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;-)

Deserves Highlighting

Sally put the link to this in her comment, one of the best descriptions I’ve come across and needs to be hammered into some in the south (and specifically Bluff).  In case some are too lazy or inept to click the link here it is from Insider Knowledge

Open and transparent?

By David Gurteen

When considering knowledge sharing or creating a more collaborative culture, we often talk about the need for people to be open and for more transparency. These two concepts are usually used interchangeably and often without too much thought as to what they really mean.

For a long time, in my mind, I have made a clear distinction between the two. Recently though, I was interviewed about knowledge sharing and the interviewer asked me what the difference was, as she thought they meant the same thing. I gave her what I felt was a simple answer at the time, but thought I’d try to articulate a more detailed view of the differences, as I see them, here.

To my mind, to be effective as a knowledge worker you need to network – to share more; to work more collaboratively; and, to work in a way that facilitates continuous informal learning. Two of the major complementary behaviours that underpin this are the need to be ‘open’ and ‘transparent’.

Openness

If you are open-minded, not closed, you are open to new ideas, to new thoughts, to new people and to new ways of working. When you come across new things you are curious and eager to explore them. You are non-judgmental and you look to engage other people in conversation – not so much in debate, but more in dialogue.

You deliberately go out of your way to discover new things. You are an explorer!

You ask for criticism from people – not praise. You are not afraid when people challenge your ideas – in fact you welcome it. This is how you learn. You are willing to ‘let things in’. People can ‘come in’. Hence the word ‘open’.

Transparency

If you are transparent, you work in a way which naturally enables people to see what you are doing. You publish your activity and your ‘work in progress’ as a by-product of the way that you work. You deliberately go out of your way to try to be honest and open about who you are. There is no façade, no pretense – with you, people get what they see.

You speak in your own voice. You are authentic. Others can see clearly who you are, what you are doing and why you are doing it.

You do not try to hide things out of fear of being seen to make a mistake. You actually want your mistakes to be seen. And you want others to point them out to you – that way you get to learn and to get even better at what you do. You make it easy for people to find you and to connect with you. You ‘let things out’. People can ‘see in’. Hence the word ‘transparent’.

Behaviours

Being open and transparent is a state of mind and more about general behaviour than the use of any specific tools. But if you are open, and transparent the more likely you are to blog; to ‘Twitter’; use wikis and other social-networking tools; give talks; publish papers, articles or newsletters; keep your calendar online; have an online presence indicator; and, write regular status reports on your activity and much more besides.

Being open and transparent are not the only traits of an effective knowledge worker, but I do believe they are two of the core behaviours. So do you think openness and transparency are important? If so, just how open and transparent are you and what might you do to improve?

David Gurteen is the founder of the Gurteen Knowledge Community. He can be contacted at www.gurteen.com.

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.

OK, So There Is An Agenda (And Organised Secrecy)

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.

Conspiring, Colluding and Being ….s

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?

Transparent Bitch!

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been called verbose.  That verbosity can be detrimental (people stop listening and the message gets lost) but we are who we are.  My need to be transparent (and circulate my views via this blog) also have negative impact at times.  Flat Hill Wind Farm knew my thoughts, views and concerns well before I submitted and therefore had ample time to counter them (not that I think they have).

The ideas stolen from my blog and circulated by others as their own are becoming more evident too.  I don’t really care though because if the sharing of information helps things progress then so be it.  Reader’s of my blog know where it came from anyway and the person stealing the ideas loses face in the community and shows the type of person they really are.  A win-win for me really:-)

Today has some relevance to me so I feel it is time to be a little more transparent and share some information.  No-one has had the gumption to publicly ask me who Carole is but privately there have been many inquiries.

I’m happy to admit that the email address submitted with the comment is easily obtained and could be inappropriately used.  I’m well aware that it is probably someone trying to wind me up or ‘trap me’.  I’m also aware that the email address is owned by two people.

If I make the assumption that is validly submitted by one of the owners then I would assume it is the man of the house (…and then the fight started!)  If it is the female owner, it reiterates my view that she may be delusional because it makes no sense to publicly express support for me.

If it is a supporter/friend of the owners then I would question the friendship if they see fit to use your email address without permission and in such a way?

It’s also possible that is not a supporter of the owner but someone who just dislikes me.  Still not a very good ‘trap’ or ‘wind up’.  The author of that failed report might consider it though.  If you can waste time and ink printing the opinions of a resident (my blog) and articles from the Southland Times (whom you kept contacting) and NOT submit a resolution or motion of censure to support it then I expect nothing of any substance.

Meanwhile the email address submitted with Carole’s comment was that of the seconder of the inept failed Notice Of Motion/ report/ranting and  Chairperson of the Bluff Community Board.

The Irony

After I finally made comment about the medical centre, I received this today.  Underlining mine just because it was my views prior to receiving this email.  I wouldn’t give to a organisation that can’t handle the basics and the tax implications of de-registration could be significant.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE CHARITIES COMMISSION

From the date of this email, we will no longer accept incomplete Annual Returns

 Much of the research looking into what drives public trust and confidence in charities, and donor’s giving behaviour, shows that the public expect charities to be open, transparent and accountable.

