30 Jul

I have found a few little fishhooks in the LGA amendment (a topic for another post maybe) but for me, the biggest issue I have over this is ICC’s handling of it.  It does, of course, look like de-facto electioneering.  They are getting their names and faces out there and look to be highlighting this heinous assault on our democracy…never fear, we shall save you!!  I’ve already said that if they wanted us to truly be involved the wouldn’t have waited until after submissions closed.

In this post, I wanted to share some thoughts on the ‘no directors on multiply-owned CCO’s’ issue.

When the last Director’s Appointment Policy was done, King went against the suggestions of the AG.  You can read more about that here.  The AG pointed out the difficulty of Director’s appointed from Council is, do they make decisions based on what is best for the council and/or ratepayers or best for the company?

His comments in today’s ad reiterate that the AG was right.


That last line says it all.  Surely, elected members on CCO’s can’t flip-flop between which hat they are wearing.  You can’t serve two masters but we have elected members that do.  Some are seemingly appointed from the council, it is, therefore part of their role as a councillor yet they get paid AGAIN as a director. Those directorships could also be used in back-door bargaining…but surely not by our council!  These are some of the reasons why I believe elected members should not be involved as directors.  I won’t dwell on the dodgy dealings that can (and probably do) exist, though.

The ad states


King suggests there is something wrong with not having a seat at the table.  I don’t see the issue.  The amendment ensures the involvement and control remain with the controlling councils.  That is important to remember – they are Council Controlled Organisations.  The control the councils have is through the Statement of Intent, an annual document that outlines the service the company will provide to the shareholders.  Within the document, the councils will say what they want.  If the controlling councils don’t want water meters, wouldn’t that be outlined during SOI negotiations?  Funding arrangements are also required under the legislation.  Without spending my whole weekend on this, I am pretty sure I saw that each individual council retains ownership of their assets too.  I am not proposing that I want this amendment to go ahead BUT ICC are suggesting it is the devil of all deals – I don’t see it.

It is interesting that not so long ago ICC wanted to make Venture Southland a company.  That would have been the same as what the Bill is now suggesting (except for the director part).  My main reason for not wanting the companies to move forward is that we will not have LGOIMA on our side.  Documents from that CCO will not be available for requesting.

I am still happy with my submission and still disappointed by the actions of our council.




7 Responses to “Directors”

  1. Realist July 31, 2016 at 11:24 am #

    Under the Companies ACT all directors have a duty to act in the best interests of the company or its holing company, ICC is simply the shareholder of ICHL, meaning Directors have a duty to the Company above that of their roles of councillors.
    That is where the issues lie and the conflicts occur, directors are paid fees, fees are usually set on the size of the company, so it is hard to imagine a councillor director not having an interest in growing a company which in turn may increase fees

    • Kylie July 31, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

      And doesn’t the Governance Statement say that when appointed to outside organisations you represent the views of council? That is at odds with the independent director role.

      • Realist July 31, 2016 at 12:14 pm #

        Organisations, slightly different to a Company, all in the wording and subject to interpretation 😀

      • Kylie July 31, 2016 at 2:28 pm #

        Agreed, ‘subject to interpretation’. But the logic (and recent statements from King) claim it is all about having a voice at the table. What use is the voice if it has to then vote and endorse based on what is best for the company. The SOI can give the direction and voice and they have to abide by it. I am reminded of the requirement of Invercargill City Properties to not tenant properties with things that could bring them into disrepute. Control through the SOI is that. Directors are not necessary.

  2. Phil T July 31, 2016 at 5:35 pm #

    It is just something that come along at a time that the Mayor has seen as invaluable for some ratepayer electioneering. It is fear mongering and the issue will get buried and when it comes back after the election the self serving barstards will let it happen with barely a whimper as the line up for the directorships. And the mayor will remember those who support his crusade. Personally I am sick of the bloody cynical prick and his smiling CEO who don’t give a shit about the ratepayers and happily spend the money for the full page add. There is a culture of unbridled bloody greed within this council and its like a cancer. Good help us if the people don’t make their vote count this time around.

  3. Carl August 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm #

    Multiply isn’t an adjective. Its a verb.

    • Kylie August 1, 2016 at 10:27 pm #

      Tell the author of this legislation that…lol. The use of it throughout did my head in. My brain kept reading and saying ‘multiply’ – as in the times table but, here we have it, used over and over and over.

Got something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: