Taylor's resignation and the subsequent buy-election were stage-managed by the Diva so as to occur at this time.

While minds are turned to sausages, vintages, and (occasionally) sunshine, it gives Watchers time to reflect somewhat more philosophically...

Here, for instance, are the reasons you can complain to the New Zealand Ombudsman about a Council (or indeed any other agency that comes under the Ombudsmen Act 1975):

...whether the act, omission, decision complained of:
(i) appears to have been contrary to law
(ii) was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory
(iii) was in accordance with a rule of law or a practice that is or may be unreasonable, unjust, oppressive of improperly discriminatory
(iv) was based on a mistake of law or fact; or
(v) was wrong.
An Ombudsman can also consider whether a discretionary power has been exercised for an improper purpose or on irrelevant grounds or after taking account of irrelevant considerations, or whether reasons should have been given for the decision or recommendation.

While it gives the Ombudsmen a reasonable degree of flexibility, that definition concentrates very much on breaches of law and due process. Contrast that with the UK, where a specific Local Government Ombudsman exists, and explicitly provides for a much broader range of matters about which citizens can complain:

The Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO) investigate complaints of injustice arising from maladministration by local authorities.The law does not define maladministration but according to the LGO it means that "there has been a fault in the way the council has or has not done something". The LGO, in its leaflet, gives the following examples. It would be maladministration if a Council:

• took too long to do something
• did not follow its own rules or the law
• broke its promises
• treated you unfairly
• gave you wrong information
• did not make a decision in the correct way.

The LGO however can only investigate a complaints if you can show that you have been caused 'injustice' as a result of maladministration. This could for example be:

• you did not get a service or benefit you were entitled to
• you suffered financial loss; or
• were caused distress or upset.

(Our emphasis). We'll leave you to ponder what could be done about the state of governance in Wanganui if a similar law were enacted in New Zealand.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Governance by press release

A miscellany of interesting tidbits emerges in comments to the last post. Pip asks if we've seen The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. We hadn't, but judging by the plot summary we'll be asking the local video store if they stock it, or buying a copy on ebay:

Rimmer... believes the key to success is to ask the right questions. So he gets a job with an advertising agency [and] bombards England with questions. His ingenious system enables him to predict the outcome of a general election. So accomplished is Rimmer at asking questions that he finds his future wife through market research. To insure that he gets the right answers, Rimmer is not above manipulating the polls... Then he enters politics. In a short time, he gets himself elected to Parliament, becomes a cabinet minister and eventually moves into Ten Downing Street as prime minister after pushing the incumbent prime minister off an oil platform. By this time, every eligible voter in Britain can cast ballots with a television remote control. Alas, the electorate tires of the endless referendum questions that they must answer as part of their daily routine. This development serves only to catapult Rimmer to further success, for the people decide to place all decisions in his hands as dictator of England...

A lesson there for us all, as they say. A lesson too in this recap of recent history by an anonymous commenter:

Laws did not win through the back door - let's dispense with this myth now shall we? He won 43% of the vote and was upfront and obvious his whole campaign. He got 10 of 13 of his Vision candidates elected.

John Martin got 27% of the vote despite having the backing of the arts community, the church groups (who did split their votes with Chas) and the Chamber of Commerce. Mark Simmonds & Warren Ruscoe openly supported Martin's campaign - they wanted change but Laws scared them. Chas got 20% of the vote. Ray Stevens 5% and Barbara Bullock 4% (running the worst campaign ever).

Even if Chas had not stood, it would have needed ALL his votes to go to Martin - and he would have endorsed either Bullock or Stevens, probably Bullock who ran on a pro-council line. Then you have a look at all the other Laws-endorsed candidates - they took 4 of the 5 top-polling council candidates, had Leonie Brookhammer defeat a sitting councillor (Blaikie) and two well known businessmen in Rob Vinsen and Bob Walker; and then had the No 1 and No 3 candidates for the health board (Baker-Hogan & PJ Faumui).

That's the thing you have to remember about 2004 - Laws not only won the mayoralty but he had most of his candidates elected too and elected easily. Can we make a pledge to each other for 2006? We'll deal with the facts from now on. If we run away from the reality we'll under-estimate how much support the mayor really has which is the reason none of us are running in the by-election if we're honest with each other.

While some of the conclusions drawn by the commenter are arguable - who "us" are, and why anyone chooses not to stand in a by-election is really unknowable, and whether Poynter would have endorsed anyone or simply stayed out of it, for instance - the salient point here is the 2004 election wasn't, as we agreed in a comment in reply, a "hanging chad" election. There were no rigged ballot boxes. No dead people voting. No branch stacking. None of the things which can suggest a result wasn't kosher.

The problem is that while the campaign was "upfront and obvious" in terms of who was aligned with Vision (a factor that's by no means obvious in this buy-election) it was by no means obvious what the real agenda was once the Diva and his acolytes were elected, which was government in secret, with communication through spin. For example:

Finance and Administration Committee, 30 August 2005

MOTION TO REOPEN THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC
THAT the meeting be reopened to the public and the preamble, discussion and recommendations associated with Item 9: Cooks Gardens Trust Board Finance and Governance, Item 10: Mowhanau Subdivision, Item 11: Late Item: 'River Queen' Premiere, and Item 12: Chief Executive Officer’s Report, remain confidential until all parties have either accepted the terms of the proposals or agreed to cease negotiations. The Chief Executive Officer or Committee Chairperson may then release a press report on the matter.

Aside from the subdivision, these are all matters of public (your) money and public administration. Yet it seems unlikely that the "terms of the proposals" will ever become public, since the Cooks Gardens discussions included Council involvement in the finances of the Barnes concert, and even though that event seemingly made money, there's not exactly a rush of Councillors wanting to inform us whether they took the risk of underwriting a commercial event with your money, as we suspect may have been the case.

Similarly the River Queen "Premiere": just how much is being spent, and by whom, to make Councillors look good on their trip down the red carpet, led "reluctantly" of course (he's just "too Wanganui", you know) by the Diva.

These are legitimate questions, and ratepayers have every right to know the answers - unvarnished by spin. But if they're to receive any information at all, it seems, it's to be via "press report", no doubt published verbatim and unquestioningly by the River City Press.

That's what wasn't upfront during the 2004 campaign, and no one thought to ask because that wasn't the way Wanganui had been administered up until that point. In fact, the Vision team made specific promises about accountability and integrity which haven't been met.

Just what their commitment is to truly open government is a question worth asking all the buy-election candidates. One of many.