How To Get Re-Elected

Some advice for elected members everywhere, grow a set of balls like The Workboot Councillor.  All seat warmers elected members should read his blog and take note of the network he has got supporting and advising him.  Grassroots consultation and transparency.  Remember they are…a.k.a. electors

Here’s what he’s been up to recently

After all the talk of operating Council transparently at the ratepayer meetings over the past week – what do you know, another public excluded meeting – subject matter: receving and notifying the decisions on the Landscape Variation to the Proposed District Plan.

The Mayor was quick to announce that the item be debated in secret, readily gained a mover and seconder from the assembled rubber stampers, and put the motion. As usual that trouble maker WorkBoot had to interject “Excuse me Mr Mayor, I presume you meant to call for discussion”.

Following a conversation with the lawyers, the Chief Executive Mr Ruru had overcome his initial reservations about excluding the public from this matter, and Venessa Anich of KDC/BECA-EDS, Planning Manager Mark Vincent and Commissioner Les Simmons extolled the virtues of secrecy. WorkBoot hit back on the virtues of transparency and accountability to the ratepayers. After a lengthy debate Mr Ruru may have been swayed by the WorkBoot’s arguments because he left the chambers to phone Brookfields lawyers, returning to say that the item could be debated in pubic – so a win for transparency on the day.

Remember he’s not just doing this to ‘be transparent’, he knows what they are hiding

Next up the Landscape Chapter. This colossal waste of money as a result of Council unlawfully notifying the PDP with no landscape chapter (with the explicit wording ‘This chapter is intentionally blank’), and then attempting to defend the indefensible through the courts, resulting in being ordered to go through a whole public notification process for this chapter on its own.

 It was interesting to learn that the decision to notify without a landscape chapter was made against Council’s legal advice.

 It was concerning that staff were initially unable to advise what the projected budgets were for the continuation of this process. Once the budget were ascertained they were then unable to detail how the overall budget figures were comprised. I have asked for a copy of that legal advice and the budget breakdowns

Before you read the next piece remember our council bought $9M worth of land at Awarua in ‘secret’ and then millions more for buildings on Esk Street without confirmation that they would be needed and now it turns out at least two are vacant and I see some are on ICC’s ‘possibly dangerous buildings list’.  The costs are going to spiral just like this is (bold emphasis mine)

Needless to say for a project originally put to the ratepayers as about $400,000, Council has now spent in the vicinity of $5 million so far with more to come. The budget for next year (part of what your massive rates increase is for) is $512,000. To put the significance of that expenditure into context – $120,000 is 1% of rates so there is 4% on your rates from that alone (and 4% is all you should expect to pay in increased rates.

Anyway back to the meeting. WorkBoot expressed his concerns about compliance with the law. When did Council go back and tell the ratepayers, as required by the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 (i.e. the Law), when it significantly changed the scope of the project from a review ($400k) to a total rewrite ($5 million and rising)?

 It seems that (surprise, surprise) Council perhaps didn’t ‘consider community views’ in making this change with the resultant massive escalation in costs. The LGA (i.e. the Law) also says that if the Auditor General reports on a loss, the loss is recoverable as a debt due from each member of the Council. Well what do you know – suggesting personal financial liability for Councillors, and tabling a statement here to that effect, certainly slowed down the spending of the long suffering ratepayers’ monies, and with that the meeting was adjourned pending legal advice.

A lot of similarities to our circus.  Beware we have a District Plan review coming up….

BTW, next time you lot in the Kremlin shuffle papers and check your watches when Abbott suggests something be in the public arena, check your jocks instead to see if you’ve grown a set;-)

True To Their Facebook

If you have a look at Venture Southland’s facebook page you see what they are.

An empty vessel.  No substance.  Nothing to see here move along.

BTW shouldn’t they be a government organisation being as they are a joint committee.  Why are they calling themselves a company?

For some reason they have sent me a Draft Action Plan and submission form, unsolicited.  Do they want me to submit?  Oh, OK then…

Reactive Rather Than Proactive

Our Board are as usual showing they aren’t on top of what they are doing.  From ICC’s website

Three Bluff students were awarded bursaries towards tertiary study in 2009.

Joanna Fife was the recipient of this year’s Bluff Community Board Bursary. She will receive $2000 a year for up to three years and the right to apply for a fourth year, to help her in her study towards a Bachelor of Arts majoring in History and minoring in Anthropology at Otago University.

Two special one-year bursaries of $1000 each were awarded in 2009, one to Thomas Hildebrand, a second-year student studying towards a Bachelor in Science and Marine Biology at Canterbury University, and the other to Krystal McKenzie, who is in her second year at the Design and Arts College of New Zealand at Christchurch and is studying towards a Diploma in Architectural Design.

Bluff Community Board Chairperson Jan Mitchell said tertiary education could be really expensive and the bursary was a great way to help the young people of Bluff.

“Good kids come from Bluff and they go on to achieve and make their mark in New Zealand. The purpose of the bursary is to encourage and support those wanting to undertake tertiary or university study,” she said.

Candidates must either be enrolled for a full-time course of study, or be in the process of applying for admission to a university or other agreed establishment within New Zealand and must be resident in the Bluff Ward.

Past bursary recipients to have their funding renewed for 2009 were Marita Leask, Nicole Vreugdenhil and Ricky Craw.

Could someone tell them it’s 2012!

