Well that last post got everyone looking didn’t it? From the stats it looks like a link to it was flying around on emails. Clarification from the owners of the email address would be helpful but if they don’t I’ll assume they don’t want to own up that is was one of them.
Something else I’ve been sitting on is Charlie’s attempt to hold elected members accountable to their constituents and what they attested to. The embarrassment brought upon the Bluff community and Invercargill City Council by two of Bluff’s elected members has been ignored by council but worse than that, the Bluff Community Board. The Board accepted a Code of Conduct on 8 August 2011. It offers ways to deal with any breaches of the Code. One option is Censure (a public finger wagging).
There is no doubt that the collusion and handling of the pathetic (look at me I need more attention) Procter report is a breach of the Code. It is up to the Board to justify themselves to the community (and each other) and adhere to the Code and, if breached, call each other to account.
The Chairperson spent ratepayer money obtaining a legal opinion on whether members can submit reports to the agenda. Council’s lawyers chose to adhere to the letter of the law and not consider the principles of local government (and democracy). Many other local government agencies have acknowledged that while Standing Orders does not say members CAN submit reports, it does not say they CAN’T. Some make special mention of that fact and resolve to proactively endorse member reports (because everyone at the table is elected by the residents, the Chair is elected by the morons around the table).
The legal opinion (which I would easily argue is incorrect) means that only the Chairperson can on their own submit anything to the agenda. Here in lies the collusion, Brent Procter had the support of the Chairperson when submitting the report. The Chairperson’s obvious dislike for Charlie means she wouldn’t allow him submit a report (that’s the reason she got the legal opinion, to stop Charlie, but Brent can against Charlie) so the only way Charlie can hold anyone accountable under the Code Of Conduct is to submit a Notice Of Motion. He requires a seconder to do that. Charlie spent considerable time and angst over this Censure Motion and provided ample time to Cr Lewis to peruse and suggest amendments. It was Charlie’s hope Cr Lewis would second it.
Well it seems he too is unwilling to adhere to the Code. Cr Lewis has the same responsibilities around the Board table as the other members, he just got to the table a different way (appointed from council). I hope he realises the ramifications of not supporting the black sheep.
Others (and Charlie) have said to me, ‘the Code Of Conduct is out the window, can’t be used, does not apply, etc..’ I disagree. It can’t be used by Charlie.
The collusion between the other members means they can submit their reports and/or motions because they have the support of the Chairperson (and each other). Charlie requires a seconder and with the others busy brown nosing the Chair and Cr Lewis not fulfilling his responsibilities (because he thinks he has conflicts/is not a Bluffie/not a fully fledged board member) means Charlie is the only one that could realistically have the Code used against them. He is one of the few who has NOT breached the Code. I challenge you to show me when and where!
Someone else mentioned the word ‘conspiracy’, they may be right. You be the judge, here is the report Charlie asked Cr Lewis to support, even if it failed, at least the wider community would know the board were adhering to their requirements and being accountable for their actions and deciding democratically and publicly.
Embarrass council and Bluff, circulate on public record words like nigger, conspire against fellow members, waste ratepayer money with no comment or consequence, unless your Charlie?
