That LGOIMA Request

In an earlier post I mentioned requesting a copy of the Bluff Maritime Museum Trust Statement Of Intent.

I have received a response from Mr King.

The draft Statement of Intent is a discussion between the Trust and its shareholders.
It will not be made public until after 30 June when it has been finalised,

Remember the Trust were to have it done by February (legislation states no later than 1 March) so he must intend discussions and finalising to take place until AFTER 30 May.  I say this because of this from the Local Government Act (Schedule 8)

Completion of statements of intent

• The board must—

  • (a) consider any comments on the draft statement of intent that are made to it within 2 months of 1 March by the shareholders or by any of them; and

  • (b) deliver the completed statement of intent to the shareholders on or before 30 June each year.

Obligation to make statements of intent available

• A completed statement of intent and each modification that is adopted to a statement of intent must be made available to the public by the board within 1 month after the date on which it is delivered to the shareholders or adopted, as the case may be.

So if ICC have any feedback or comments, they must be considered by the Maritime Museum Trust Board by 1 May and the end result returned by 30 June.  This does of course mean they could ‘consider’ them and leave it lying on the desk for 28 days.  It think ICC and the Trust intend to be anal retentives over this and drag it out to the maximum.

The board could consider it at their next meeting as part of their normal business, deal with any issues and return to the shareholders for adoption but considering the ongoing breaches of their own Trust Deed and ICC’s ineptness I expect nothing short of 30 June date for adoption.  Should I expect it on 30 July then? but then again it’s the Trust board that have to make it available within a month of delivering or adopting it…this is getting tricky.

Either way if the Statement Of Intent finally comes through after 30 June and there are NO modifications I know they were just being difficult.

Think it’s interesting that we have had Southern Rural Fire Authority Statement of Intent in the public arena and Venture Southland’s SOI in public excluded yet we haven’t seen the Maritime Museum one come through anywhere even in draft form.

Cynical old me thinks they haven’t done it yet…always willing to be proven wrong:-)

BTW:  I think the LGA has some shortcomings here because when some Council Controlled Organisations receive funding from their ‘shareholder’ (the council) like the maritime museum do and the council  are required to finalise their annual plan by 30 June.  They could be adopting their funding commitment to a CCO on 30 June as part of the annual plan and after doing that receive the final SOI (that didn’t include the modifications they requested) and it’s too bloody late.  Funds have been approved by council resolution.

I Can Be Helpful:-)

I have no doubt some people consider me a bitch especially those who now have more requirements to adhere to because of me.  Now that I’ve reminded ICC that the Bluff Maritime Museum Trust is a Council Controlled Organisation I thought I’d help out the trustees to adjust to the changes.

Page 131 onward of the Infrastructure agenda (16 April) has the Southern Regional Fire Authority submitting their Statement Of Intent to ICC for comment and/or endorsing.  Being as the Maritime Museum now has to do the same, I thought it might be helpful for the trustees to see what is required of them.

The prospective financial statements for the next three years should prove interesting.  With income not going through the ‘cash book’  and directly into term deposit, I wonder if the present level of local government funding is actually necessary?  Local government has to be financially prudent you know…

NB: While linking to an earlier post I realised the trust had to have it done by February 2012!  Looks like time for a LGOIMA request.

I Told You So AGAIN

Remember I highlighted and followed up on this.

Section 6 (1st page) of the unaudited LTP lists the Bluff Maritime Museum as a Council Controlled Organisation (for the first time in it’s existence).  That must be really annoying for the trustees, having to prepare a Statement of Intent, adhere to performance outcomes and have the Auditor-General as their auditor.

What a pity they can’t apply for an exemption from being a CCO like Invercargill City Charitable Trust.

