Jonathan Soldier

Cracker has raised the public excluded from Finance and Policy and what it related to.  I thought it related to the Statement of Intent of Invercargill City Properties Limited given this from the minutes

BTW, it MUST be made public within 1 month of being adopted by Council.

I have to say I find the rest interesting

Self righteous indignation from Dennis.  No surprises though from a councillor who’s about as transparent has a brick wall.

The question of course does still remain.  Why do you need Jonathan Salter to negotiate a Statement of Intent or is he necessary to handle all the conflicts?

Council Secrecy Wastes Fuel

I did get my hair done while I was in town (took the opportunity while I could), it was not the purpose of my trip.  The purpose of my trip was to pick up a copy of the working draft of the LTP (legislation endorsed new name for the LTCCP).

Well thanks to nine councillors it was a waste of my time and fuel.  I noted when I entered that they were not available, I went to question Alan Swallow to see if he knew anything when a staffer passed by carrying a wad of them.  Before I even considered who I should ask for a copy, Cr Kruger (Chair) suggested moving the working draft into Public Excluded.  Sadly, I was not at all surprised.

Cr Abbott of course, says ‘I don’t want to be difficult’ (or something to that effect) and they all laugh!  He then points out that he doesn’t support having it in PE and surprisingly Cr Lewis (good job) supports Abbott’s view and even Cr Boniface votes against the motion…I am impressed!  Abbott – I expect to represent the true views of residents.  Lewis – finally getting a voice and Boniface doesn’t seem to be warming the seat.  A+ for all three.

The others don’t deserve response from me because Cr Kruger had the gall to say ‘thank you to the Crs the moved it into the public excluded portion of the meeting’.  Did you suppress the desire to give the other three the fingers?  Sure seemed like it.

We will seemingly be allowed to see it March 20 (possibly earlier at a Finance and Policy meeting).  Elder of course had to add that it was about preventing misinformation.  Yeah right!

And the reason for PE….drum roll please….negotiations!  Between staff and elected members?

31 January Invercargill City Council Agenda

Well, back to the grind for our Elected Members and I have some hope we will see a new era of transparency.  Item 11.2 (page 9) gave me some hope.

Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Abbott that Items 4.1, 4.2 and Item 6 be taken
under Open Meeting.
His Worship the Mayor asked for clarification as to why Items 4.1, 4.2 and Item 6
were in the Public Excluded part of the meeting.
Mr King informed Council that staff had always adopted a cautious approach to
matters and Councillors were in the position to decide, which items should be In
Committee and which items should be in open meeting.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.

Bugger me, deciding not to go into PE even though the cautious staff suggested it!  Good response Mr King and well done Kruger and no surprises Abbott would second that motion.

But then again we have six items in PE and yet again it includes the inaction sheet.  Remember that vivid for editing or is everything on the action sheet public excluded?  Does that mean the public are excluded from any ‘action’ by ICC

 

 

Bluff Hill Concept Plan Received

As always, follow up required (email to Mr King this morning) but Eirwen supplied it by email this afternoon.  So here it is, 8.1 meg, $7867.80 worth and interestingly, the tender document (I’ll search for it later) specified who was to be consulted.  Another interesting thing I noted (and I’ve only had a very quick scan of first 10 odd pages) is that they use Bluff Hill Motupohue Environment Trust (wrongly named in plan) panel information to tick off boxes on the plans to do list BUT the Enviro Trust were not one of the ‘stakeholders’ (groups consulted).  If anyone should be the lead on the Hill is should be them, they are the ones who have achieved great things for no reason except that they love the Hill!

Yet again I am annoyed that these sorts of documents are not easily accessible within our community and the right people are being excluded.  The irony is, as always, that at the Bluff Hill public meeting the Chairperson was asked if  the Board had a ‘vision’.  No answer was given and when it was asked again, the person was informed that they would be called ‘out of order’.  No wonder there is anger in this town when your elected members call you ‘out of order’ for asking a question of them.  Now it seems there is a sort of ‘vision’, wouldn’t transparency have prevented the negativity that arose from that (and other) statements.

