Please tell us that's pea soup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audit Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on this post are now closed.

Is that a bylaw in your pocket?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

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

Comments on this post are now closed.

An increase in the quantum of postings

As the Diva constantly reminds us, the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) is a crucial document. While he bemoans having to actually be accountable to anyone for planning what baubles he wants to spend money on in future, he he does acknowledge its importance as a blueprint for rates and expenditure (and thus service levels) for the next ten years.

"How we are supposed to predict events 10 years out is a bit beyond me, but we are making an attempt," the Diva assured anxious ratepayers back in February. "However, we are mandated to carry out this planning, so we are taking it seriously. Once the process is complete, we will all... sigh with relief." We're willing to wager that if the chairman of a company in which you had a substantial investment issued a report to shareholders saying "Gosh, expecting us to plan for the next ten years is a bit much. We'll be glad when it's over (and we can all get back to playing golf)" you'd be on the phone to your broker yelling "Sell, sell sell!!"

Of course, with such steady and reassuring hands on the financial tiller, we don't need to know the messy details like actual figures. Goodness no. When Nickie, Muzza, Dotty and Mickey cast their eyes over a balance sheet with lots of zeroes, they instantly know what's wrong and what needs to be done. Which probably amounts to "ignore it and it'll go away", "give it a dishwasher", "giggle inanely" and "throw a massive tantrum and blame someone else" respectively.

One group who are going to find out exactly what the bottom line is are Council staff. Back in February, in a press release entitled "Council must tell the truth & take responsibility for our actions" (and you think the Diva has no sense of humour!!) he flagged "a drop in the quantum amount of staff salaries".

If he achieves nothing else, he's added a new phrase to the growing lexicon for "sacking people for no reason other than that we can't figure out how else to save the sinking ship". Soon Telecom executives will no longer speak (over long lunches of lobster and champagne) of "downsizing" superfluous lackeys such as technicians and installers and people who answer faults calls, but of "a drop in the quantum amount of staff salaries".

It may well be, as some commenters opine, that staff cutbacks are both inevitable and positive. Given that the majority of staff positions exist to provide services to ratepayers, we'd be a little more cautious in our assessment. But we - and you, and anyone else not sat round the Council table and thus seemingly blessed with omnipotent foresight - simply don't know. But we can surmise that one of the figures they're not too keen on getting into the public domain is how much provision has been made for redundancies.

Appparently the Audit Office is due to respond this Friday to the Top Secret draft LTCCP. There seems to be some apprehension at Guyton St about this, especially the Auditor General's possible reaction to Council's subsequent resolution to not have a balanced budget. Whatever it is, we await the Diva's full and unvarnished disclosure. After all, Council must tell the truth and take responsibility for their actions. Right, Mickey?

Comments on this post are now closed.

The (ratepayer) hustle

Idle Sunday afternoon musings at the Cave have devised a plausible answer for this whole Splash Centre mess. We realise now that the Diva wanted to demonstrate his fleet footwork to the producers of Dancing with the Stars who, given the shallow celebrity pool in NZ, must now be scanning lists of people who once had a walk-on part in Close to Home.

Fortunately for the Diva he's got people like Nickie Higgie on the judging panel. Forwarded a lucid, reasonable and well-thought-out email from a concerned Watcher, who pleaded with LawsWatch to ask Cr Higgie whether she had any concern at all for the arts in Wanganui, Nickie shot back with "I haven't read anything below, and won't be". Way to answer to constituents Nickie, but pretty much the lickspittle, craven performance we'd warned the Watcher they were likely to get. Then again, perhaps we're being harsh - there were some awfully big words in that email.

And then there's Mr Maslin, whose scorecard - at least when it comes to the Diva's dancing - seems to have only "10" on it. Perhaps he's hoping he won't be a wallflower at the next round of Vision candidate selections and will be asked to dance with the Diva. Just don't expect to lead.

While we at the Cave wait for those who are paid to serve the voters and readers to wake up and smell the chlorine, Watchers have been doing a little probing. However unlike Leisure Suit Larry Mitchell, the bean counter from Puhoi, we won't wrap up the results up in a $44,000 tome illustrated with pictures of the mayor and council and peppered with quotes from the Diva.

The first question we ask is from where did the recommendation in Keith Hindson's report that the council underwrite the entire project come? Especially remembering that it continues to blow out by a daily amount exceeding even Larry Mitchell's consulting fee. It doesn't sound like the sort of thing we've come to expect from Cautious Keith, nor from the level headed Barbara Bullock, chair of the Working Party.