The Misguided Beacon Is Back

We have the return of the local rag for the new year.  Thank goodness I have no expectations of the ‘beacon’ because I fear I would run aground if I presumed to get any substantive information.  The front page has the editor wearing the usual rose-tinted glasses.  I would love to know the numbers on ‘tourism’ because to me the town seemed exceptionally quiet and didn’t the Southland Times report we only had one person at the camping ground?  Well I suppose she would know since the majority of the attractions are things she is affiliated with, the Maritime Museum she appointed herself and one other Board member to, not in compliance with the Trust Deed or requirements of the community board (we won’t worry about the FACTS, ‘that’s how it’s done’), the viewing platform, built by the Bluff Community Charitable Trust, in effect, a community board controlled trust (again self appointed), and the Heritage Trail created by the History Group (that seems to only acknowledge one member).  I can usually deal with the narcissism but to start off the new year with it so in your face makes me wonder if it will get worse as the year progresses.  I wish there was a bit more basis to the information rather than the opinion of someone so out of touch will the issues the town faces.  It is no wonder that nothing progresses because the blinders are on.

If we were more willing to realistically discuss the issues we could move forward.  Meanwhile we have a 2002 concept plan highlighting that tourists ‘do’ the hill, the museum, the point and leave.    Our Board will be leading the implementation of the plan seemingly.  To me it seems like one took it under their wing and did it how they wanted and what can be done has been done (without private sector input).  Ten years on and it’s still the same.

The Board it seems are facing some stick for not being in touch with their residents over the wind farm.  77 FOR and 9 (?) AGAINST.  Funnily enough the Board and I are on the same side on this one.  Slightly different tack though, I have submitted on some other issues but I am primarily putting ‘all my eggs in one basket’ on this issue, allowing this will trivialise the status the District Plan gives to the area and make it difficult to deny ANY other applications.

I hope the rumours I hear are true.  We may have some effective avenues for networking, information and idea exchanges that may actually foster some community involvement being implemented, and no surprise, no Board involvement.  Separate from the ‘rumour’ is my thoughts for the Town Hall which I am working on and will be getting in touch with a few key groups soon (or after the holidays) to get their thoughts.  The pessimist in me always throws in doubts though, I’ll just have to work through that and talk to the right people.

I Must Be An Idiot

My maths skills aren’t great but to me a financial statement should be simple maths, i.e, opening balance plus or minus any surplus or deficit and that’s what you have left.  The Maritime Museum’s reconciliation doesn’t seem to be that simple.

Okay so they received $191K and had expenditure of $183K which leaves them with a surplus of $7054.25.  Opening balance of $49,106.33 plus $7054.25 surplus equals $56,160.58.  Closing balance of $71,158.93.  Nope that doesn’t work maybe if I factor in the $10,147.53 from term deposit, still $4K out.  Even opening term deposits minus the withdrawals doesn’t equal the closing balance…

As I said…I must be an idiot…all the numbers add up in the end but if I look at them independently, it doesn’t work.

Nothing Changes

I was trying to find out when the STL stops putting ‘Your View’ online and came across this.  It’s interesting because it’s a year and a half old but nothing has changed.  The Town Hall is still empty, we still pay a levy (but now the expenditure is twice the levy) and the community board and community trust still regularly meet without the residents knowing what they are getting up to.  The letter referred to 536 residents saying enough (the Board didn’t care though and attempted to trivialise it by saying at verbal submissions that they were mostly from ‘the pubs and kids’).  Eighteen months on and we now have them giving the finger to 728 residents. I’m having trouble thinking of an example of when the advocated for the residents.  Can anyone think of an issue?

The saddest thing is that people still aren’t speaking out.  I receive emails from people with their examples (and anger) at the Board and responding to things I’ve said on the blog.  The statistics show that people are reading, the feedback confirms it but bugger all comment on it!  Because we didn’t have a vote this election, we can’t tell them (with our vote) whether we want them or not.  This blog gives people that opportunity.  I’m happy to put up a post for others, their own words, their name (or not).  It will continue if you let it.  I know SOOOOOOO many people that have great ideas for Bluff and usually regale the same story about who knocked them back or wouldn’t take it to the Board.  I believe we are allowing Stalin rule in this town and as a result we will continue to be screwed over and have everything dumped on us, Town Hall, swimming pool, ATM, restoration of the RSA Grove and Hill, the common thread is that the Board had prior knowledge or Public Excluded involvement.

Who gives a s#$t if they bitch and moan about you or your opinion, use a nom de plume, but say something if you want things to improve otherwise they will continue to use the Trust for tourist crap and possibly want more from our rates for the Town Hall and continue to represent us badly to ICC and ICC will fob off and ignore Bluff issues more and more.