So many interesting aspects of this LGOIMA request, the response for one and that even though the covering letter shows BCB and BCCT received copies, it was not supplied by them (the request implied it was to be).  I have been supplied ICC Parks Division copy.  Very interesting!

BTW, it’sonly a Draft but haven’t the time to do the research right now but I do know that some changes were made, it came up in BCB minutes at some stage.  May have to follow up on the final plan, might be easier to go through DOC!

Having a Bad Day?

The latest council agenda shows someone in Secretarial Services was having a bad day

I’m sure the misspelling of branch (brach) is just a typo but how can 12 Public Excluded items be labelled (a) – (j).   J is the tenth letter of the alphabet, isn’t it?   It’s irrelevant that they are reported from the same person or on the same report.

So in reality we have 12 ITEMS in Public Excluded this time around.

And still the Action Sheet is in there!  Why they can’t just do Item … of the Action Sheet in PE is beyond me, do they want to borrow a Vivid for editing the Action Sheet so the rest of it can be circulated?

Hopefully Council can remember Schedule 2A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act the next time a member of the public join them in PE.

I also move that [name of person or persons] be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of [specify]. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matter to be discussed, is relevant to that matter because [specify].

 

Waste not, want not

I have been awfully patient to see this effect some change but it seems that even media don’t do follow up.  Here we have our council being told they have been, albeit over a year ago, that they are breaching LGOIMA by not advertising the Wastenet meetings and having them open to the public.  So how has the follow up been?

The issue arose after a member of the public, Carolyn Dean, of the Southland Wastebusters group, requested some information relating to WasteNet.

…I’m quite sure that’s the same Carolyn Dean that is now Cr Dean being as she is a member of the Wastebusters Trust.

The council’s solid-waste manager, Tom Greenwood, said it had been an oversight that WasteNet meetings had been closed to the public and it was being followed up.

Great! Tom Greenwood is following up and surely our Elected Member will be too.  Well considering neither the ICC or Wastenet search engines provide me any insight and Gore and Southland District Council have nothing, I have to assume someone (or everyone) dropped the ball.

I, of course, am well aware that they all have a responsibility to advertise and put out an agenda since one of my favourite legislation has this;

Local Government Act 2002
Schedule 7 Clause 30 (8)
A joint committee appointed under this clause is deemed to be both a committee of the local authority and a committee of the other local authority or public body.

And of course may absolute favourite legislation, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, has this;

Part 7 Clause 46 (6)
Where a local authority becomes aware that any meeting of that local authority has not been publicly notified in accordance with this section, that local authority shall, as soon as practicable, give public notice that that meeting was not so notified, and shall, in that notice,—
(a) state the general nature of the business transacted at that meeting; and
(b) give the reasons why that meeting was not so notified.                               

Given (b), that would be an interesting public notice.  Oops, 3 councils, a joint committee, council staff and a Cr with an interest in waste and community all forgot for over a year.  I don’t know, should I do a little follow up?  I had to follow up on statements made at DAP time and finally received an answer,  maybe no one has reminded them.  Cracker did refer to it in June this year and a Cr from ICC comments on there from time to time.  It might need a reminder email:-)

And given that Cr Dean posted on Cracker (June 2011) that she had followed up, I do wonder why we are all still waiting?

More PE from ICC

The Office of the Ombudsmen has done a great job resolving my LGOIMA request and ICC have supplied an excerpt from 4 March 2008 Finance and Policy in Public Excluded.  The subject is Bluff Events Centre.  The discussion has some comments that make me giggle especially from Cr Kruger.  I wonder if they are ‘kicking themselves’ now.  The minutes mention page 44 of the agenda, that agenda has now been supplied.

The 4 March 2008 agenda may be of interest to some as it includes the draft 2008/2009 budgets.

Having some technical/mental issues so it’s an ASHX as opposed to a PDF like I usually upload.  Everything is in the too hard basket for me at the moment so you’ll just have to deal with it.

