What happened to the reason for Ravensdown in Public Excluded. In the agenda (2 April 2012) we have;
Then we have this from the minutes;
Could someone make up their mind…are we sticking to the agenda or not? How about adhering to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
Council have, over the years, got better at putting council, committee and board agendas out on time (and somewhat complete) but given this statement from the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—
meeting, in relation to a local authority, means, subject to subsection (2),—
(a) any annual, biennial, triennial, ordinary, or extraordinary meeting of a local authority; and
(b) any meeting of—
(i) any committee or standing committee or special committee or subcommittee of a local authority; and
(ii) any meeting of any joint standing committee or joint special committee appointed by 2 or more local authorities, and any subcommittee of any such committee—
if—
(iii) any function, duty, or power is conferred or imposed on that committee or subcommittee by any enactment; or
(iv) that committee or subcommittee is empowered to exercise or perform, on behalf of any local authority or any committee of any local authority, any function, duty, or power conferred or imposed on any local authority, or on any committee of any local authority, by or under any enactment or bylaw
When are we going to see meeting notices, agendas and minutes from all ICC’s joint committees?
Statements of intent and quarterly reports from all the CCO’s and true transparency? One step at a time…
agendas would be a good start.
In today’s paper we have Richard King sticking both feet in his mouth resulting in him not having a leg to stand on
Mr King yesterday said he stood by the council’s decision to have Mr Smith and McCulloch speak behind closed doors, both so commercial and industrial negotiations could be carried out without prejudice or disadvantage, and on the grounds of confidence.
All good but you should have stopped there…
“If we were to make the whole discussion public it would be prejudicial to the stadium trust because of the negotiations they still have to do.”
You can’t make local government (LGOIMA) decisions to protect them, if they come to you, they do it under your terms (and rules and regulations) and they should probably be mindful that they themselves are using public monies and therefore have responsibilities to be open and transparent.
If ever there was a situation that required a ‘workshop’, this was it, no decisions or recommendations, purely informative. Add to that, it wasn’t on the agenda, your failings in handling it peaked our interest.
Probably should make sure you get the story straight too
A secret meeting between Stadium Southland bosses and Invercargill city councillors this week did not reveal any new details about the stadium rebuild, The Southland Times has been told.
Not all of the information discussed behind closed doors had been in the newspaper, he said (Richard King).
“There’s always something new.”
ICC have the meeting agenda available, here’s an excerpt
ADOPTION OF COUNCIL’S DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN FOR CONSULTATION
Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) sets out Council’s priorities over the medium to long term. It
sets out how Council intends to contribute to the well−being of the Community and how these
activities will be provided and funded.
The LTP has been prepared and sent to Audit for their consideration. During the audit
process, a number of changes have been made to clarify issues and provide explanation. A
list of changes will be tabled as Appendix 1.
The Draft LTP which contains the amendments made during the Audit process will be tabled
as Appendix 2.
A summary of the LTP has been prepared and reviewed by Council’s auditors. A copy will be
tabled as Appendix 3.
What a surprise, look at all those things that ‘will be tabled’. Have a look at the underlined statements. Do they imply that the documents exist NOW? If they do, why aren’t they being circulated NOW? Remember LGOIMA…
Subject to subsections (6) to (10), the agendas—
(a) shall be available for inspection under subsection (1) at the public offices of the local authority (including service delivery centres) and the public libraries under the authority’s control; and
(b) shall be accompanied by either—
(i) the associated reports; or
(ii) a notice specifying the places at which the associated reports may be inspected under subsection (1).
I hope Cr Ludlow doesn’t try to tell me he hasn’t got a copy either…I will tell him the same as I did last year…they are doing you a disservice too. C’mon ICC, let’s do it properly, some of us like to have a nosy and go to the meeting and pay particular attention to certain discussions. If I am able to go, I won’t be able to remember everything that’s said (if I can even hear them) whereas if I have pre read it I’ll be more alert to relevant parts. It could all be solved by having meetings broadcast though…I could go back and listen to the parts I’m particularly interested in.
Yet again, I can dream…
Since it has been quickly whisked away from ICC’s website I’ve uploaded it along with the Finance and Policy (March 6) agenda in this folder. Unfortunately I never looked at Section 2 and as such don’t have a copy (do have a hard copy because they couriered one out to Charlie. God knows why? They know he’s a proponent of electronic versions as it saves on shipping and production costs).