C’mon, what’s your idea? what’s your thoughts? we know they are reading so tell them or we will continue to be treated like mushrooms.

What If…

…council took 32.52% of the rates you pay them and gave it away?

Based on last year’s rates take ($41,365,000) that would equate to $13,454,969.76 (maths courtesy of this cool calculator)

That’s what DOES happen here in Bluff.

Every year the Board set their budget and council split the cost over the Bluff ratepayers.  Last year the Board budgeted (took from the pockets of Bluff ratepayers) $71,100.  Of that, $23,127 was for grants to Bluff Promotions and the Maritime Museum.

For the year ended 30 June 2010 the total budget was $70,930 and $22,500 was budgeted for grants (31.72%).

Interestingly, the Board has people appointed to each of those groups.  Two are appointed to the Maritime Museum Trust even though the Trust Deed doesn’t allow for it (but I believe they are changing the deed).  If it’s not allowed, don’t change your ways, eh, just change to rules to suit you.  Another ‘genius’ idea!  I suppose if you have the power why not abuse it!  If I’m caught speeding how about I’ll just get the speed limit changed to suit me.  Wouldn’t that be nice!

They also have a ‘joint committee’ with Bluff Promotions which is in opposition to legislation but what the hell! Got to have some way to exert pressure on how those grants are spent.  Another Board member is appointed to Bluff Promotions itself, which is pretty silly, because anyone can join.

So, if council were operating in that way, would you be annoyed?

It seems if you want money from the Bluff ratepayers just allow a Board member to be involved and you’ve got a better chance of getting money.  Ahhhh, local government politics.

Community Sets Out To Revamp Glengarry

Community Sets Out To Revamp Glengarry Bluff

(Click on image to enlarge)

While I was cutting out Letters to the Editor I came across this again.  I was in one of my emotive, ranting ‘I have a dream’ moods.  Discussion later in the day with some others led to simple little things that can be done and reminded me of a phone call I received supporting my views  after I wrote Letter to the Editor.  While the rezone ideals are part of ‘The Big Picture’ and to prevent expansion and direct growth in a more tourism and beautification direction to attract (and retain) businesses that make our main street more appealing as a destination (not a thoroughfare to Stewart Island and/or the signpost and Hill).  The rezone is the regulatory side and takes time but the Spatial Plan is a 30 year living document, may as well show your hand at the early stages.  It is the vision of and for the people, the RMA (District Plan legislation) does not care what the people want, it only cares about the natural environment.

What can the community do?  Glengarry are doing it.  They realise that the community spirit needs to return and one would hope that people with ideas feel comfortable to step forward and raise their ideas without fear of persecution.  Recent media has shown that this is a problem in Bluff.  It is NOT a new problem.  I hark back to that phone call, the person was frustrated, the idea had been done before and he/she was confused why it wasn’t carried on.  He/she told me what they had heard and I expressed what I had heard and we realised where the problem was and chatting away, bouncing ideas around came up with a simple way to prevent that happening again.  As a mother of four I couldn’t commit to any more tasks but now wonder if I might approach the person and say ‘want to do it’.  He/she had made the suggestion through his/her network  (he/she had been knocked back hence the frustrated phone call) and I then bounced the idea around my networks and more people expressed their agreement and tweaking.  Voila, an easy solution and some community buy in by those that have been told.  Imagine if we had a forum for all those to come forward and do that, without persecution and with respect.  I believe that’s what Glengarry are doing right, getting the buy in then moving forward.  They also have the need to fundraise, we don’t, check Charities Commission and Societies.govt.  We have the money in town and many groups are doubling up on things that could be a shared services arrangement.

I know of ideas people have expressed that range from green waste, hanging baskets, community centre, Club Hotel solutions, shared services, RSA grove…and probably many more as well as those raised by the frustrated people at the Bluff Hill meeting (read the notes HERE, page 19 on).

If only we had the forum?  Was the Bluff Hill meeting that forum?  I’ve been told many locals felt annoyed that they didn’t have communication until after the fact and they were not given opportunity to be heard at that meeting.