Workshops 101

Some snippets from the Auditor-General, my emphasis in bold.

Meetings and Workshops with elected members

5.17
In the case of technical or complex decisions, many local authorities use informal meetings and workshops where elected members, staff, and specialist advisers can discuss the issues. Closing workshops to the public can cause concern for the local community, as it can appear that decisions are being taken behind closed doors.

5.18
The Act requires that meetings are held as necessary for the good government of the region or district (clause 19(1) of Schedule 7). Schedule 7 sets out, among other requirements, the general provisions for meetings, which include the conduct and procedures of meetings. The Act does not distinguish between formal and informal meetings, and says that a meeting must be called and conducted in accordance with the Act, Part 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and standing orders. Part 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 concerns public notice of meetings and the right to attend meetings and request information. However, the definition of “meeting” in that Act provides that Part 7 does not apply to meetings at which no decisions or resolutions are made. This means that, for workshops, local authorities do not have to apply some of the formal requirements for meetings, provided that no resolutions or decisions are made.

5.19
Local authorities vary in their practice of whether workshops are open to the public, depending on the nature of the topic under discussion. Although some of the procedural aspects of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (such as notice of meetings and publication of agendas) do not apply, members of the public have the right to request information discussed at workshops.

5.20
Workshops can be a useful forum for advice from staff on complex matters and for frank discussion, but they should not be used as a substitute for the discussion and deliberation that ought to take place in a meeting that is open to the public. Issues and options discussed in a workshop should be presented to councillors in a subsequent report, to maintain transparency of information to the public. It is good practice to record the events of the workshop, such as any presentations and general discussion points.

I remember when I first realised that decisions were being made at workshops, LTCCP amendment – Bluff Pool.  No discussion, no debate, no deliberation just rubber stamp the Mayor’s recommendation.

Do they really think we don’t notice?

Explanatory Notes

For those that are viewing documents on my Keep and Share site, I thought it might be useful to explain the filing system that has evolved.  Through the need to have them in chronological order as opposed to alphabetical I have put in brackets a meeting number and alpha, i.e;

2011 (01A) January 26 – Council AGENDA

2011 is obviously the year – having it at the start ensures all of the same year are together

(01A)
the number indicates which meeting number for the year of that committee, 1st,2nd etc and the alpha are as follows:
A=Agenda.
b, c, d,  etc=Part 2 or 3 of large agenda or reports separate of agenda or tabled documents, I usually put TABLED in the file name so if you are using the Keep and Share search engine you can type in TABLED and you get all the tabled documents I have.  There is some logic in my reasoning, it just may be my demented logic though.
M=Minutes

If there is no alpha, I either haven’t got to it or it forms part of the agenda and I separated it for blogging purposes.  I’m working through them all from most recent because I felt they would be more relevant.

January 26 is obviously the date of the meeting

Any text will indicate the committee/group or if it says Council it will be ICC full council.  I then put in TABLED or any other relevant info i.e, AGENDA, MINUTES or a description if space allows.

I can’t say the folders have a set method because they have evolved as need and quantity of files in each folder requires.  Bear with me I’ll get through them all but it can be time consuming.  The historian in me is itching to get older ones and have always planned to go to the library and copy a heap like I have done in the past.  I recently rung the library to see if they had scanning ability or should I bring my own.  I’m informed that they can scan and email stuff, I explained that some may be large and I didn’t want to tie up the staff but it seems you can’t go in and do that (I have photocopied agendas myself in the past).  I tried to explain my logic, that I could photocopy but then I would come home and scan them all in and upload to my site but that would be a waste of time, money and trees.  I was questioned about the concept of having a portable scanner, OMG then was the skeptical tone when she realised I’d said I would be uploading them.  I explained it was a public council agenda and minutes site but a fearful voice said ‘I’d have to get Council’s permission’.  I was eventually rung back and told I’d have to talk to ICC’s Record Manager.

