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?