Even though we have a community board and promotions group do we now need a residents group also?

Comments on The Big Picture

ICC are accepting ‘comments’ (note: non-statutory therefore no formal submission process) on ‘The Big Picture’ (Spatial Plan) until ‘the end of October’.  If you’ve got something to comment on email it to bigpicture@icc.govt.nz

I am frequently surprised by council’s lack of foresight.  While they may consider themselves as moving with the times (and technology) by creating a DVD, what if I want more information like the maps?  Can I view them online?…no…have to kill a tree (and waste money on printing) when they could have had it online and cut costs even more.

It’s a pity our Board weren’t on to it enough to have the Rezone Gore Street views added in there.  The Board met with planners and came up with ‘leave it to the 2012 District Plan review’.  I’m not going to prattle on about them supporting the views of their constituents (it would be beyond most of them).

They obviously don’t get ‘the big picture’…all along ICC have said that the spatial plan is a guiding, all encompassing document and one would assume a living ever-evolving document.  So the Board are wasting time, resources and consultation opportunities.  Why be involved in the process (two bites at the cherry) and intentionally put off the rezoning idea.  ICC will now have to deal with representations from supporters of the Rezone during the Spatial Plan and DP Review and the paperwork that goes along with that.  Had it been included and endorsed in the Big Picture it would have then followed that “council would anchor that vision in legal documents like the Long Term Plan and District Plan”.  Those are Jackie Kruger’s words from the DVD, she also informed the Board that they were ‘looking at them to provide leadership on the rezoning’.  BTW that does not mean decide what you want and get the others to follow!

We now have a possible (highly probable) scenario that the Big Picture will be adopted and then have to be amended (or outdated) if the District Plan Review endorses rezoning.  Remember that the ones who chose to fob off the rezone are also the ones charged with leading the implementation of the Bluff Concept Plan (2002).  Peruse the plan and you will see it’s vision does not include promoting and allowing the increase of industry on the main street, quite the opposite.  Maybe it needs to spelled out.

• The rezone fits perfectly with the concept plan.

• Current zoning does not.

• You are not doing your job.

Comments welcome on the ISSUE.  I can provide evidence to support the claims, feel free to ask.

 

 

Living under Stalin’s rule

The Bluff Beacon that finishes tomorrow is now online, I usually wait until the new one is out but I noticed sales at the shops have basically ceased and it’s only a day before the new one is out and I no longer care about propriety.  I am, as always, amazed that technology is being ignored because I know someone that offered to pay upfront the costs (60 cents a week) and asked to receive it electronically, sorry, we don’t do that.  Considering it is published by a so-called historian, you wonder why it isn’t being archived and made available in the name of history.  It is also considered by the ‘historian’ to be a community newsletter.  In the name of community why isn’t it online (at least after the fact).  What about the Bluffies that are now living outside of Bluff.  Sorry, we don’t do that (down here in the  South).    “My first cousin who’s married to my second cousin tried bootin’ up one of them there compute’ things but it didn’t work.  I told ‘im to use his steel cap boots but that don’t work either, god dang thing!”

While it yet again has nothing of interest to me, we have finally got the third installment of the August 8 community board meeting.  Whatever…don’t want the peasants too informed and especially not before issues arise, five weeks later will do!  God forbid they express their opinions BEFORE decisions have been made.  It seems everything is done reflectively here and it’s starting to f#@! me off.   I did note that the Beacon didn’t include any comments about the Bluff History Group’s sculpture (coming to Monday’s community board meeting) even though the editor is in the history group.  Don’t want people telling us whether they want it or not, we’ll just push on, and then it will be too late (like the f#@!n ugly Chainlink and the spiral on the hill and we better not talk about the bullying over, and, funding of the skateboard park, my blood pressure might not handle it!).  The joys of empire building in a dictatorship democracy.

I’ve got a novel idea,how about the community board PAY for space in the ‘community newsletter’ and Board endorsed issues be included.  I doubt it because then the power wouldn’t be in the hands of the chairperson editor history group, who the fuck knows what hat is being worn!

Community spirit is not about how many groups you are in, it’s about how you treat people.