After all of that, I would like to know, since when did council documents have copyright requirements?  LGOIMA requires public libraries under that councils control to have agenda available so therefore they are part of the library’s stock and therefore theirs to give approval and copyright is not relevant here.  Worse still is that they are claiming they only have ‘some’.  What happened to all the ones you had to have as a requirement of LGOIMA?  Did you throw them all and every 25 years as required by the Public Records Act council send copies back to you?  What a waste of time and money and so much for being part of Community Archives.  Transparency, community, Pfffft.  Now I have to request it all from ICC or get the library to scan it and waste paid employee time when I am able to do it at no cost and make it readily available to the general public and therefore saving time in the future!  What a waste of time, space and money they have turned out to be.  TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNITY CAN SAVE TIME AND MONEY but careful they might be better informed and more involved, can’t have that down here in redneck dial-up city.  And to make matters worse I read a LGNZ Technology document with references to Venture Southland (OMG) and comments from the former Telecom boss saying Southland was the most ‘connected’ region!  Maybe so but we’re not allowed to use it.

It’s no great secret

Remember I mentioned what seems to be a great council, Taupo District Council.  I had been looking there because like Invers they were excluded from the current Elected Members Determination (2011/2012).  Being a transparent public body spending public money they conduct a lot of business, not only in front of their constituents but in front of a camera.

They were unhappy with the Remuneration Authority’s changes to mileage claims (and rightly so, they are a district council).  Previously any local authority business in which they had to travel over 30km to attend they could make a claim for, at 70 cents per km.  That is in their own car and by the shortest practicable route.  A valid entitlement, I believe, to cover the costs of running their vehicle.  Travel 60kms, claim for 60kms.

The changes have meant that now, the first 30kms is no longer recoverable.  Travel 60kms, claim for 30kms.

I listened to their discussions and reasoning and considering they have 4 wards and a large area to cover and that annoyingly large Lake Taupo to drive around, they have a valid problem.  During discussions the phrase ‘over a barrel’ came up and they were informed if they don’t accept it all mileage claims cease immediately.  There are ways for the members to claim it on their tax or to present another lump sum annual payment policy but that would mean delays going through the Remuneration Authority or waiting to make end of year tax claims.  In the end they chose to accept it and made resolution to that effect AND THAT they write to LGNZ to ask them to pass on their concerns to the Remuneration Authority.  That was all done on 25 January giving heaps of time yet still they have been excluded, one would assume that is because of ‘dissent’ over the proposal and the Remuneration Authority ask if there was any ‘dissent’.

Our Council had this issue on the agenda, in PE, in April…didn’t make it to Bluff in May….finally did in June.  The letters I have seen in transparent councils specify the documents be returned by May 6.  Our Council also had an Extraordinary meeting on August 23 with ‘Crs Remuneration’ as the reason and ‘negotiations’ .  I am having to assume (because of the lack of transparency) that they are ‘negotiations’ with Remuneration Authority.

The nuts and bolts of the process is, if any council elects to pay claims rather than get members to claim it through their personal tax claim then the council must have a policy in place for making claims which must be APPROVED by the Remuneration Authority.  Invercargill City Council do NOT according to the Director of Finance and Corporate Services.

We do however have in PE of late a Draft Sensitive Expenditure Policy.  A little research shows the definition of ‘Sensitive Expenditure Policy’ is a policy that makes sure the Mayor or CEO or Chairperson can’t approve their own claims.  The requirement is so that public confidence in allowances is maintained and goes with the Auditor General’s Good Practice Guidelines that ‘no one be judge in their own case’.  The irony that a policy to instill public confidence in a public entity is in PE is not lost on me.

All of this now leads us to the questions….finally

1. If ICC have no policy for claims (nor Bluff), how come the Bluff Community Board budget every year has ‘Mileage Allowance’ and the expenditure for last year was $514.  Who and how is it being claimed if no approved policy is in place?

2. Are they in ‘negotiations’ with Crs or Remuneration Authority?

3. Were they excluded because of a delay in submitting documents? Not having a policy?

4. Why would tiny little Invercargill need to have a mileage allowance?  For the few times it could be validly claimed couldn’t the member keep a log book and claim at through their taxes?