Southland Times have online an article about the festival and the Club Hotel site. It hasn’t translated properly though I don’t think.
I have enough requests on the go but maybe someone else would like to request our mayoral car costs. I wish I had more time as it would be interesting to compare remuneration packages of various mayors. I wonder this because of a request on FYI regarding the Auckland mayoral car.
The mayoral car is owned by Auckland Council. The running costs are funded by the
mayoral office and deducted from the Mayor’s honorarium. Therefore, the mayoral car is fully
costed into the Mayor’s remuneration package as set and regulated by the Remuneration
Authority, which includes as a condition full private use of the vehicle.
I wonder what arrangements are in place in other councils and how they compare?
Interesting to see the log trucks rolling into the grassed area on Foreshore Road. Are they really out of space on the wharf or are South Port drawing a line in the sand?
It was interesting to hear the discussion at the Infrastructure meeting about ICC’s forestry (Parks Division forestry not ICFL). They did present a report regarding the Bluff Hill Deforestation but it was the general discussion about the challenges and future of forestry. One challenge that was mentioned was getting space on the wharf. The other was the concern that the industry would face a lot of harvesting in 2016. Not only were skilled people going to be in demand but space at the port.
ICC have signaled their intention to rezone the space South Port have ear marked for expansion. Let the dance begin…
The copyrighted (whatever…sue me) Bluff Beacon has Mitchell attempting to hype up the closed door meeting between the oyster festival and council.
Watch this space? Like the festival committee would be telling Mitchell anything. ‘Someone’ is suggesting they have some sort of knowledge or information to offer, hollow words and the usual misinformation.
I was at the Infrastructure meeting last week. Paul Horner did NOT suggest council liaise with the festival committee. He was asked by Cllr Abbott if, given the festival committee were looking at the Club Hotel site, would he consider working in with them? His response was that he would not rule it out but would have to look at their plans. That was it. There was no discussion of combining with the service building.
Mr Horner did say he didn’t have the power to purchase property but it was not relevant to any discussion about the Club or the festival. It was an answer to a question. The Service Centre report had five options. His recommendation was to progress the costings for options 1 and 2 only. The comment Mitchell has (possibly mischievously) placed in the ‘article’ was a response to being asked ‘why only options 1 and 2?’. The other options involved other sites and the scope of his position confined his actions to the property council already own only. Earlier in the meeting he had commented that he would not even be factoring the issue of adjoining buildings.
Jan Mitchell, still unable to lie straight in bed. Feel free to ‘watch this space’ but if she has any information it will just be a rehashed newspaper article or rumours. Pfft
The Suqian sister city arrangement is causing angst. I believe Cr Arnold is correct to vote against it.
The city councillor raised her concerns about the agreement, which was signed by Mayor Tim Shadbolt last month before councillors formally voted on it.
Cr Arnold asked for her vote to be recorded against the recommendation of councillors endorsing the signing of the agreement.
Cr Lindsay Abbott voted against the recommendation when it was brought up in the finance and policy committee last week.
I will assume Abbott again voted against it. I had thought this was an issue for Pottinger too?
Cr Arnold said the council had failed to follow the correct procedure, which could subject it to a judicial review. Therefore she wanted her vote recorded against the agreement.
It may well be subject to a judicial review but it was done in the same way so many other things are done at ICC. The point in law may be argued but sadly I feel an earlier council (many of which are still present) have done us a disservice. I have outlined my concerns over this but now I would like to see this effect some change. The Finance and Policy meeting that they ratified the Memorandum of Understanding at, along with the ‘intent and purposes’ of the document, went through full council without having any significant discussion and debate. Therein lies the problem. If each recommendation made in a committee meeting was highlighted to members at the following full meeting I believe these incidents would reduce and councillors (and community) would be better informed.
Waikato District Council help provide some insight:
Minutes are kept to provide a permanent record of what occurred at a meeting by way of a resolution (previously a recommendation in an Agenda report). A Committee/Community Board has the option to accept, reject, or modify a recommendation.
If we consider the committee minutes as an agenda report then the recommendations within are being accepted and voila – we have a council decision to ‘ratify the intent and purposes of the Memorandum of Understanding’ (of which #4 was a sister city arrangement as soon as possible).
The solution could be as simple as a cover sheet/report for each set of minutes. If we do want to be pedantic and argue legislation, they are required to submit any resolutions to the agenda. Currently they just throw the minutes in there. The agenda does not inform us of what will be happening to them; received, adopted, approved, accepted, recommendations contained within…
Here’s a hypothetical
Report prepared by: CHAIRPERSON OF MONUMENT BUILDING COMMITTEE
That the minutes of the …. meeting be approved (ratified/confirmed as true and correct/adopted…)
AND THAT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN BE ADOPTED
1. That council place the community in greater debt and help out our mates at Rugby Park by taking ownership of the Southland Outdoor Stadium.
2. That Rugby Park be renamed Tim Shadbolt Stadium.
3. That the stadium seating be arranged so that each councillor supporting this decision has a stand named after him/her.
Not many people read through ALL the minutes. By highlighting each decision that is going to effect a change the councillors (and community) will be better informed. For those that are interested in the topic and recommendation they can read the full minutes (which would still be in the agenda. The mass of solidly typed pages that intimidate so many will be broken up by informative covering pages that make it easier to see what action is to be taken.
Hopefully one of the councillors will point this out at today’s meeting.
The Finance and Policy minutes say this
7. ACTION SHEET
Cr Boniface asked if it was better to deal with Items 10.1 and 10.2 before the
Invercargill City Council Governance Statement and Mrs Short said she would
recommend that the Committee to do that because it played a big part in the
Why under Action Sheet? Most councils declare those issues under a heading of Confirming the Agenda or declaring urgent items or conflicts at the beginning of the meeting.
10.1 is the Bluff Service Centre and 10.2 is non existent. I’m thinking it should be 8.1 and 8.2.
I’ve always wondered how they are changed and filed when pointed out because only the agenda is filed in the library for prosperity. That means if reading the documents in the future you will have to check the following agenda for the minutes to see if any changes were made.