 And that starts with the very basics, such as ensuring complete Annual Returns and financial statements are filed with the Charities Commission on time, as required by the Charities Act.  For this reason, the Commission will now no longer accept incomplete or incorrect Annual Returns.

 From the date of this email, we will no longer accept incomplete Annual Returns or publish them on your charity’s summary page on the Charities Register. 

 A “complete” Annual Return consists of:

• an Annual Return form (Form 4), with all applicable questions completed, including Question 25 (essential) and
• a copy of your charity’s financial statements.

 If either of these is not filed within six months of your financial year-end, your charity’s online record, viewable on the public Charities Register, will show the Annual Return as missing.  That could potentially affect public perceptions of your charity, and possibly damage public confidence in its ability to work effectively.

 If the Commission receives an incomplete Annual Return, we will do our best to contact the charity to ask for the missing information.  This includes charities whose Form 4 simply says “see accompanying financials” in response to Question 25 in Form 4 – this response doesn’t meet the requirements of the legislation. 

 “Incomplete” also includes Returns that don’t include financial statements for a full financial year, or that are for the wrong financial year, or that belong to a (non-registered) related organisation.  We have found, for example, that some charities have filed accounts for the larger non-charitable “parent” entity to which they belong,  instead of their own – charitable – accounts.

 If we don’t receive any reply or the missing/correct information within a reasonable time, the charity will be deregistered – and will no longer be able to access all the benefits of registration, including tax exemption.  Donee status (granted by Inland Revenue) may also be revoked, which means that donors can no longer claim tax credits on their donations.

 We encourage you to file complete, correct Annual Returns, as the legislation requires, and to file them on time (within six months of your balance date). 

 Helpful tip:  the date on which your charity’s Annual Return is due is shown on your charity’s summary page on the Charities Register.

 By filing a complete Annual Return and meeting all your other obligations, you can comply with the law’s requirements to remain registered, contribute to public trust and confidence in the charitable sector,  and remain eligible for the tax and other benefits of charitable status.

 If you need help completing your Annual Return, please make use of the Annual Returns help on our website, including our Annual Return checklist and Annual Return financial information help notes

 Most people tell us that filing their Annual Return is relatively straightforward (especially if they file it by logging in and completing it online). 

 We look forward to receiving your next Annual Return by its due date,  completed as required.

 Kind regards

The team at the Charities Commission

Should I Take You At Your Word?

I have sat quietly (for nearly six months) and been very respectful but it’s now beyond a joke.  To make matters worse, I read this notice in the Beacon

I appreciate all of that but should I take you at your word because your organisation is beyond non-compliant it is breaching the Charities Act to the extreme.   I know they are aware of it and have been since at least December last year.

The Charities Commission lists the due date for the Bluff Medical Centre Trust accounts as 30 September 2011 which is six months after the end of year giving ample time for them to be audited and submitted.  We are getting close to approaching the end of their next financial year.

In addition, the Charities Commission requires (by law) that Trustee changes be made within three months.  Two of the Trustees listed have passed away.  Rex passed away in September (or October) 2010.  Rhonda also passed away over three months ago and I’m told new Trustees have been appointed.  So when are they going to notify Charities (and be transparent to the community you serve).

So sorry if I offend anyone but why should I accept you’re operating on a tight budget when you haven’t even shown you can print out a form and submit it on time.  It’s not rocket science and, by the way, you might consider checking if you can even spell your doctor’s name correctly.

Eight More To Go

Nearly finished the Bluff Beacon scanning.    Newly uploaded are 1287, 1294, 1304, 1320 and 1322.

1287 is coffee stained and screwed up because it was treated with the contempt it deserved.  Page 4 has “Charles Te Au addressed the board regarding information issues relating to Bluff Pool”.  What it neglected to say was that he stormed out because the Chairperson and Cr Piercy  (retired) both lied to him when he commented on the amount of funding the pool would be receiving from ICC.  Charlie had pointed out that prior to the board going into PE negotiations it was $180k p.a. whereas after negotiations it was ‘operating costs up to $180k’.  The elected members said ‘it was never $180k’, needless to say Charlie had the documents to reinforce his statements.  Lo and behold, the chairperson would not allow the council documents to be tabled…he was pissed to say the least!

He made a formal complaint to council and met with Mayor Tim and Mr King which resulted in nothing of any purpose.  Meanwhile the chairperson used her ability to deny the documents be tabled so that her lie would not be proven on record.  Would that be abuse of power?  If you knew you were right, why not let the person table them and they themselves be proven wrong?  Could it be they were right?

Let’s refer to the resolution

“Council’s financial contribution to this funding will be $180,000 per annum”

And what was the resolution from the Public Excluded meetings

“The funding is not indexed and will be from$ 140,000 up to a maximum of $180,000″

He only went along because he was sick of my ranting and prattling. The irony is that is why he ran for the community board.  The chair’s abuse of power to endorse her ‘false statement’ …I hope her fellow board members can forgive her for bringing him to the table.

…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!