Of course when the mayor gave birth to the genetically challenged Working Party he had co-parenting rights with his buddy Graeme Taylor and was also in throes of infatuation with his other good buddy John Unsworth. GK got to chair the Working Party to get the project up and running, while JU was left to come up with the readies on the Fundraising Committee. Mickey promised he would spread his affections and "talents" between both families. Then-CEO and marriage counsellor Colin Whitlock thought that was a pretty good arrangement.

Then GK walked out on the marriage and the Working Party was put up for adoption. Cr Barbara Bullock found herself loco in parentis while Mickey wooed sports chick Baker-Hogan.

That left the new mother in the midst of a dysfunctional mixed family trying to focus on getting the costings and design messes sorted and mapping out a sensible series of options.

Poppa Unsworth was never home, driving round with his pals Marty Lindsay et al, wooing car dealers for a free RAV to raffle in an attempt to come up with some of the $1.5 million shortfall.

Then somehow at least three of the Unworth gang, known as the street bullies, came to play with the Bullock brood. Could that be why the Hindson-Bullock recommendations morphed into something that sounded like the Fundraising Committee's wish list?

With that sort of cross-pollination it was never going to work the way Colin Whitlock predicted. Poppa Unsworth and Uncle Michael wanted as much dough as they could get (without actually having to work for it) and bugger the ratepayers, while Momma Bullock was charged with protecting the ratepayers by ensuring the thing didn't spin out of control.

Now the neighbours are whispering over the fence that Momma Bullock has been served with divorce papers and Uncle Michael is wondering what to do next.

Where is the family GP, Dr Warburton, in all this, we ask? Perhaps it's time for him to prescribe a dose of fiscal reality and see what he can do to revive the project. Oh, and he might like to focus on diagnosing the seriousness of the increased running costs and figuring out just what the ratepayers can afford during the life of the project.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Pass the bananas, Dotty

A recent commenter noted:

Dotty spins and spins... like anyone who has ventured out of town recently, [she would have] got hit with a barrage of anti-Laws comment -- unless of course out of town for her was the chimps tea party at Wellington Zoo. But then she'd hardly be able to tell the difference from the Vision caucus anyway...

In the interests of maintaining the unparalleled accuracy of LawsWatch, we'd point out that the chimps' tea party at Wellington Zoo has long since ceased to occur.

It was felt that subjecting poor captive simians to the scrutiny of the general public just so that said public could chortle at the mess they (the chimps) were making of things was somewhat cruel.

And there dear readers, you have your explanation as to why Council went into public excluded to discuss the Splash Centre funding.

The growing alarm around the township as people begin to realise that they're going to have to pay - and pay handsomely - for the shiny baubles diVision offered them in the referendum (well, we did portray Mickey as Bad Santa back in December) suggests that Councillors may soon wish to exclude themselves from the public on a semi-permanent basis. And to be fair to the Diva, and as other commenters have pointed out, it is the entire Council who are now responsible. They may have been led to the cliff edge by the Mayor, but in opting to go into a closed-door session and not bring the public into their confidence they have all - each and every single one of them - opted to jump.

Other commenters have unloaded a whole paddling pool full of red herrings into the debate, asking LawsWatch and other commenters why they "don't want the Splash extension". We want a Splash extension. We also quite fancy a new Maserati. The question is whether we can afford one, and if we can't, whether we should be forced to pay for it anyway - especially if not being told the truth by the person racking up the bill.

But rather than write a lengthy post staing the bleedin' obvious, we'll take the slackers way out and merely highlight this comment from Rob Vinsen, which does a pretty good job of explaining the point (edited for brevity - you're welcome to read the entire comment on the previous post):

I believe that the extension of the Splash Centre is the most important project that Council is currently undertaking... Yes, the community needs this facility, but they should know and accept that it will come with a significant cost.

The Mayor refuses to mention that the estimated increase (and this was based on the original cost and prior to borrowing) in the Community Facilities rate will be at least $57 pa per ratepayer, and that running costs will increase by more than $500,000 pa. There are ample examples in other cities where the cost of running their aquatic facility is becoming politically unpopular.

Yesterday's meeting was a travesty of the democratic process - the Splash Centre item was pulled from the agenda to be discussed in secret. "Commercial Sensitivity" was the reason put forward by His Worship. Absolute lies- no Councillor (not even the Vision ones) knew this was going to happen. Even Denis McGowan (the pool designer) who I spoke to said "Well, that's the shortest meeting I've ever been to, I've been told to go home".