If anyone has an electronic copy, could you email (c.teau@woosh.co.nz) it to me so I can complete the meeting documents? Even if you only viewed it, it may still be in your Download folder. It will be named LTP 2012-2022 Section 2 or something to that effect. Please check:-)
From the WasteNet minutes 17 August 2011(emphasis mine)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 2010/2011
The report was tabled. Cr Copland pointed out the increase of income over the
projected budget and the lower deficit of −36k. He also noted that we’d expect
deduction in income with less waste going to landfill in coming year due to new
recycling and rubbish service.
Cr Copland asked how these accounts were recorded at Invercargill City Council.
Ms Peterson responded that they are held in a separate account dedicated to
WasteNet, and that following confirmation of WasteNet’s structure the financials
will be more transparent.Cr Davis asked that the financial statement be put out with agenda, to allow
members time to study them. Copland agreed and expected that in future they
would be.
So they have an agenda, (not on ICC’s website though) and they are well aware they are not being transparent?
That was August and no surprises nothings changed!
Have you ever read such PC crap and well done Cr Pottinger. This from page 126 (Infrastructure Part 2)
Value: Open, transparent and accountable.
Cr Pottinger asked if members of the public were allowed to attend these
meetings. Ms Peterson commented that while the meetings were not
publicly notified, if someone wanted to speak to a meeting they were not
denied. Cr Pottinger responded that “no change” is not accurate as the
group hasn’t been completely open or transparent.
Mr Withers commented that this value was for better openness and
transparency. Mr McIntosh further noted that the perception of the
group is that to date they have been open and transparent.
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?
The year feels like it’s half over but we finally have the first community board meeting of the year. I see they will be approving the minutes of the extraordinary meeting (21 November). This of course where they pull out their rubber stamp and go ‘yes, we rubber stamped those submissions at the meeting that we did in a workshop without notes, a minute secretary or the public knowing what we were doing’. During that workshop they compiled their views on the wind farm and from the comments around town, a lot are not happy the board are claiming to speak for them without speaking to them. We can only hope people remember that next elections (and when they next see their elected representatives). Sadly though because it was a ‘workshop’ no-one actually knows who was for or against or their reasoning. That to me is why adhering to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act allows for transparency. Would you vote for someone when you don’t know what they stand for and what they’ve done? I wouldn’t. The Lindsay Abbott’s of the world get my vote. He not only said he wanted less Public Excluded and over expenditure but expresses that ideal when voting. Many have said they believe in transparency but never vote against going into PE.
We have on the agenda, Cr Boniface in attendance to speak on Bluff Urban Renewal. I understand this to be about ways to improve and promote Bluff so I hope those with vested interests go along and hear what he has to say and how he intends to lead this charge. We won’t get any decent communication from our board and without public attendance and involvement every project will get sucked in and controlled by Bluff Community Charitable Trust (without any community involvement).
I can’t attend the meetings anymore and some people who may have attended are not available so PLEASE head along for a listen. I will no doubt get in touch with Cr Boniface to express my thoughts and ideas. I have already expressed to him that I feel it should have been done prior to the Spatial Plan consultation and have also promoted the idea of rezoning Gore St.
Bluff Town Hall – Monday night @ 7pm. Agendas available at Bluff Service Centre, ICC and at the meeting.
Time to be following up on this…that declined request for attendees of a public meeting.
Let’s see if logic prevails?
In the name of LGOIMA I enquired after the Draft Activity Plans to be ‘distributed separately’. it seems they are available and they are available for viewing at ICC, BSC and ICC libraries. They also had CD version available (thanks John).
Because LGOIMA requires the agenda AND ALL ASSOCIATED REPORTS be available, I have uploaded them here.
I am unsure why they can’t be uploaded? One was only 394Kb and the largest was only 1009Kb. There is eleven I think.
I must say to Council, don’t worry about printing pretty covers for the CD case and especially not for drafts, you’re just wasting ink on that sickly green when a plain sticker (or vivid) will suffice. The people wanting copies are not the type you want to be winning over with glossy covers (quite the opposite!). I’d rather you put any cost savings on these sorts of things to the Sallies or keep it in the coffers. Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves!
