I knew someone would mis-represent it

January 25th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

I knew someone would mis-represent what I said on , I just wasn’t sure who it would be. No Right Turn claims the prize. he says:

What is it with the right and democracy? In response to tensions in the Christchurch City Council, which have seen councillors criticise the Chief Executive’s lavish pay increase and autocratic style, DPF demands that “some or all” of them “must go”. Because obviously, the last thing you can possibly have in an elected body is disagreement. No, we should shut it down, sack them all, appoint a dictator.

Now unless Idiot/Savant neglected to read past the first paragraph of my post, he has deliberately over-looked the part where I say:

I am not an advocate of the view that on every issue, the minority on a Council must accept the view of the majority if it goes against them. It is quite legitimate to (for example) continue to fight against say an alcohol ban policy, if you as a Councillor thought it was a bad policy and a bad decision.

So I explicitly said disagreement in not the problem.

The fact of the matter is that these councillors are elected. They are there to represent their constituents, some of whom are not exactly happy with their council or its CEO. In other words, they are doing exactly the job we expect elected representatives in a democracy to do.

And again he has missed the key point. I never said Councillors can not criticise the Council, the Mayor or even the CEO.

But what they can not do is publicly state that the CEO should be sacked. Why? It’s simple – they are his employer. The Councillors who have done so have exposed ratepayers to a massive personal grievance and also made sure that if the majority on Council did want to sack the CEO, that they could only do so via a huge payout.

A Councillor can criticise the CEO when their performance warrants it (mind you it is the height of hypocrisy to attack the CEO for accepting a pay rise that the Council itself signed off on), but they can not publicly call for them to be sacked, as they are their employer.

What next? DPF will advocate the unseating of MPs who disagree with the government and criticise the public service?

No. What I would advocate is that a Minister who publicly called for their Departmental CEO to be fired, should be sacked. As their (effective) employer, that would also create an untenable situation. You can’t have employers publicly call for someone they employ to be sacked. I would have thought Idiot/Savant would have some regard for employment laws.

Tags: ,

11 Responses to “I knew someone would mis-represent it”

  1. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    I wonder what Idiot’s view would be if Cam Brewer demands the Ports of Auckland union employees are sacked for undermining a council asset?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dog_eat_dog (761 comments) says:

    This kind of thing doesn’t register with the left, DPF; See Setchell, et al.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hj (6,714 comments) says:

    I wonder if the attack on CCC by the right, is about developers, MULs, developer levies and an “open” (including assorted rat-bags of realestate) slather?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Mike Readman (361 comments) says:

    Well then, why, instead of having one CEO with 14 employers (or whatever) why don’t we have totally separate depts for each council, just like the government? One councillor could be the “minister” for each department. It’s weird to think 14 people would all have confidence in the CEO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    No. What I would advocate is that a Minister who publicly called for their Departmental CEO to be fired, should be sacked. As their (effective) employer, that would also create an untenable situation. You can’t have employers publicly call for someone they employ to be sacked. I would have thought Idiot/Savant would have some regard for employment laws.

    Gerry Brownlee (who criticised Clare Curran’s employment at the Ministry for the Enviroment) will be resigning in 5…4…3…

    [DPF: Are you stupid or malicious? Brownlee was not the Minister, he was an Opposition MP]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Richard Hurst (796 comments) says:

    I just got my CCC rates bill (one week before it was due which shows how bloody slack things are). I am considering giving myself a rates cut based the same percentage as the CCC’s CEO’s payrise becuase I, just like him worked right through the quakes without weekends as I work in an essential service although unlike me our wonderful CEO managed to fit in a few rounds of golf when he supposidly was slaving away at work….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    Probably stupid, because it seems these are opposition councillors in Christchurch City.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nzclassicalliberal (34 comments) says:

    Unaha-closp, firstly, cool handle. I have just finished reading that book.

    Secondly, a council is not really analogous to a parliament. Local body CEOs are employed by the council, but public service CEOs are not employed by Parliament. So Brownlee was not a representative of the employer as an Opposition MP, but these councillors are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    nzclassicalliberal,

    Iain M Banks is one of my favorite authors, seemed fitting.

    Councils do not act with consensus to hire or make by-laws. Some councillors are elected with the express purpose of being non-representative of the council. If they do not voice their opposition to council actions they are failling to carry out their elected duty. And if this has negative consequences, so be it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Grant Michael McKenna (1,157 comments) says:

    DPF, I don’t understand why you “would have thought Idiot/Savant would have some regard for employment laws”, given his ardent commitment to increasing state power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Clint Heine (1,568 comments) says:

    I don’t think Idiot/Savant would have any regard for employment laws. Last time I heard, he was an unemployed “mature” student in no hurry to enter the world of meaningful employment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.