Yesterday's exhibition was symptomatic of the lack of public information and manner the whole Splash Centre debate has been handled by the Council powerbrokers - including the dodgy referendum. If the Council dont tell the ratepayers what it's going to cost them, then at some stage it will end in tears - and that could jeopardise this much needed facility.That is my major concern.

That seems a perfectly reasonable argument to us here at the LawsWatch cave. We wonder whether the Diva and his supporter(s) can rebut it without red herring references to trams, previous elections, or anything else not germane to the point he makes. But then again, with the Diva, everything is personal. Take this response to Vinsen's comment:

...surely the mayor's mob read these postings so haven't you just done the tram project a grave disservice in dissing the same council you need to get funding & support. Own goal, mate.

The message: stop criticising the Mayor on LawsWatch if you want Council support for the tram project. Interesting way to run a democratic institution. Mind you, it's deja vue all over again. It was back in 1996 that political commentator Russell Brown noted:

Speaking of nauseating, Michael Laws is back - and behaving like a silent killer. It was made official when he was named as a "special advisor" to Winston Peters. But neither Laws nor that friend of openness and honesty, Winston, would say exactly what it was that Laws was doing. Actually, it seems pretty clear that he is settling a few scores to start with...

Already, it's goodbye to the spokesmanships of Terry Heffernan and Rex Widerstrom. The first is no great loss, but Widerstrom seems like a decent bloke, has been with the party almost since its foundation and has been putting in a lot of work. He just wasn't a friend of Laws, is all. And if you're not a friend of Michael Laws, you die.

Got that, Rob? If you're not a friend of Michael Laws, you (or your projects, no matter what their intrinsic merit) die. The way to get ahead in Wanganui these days is to shut up, go along, keep your head down, and hope for Mayoral patronage.

Update (4.25 pm): A last-minute comment added to the previous post is worth repeating lest it's missed by many:

I wonder how people would respond to clearing our debt as one of the referendumb options?

Here in the Cave, our response was a round of brow-smiting and "Why didn't we think of that?". Of course - elegantly simple when you think about it. Well, readers?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Gurgles from Guyton Street

A (remarkably well informed) anonymous commenter notes:

It's all around Council. The Foundation has donated the $1 million. Good on them and good on the mayor for asking them. The Splash Centre extension is suddenly very affordable.

Indeed it has. But it's not quite as clear cut as the gloating from Guyton Street would have you believe, gentle readers - the Diva won't be walking across the pool when it's opened after all.

First up, some background. The Whanganui Community Foundation's focus is on families from low socio-economic demographics, with 80 to 90 percent of their grants going in that direction, a lot for schools initiatives.

They see the Splash Centre as a family oriented place so it fits their philosophy. In fact the Centre has been under consideration for some time (not just since the Diva and Unsworth turned up cap-in-hand yesterday).

The Foundation has operated under budget last two years so the $1 million isn't going to break the bank. The last annual report for 2004-05 shows total donations for year were $1,090,745 (including $250,000 set aside for the Sarjeant extension but not required) so the Foundation came in under the $1.4 million budget. Perhaps as well as a cheque, the Board could give Mickey some lessons about living within one's means.

Since the Foundation's inception it has given $20 million to various causes - earnings on the amount given when the Wanganui Savings Bank was wound up along with other trustee savings banks.

But what's not being made clear in all the hoopla is that it isn't a no strings $1 million handout to a triumphant Mayor. In fact it's half that.

• $500,000 is a straight donation.
• $300,000 is tagged to matching community donations, so John Unsworth still needs that bake sale.
• $200,000 won't go to the pool per se, but rather will be used to help disadvantaged families (region-wide) access the centre.

So we have a current FEC (final estimate of cost) of $5,331,875. Up till yesterday external funding sat at $525,928. Thanks to the generosity of the Foundation it now totals $1,025,928 with another $300,000 possible if Pool Czar Unsworth actually does his job and raises some money. Assuming he does and thus the Foundation's conditional grant kicks in, that adds $600,000 and leaves $3,705,947 to be found.

Of that, Council has committed $2,500,000 leaving a shortfall of $1,205,947. But let's not forget that costs are escalting by between $1,300 and $1,460 a day (depending on whether or not the hydroslide stays). So by the end of March - and assuming a best-case scenario - the shortfall will be $1,218,947. By the end of April, $1,257,947. And by the end of 2006, $1,575,147... and so on.

As fast as they fill the pool with money, it leaks out.

Comments on this post are now closed.