Letters Online

The arguments over SPM continue in yesterday’s and today’s letters to the editor.

We also have Dave Henigan point out the real story about the Southern Scenic Route, don’t believe what’s in the Bluff Concept Plan on this subject.

A new link on the right for the March letters to the editor.

…And All Associated Reports

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!

Caught Up Again

The letters to the editor are up to date and I remind the Southland Times, your readers views are just as important as your reporters.

Please put ‘Your View’ online, not everyone can get your paper but still have an interest in what the people are saying.  Being as some articles online do not allow comments, Your View is the only way they can express their opinions and those Southlanders further afield still take an interest.

Intriguing

The search terms and referrers WordPress provide are always interesting.  It shows me the search terms people used to find my site (or how they happened across it).  For example, someone checks in using the term ‘living under stalin’s rule’ (my ‘not enough Prozac’ fueled rant but probably a very honest view without any tact whatsoever) and someone who I assume came across me accidentally and continues to check in under ‘top gear i hate country music which episode’.  You may like to clear your history and bookmark my home page or if you are typing in those terms every time, wouldn’t it be easier to type ‘motupohue wordpress’ or if you can’t spell that, how about ‘whatever bluff blog’ or variation’s of that.

The referrers are also interesting as some days I have an increase in referrals from email providers…are links to my blog flying around on emails.  If there is something of interest in a particular blog post, feel free to express your view.  There’s nothing wrong with debate you know?  Who knows you might change my mind on an issue if you have more information to share.

Bec is correct in her comment that said “I assume you get my email address with this comment”, I do.  For instance, Jane (with the same grasp of the English language as my 5 year old) was a fictitious address I believe or is there someone that calls themselves little miss Bluff girl?  We have on two occasions ‘Carole’ who provides an interesting email address.  Someone taking the piss? or trying to set me up for something?  I’m not that gullible and you obviously don’t know much about technology (if the email address is from the ‘owner’ of that address).

Meanwhile, I will only share Carole’s email address in part and only if someone with a valid name and email address ask:-)  (Carole will also have to ask under the same name and email for me NOT to share it).

Will Carole’s identity be unmasked?  Will he/she defend their actions?  Will transparency prevail?  Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel!!!

I’m On To It!

Letters to the editor for today already online (the prozac must be kicking in).  I won’t have to be scanning in the mayoral opinions every Saturday anymore at least.  I hate the Southland Times website and the search engine sucks but I’ve found the best search term to find the Saturday columns.  Just put in ‘writes mayors/chairs name‘, ie, writes Tim Shadbolt, writes Ali Timms…etc…

One less job for the new year!

I’ve Been A Bit Lazy With The Letters To The Editor

They are up to date now though with everything I’ve found in my bombsite of a house, I need an office (and/or obedient children).  I’ve started a new folder for 2012 letters to the editor and will be creating a separate folder for each month otherwise there will be too many files for one screen.  I notice Cracker linked to one of Tim’s opinion pieces on the Times website so I may not need to upload them here anymore.  Whenever I have used the Times website search engine though I can’t find them.  Will have another look.

Meanwhile, I reiterate, could the Southland Times please put letters to the editor online (Evan: I know you check in from time to time please add it to the suggestion box)

I’m Honoured And Reminded

Well I have been fortunate enough to make it to Cracker’s honour list.  His comment

…she keeps the shiny arses honest in terms of legislative requirements…

reminds me of the many issues I want to follow up on (I have lost focus of late).  Most I have noticed in Bluff but when you see ICC doing the same, it’s no wonder Bluff are bastardising legislation.  ICC don’t set great examples but Bluff can do there own research and with regards to Public Excluded, it is there decision, not ICC’s.  The Chairperson’s response to Charlie when he opposed going into PE over Cr Remuneration is a prime example, that’s what they do in town, just does not cut it.  It is a VOTE of the Bluff Community Board members on whether to put an item in PE.  It should be based on legislation, not ‘that’s how it’s done in town’.  Try turning your own brain on or you’re just a waste of space.  There is another example where Procter agrees with Charlie that they shouldn’t go into PE and then says ‘but I will defer to the Chairperson’.  WTF.  Your brown-nosing the wrong person, if anyone you should be brown-nosing it’s the RESIDENTS, they have the power with their collective votes at election time.  Enjoy your term Procter because it will be your last, you have brought too much shame and not enough good.

I will have to start my annual plan submission soon because formulating thoughts, ideas and views is time consuming when constantly having to deal with nappy changing, breast feeding, housework (grr), meals and resolving WW3.  I also like to have the ‘out of the blue’ issues ready before the DAP comes out as there will be a lot to read and digest.  I’ve been looking forward to this annual plan, reserve accounts have to be declared for the first time.  There are downfalls too though.  Rodney Hide with his Transparency, Accountability and Fiscal Management amendments to the LGA removed the need to use the Special Consultative Procedure on some issues.  How can removing the need to consult on big issues like replacing, repairing or selling strategic assets improve transparency?  The OAG has noticed the downfall by commenting that many councils have not gone ahead with some strategic asset changes in light of submissions from the community.  Removing the need to inform the community removes the collective wisdom of the community to control the assets provided for them.

Some of the issues are workshops and the appropriate use of them, communication, technology, LGOIMA (of course) and responsibilities to enforce and adhere to policies and legislation delegated to them from central government.  Best get started!