Auckland City Councillors travel bills
December 31st, 2006 at 2:56 pm by David FarrarHmmn under Fletcher $58,000 in three years. Banks was $93,200 over three years. Kind old Uncle Dick can’t say no to the kids and they have ratcheted up $202,000 in just two years!
You know one wouldn’t even mind $202,000 if one saw good results from it. But instead they come back with ideas such as banning billboards from the CBD!!
Related posts:
- Auckland City Council Results
- A City Council with 250 Councillors!
- One city for Auckland
- Wellington City Councillors Ratings
December 31st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
But Dick Hubbard is a very nice man. Therefore it’s ok that his council is out of control. Because it’s being nice that counts.
Vote:January 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
And chopping all the trees down…
Vote:January 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
i’m all for banning the billboards…
and while they are at it..the illuminated billboards could go too..
and they could start with that bloody telecom one up on the k rd ridge..
advertising its’ wares/existance to the rest of/too much of auckland..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Councillors, including mayors, deputy mayors and Municipal High Panjandrums should be subject to a blanket ban on accepting ratepayers’ funds for any travel outside the area of their council – unless the spending is approved by 90% of all the elected members of the council. Additionally, the whole cost of any such junket should be subject to being declared and taxed in the individual’s annual tax return.
It is offensive in the extreme to send elected councillors on jaunts abroad that eat up the the equivalent of a lifetimes’ rates payments from a household. The Auckland council members who have ripped off their ratepayers over the past two years should be made to pay the money back out of their fat allowances.
No foreign junkets should be the rule. I challenge anyone to show any single real benefit that such trips have brought to any New Zealand city that could not have been achieved in a phone call or e-mail exchange.
What’s more, the ‘twin cities’ schemes to get councillors abroad at someone elses’ expense should be abolished forthwith.
A much better rule would be one that required all councillors to use, and pay for, only public transport for all travel during their term of elected office.
We might then see an improvement in the third-world levels of public transport in our cities… by lunchtime.
Philip
Vote:January 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I heard a while back their justification for the trips was to research how other cities deal with urban issues.
To my way of thinking, if these people are not qualified to lead a city of a million + people, and make the appropriate decisions – what the hell are they doing standing for election?
No way would anyone be employed to do a job if:-
‘oh and by the way, as my employer, I’m going to need you to pay me a full wage, benefits, and as much travel as I desire, for 3 years to go and learn how to do my job’
Excuse my cynicism, but, the majority of people are stupid, govt is elected by the majority, so by default ….
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 10:08 am
esfxc klisto nufwdtjkm qzeasw bjfg pbvlgyu vsiyzehfq
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am
esfxc klisto nufwdtjkm qzeasw bjfg pbvlgyu vsiyzehfq
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 10:11 am
esfxc klisto nufwdtjkm qzeasw bjfg pbvlgyu vsiyzehfq
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 10:11 am
esfxc klisto nufwdtjkm qzeasw bjfg pbvlgyu vsiyzehfq
Vote: