Kiwiblog

The Press reports:

Speaking to The Press yesterday, Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson said Dalziel has been “upfront” about chewing over challenging Parker.

Upfront is not quite the word I would use.

On 12 May 2012:

“I’m sick of every time I try to get debate around the real issues, they say, ‘It’s the beginning of her mayoralty bid’. So I’m taking it off the table.

Off the table sounds rather final.

“I intend to re-stand for Christchurch East in whatever form it becomes, because obviously there will be major boundary changes. I could end up the MP for Christchurch Central again by accident,” she said.

And

Lianne Dalziel’s refusal to stand for the Christchurch mayoralty should scotch the gossip that has been swirling about the city for more than a year.

Alas such denials do not scotch the gossip, because you can’t believe them!

And in today’s stories:

Dalziel ruled out her recent demotion as reason for considering a shot at the mayoralty.

“I don’t want anyone to believe that the mayoralty of Christchurch was somehow second-best. I crossed that hurdle when I realised how serious the issues actually are [in Christchurch].”

You mean Lianne didn’t realise there were serious issues last May when she ruled out standing?

The Press reports:

Student Volunteer Army founder Sam Johnson will not challenge Mayor Bob Parker in the upcoming Christchurch elections, despite agonising over an offer to team up with Labour MP Lianne Dalziel.

The Weekend Press revealed Dalziel – the MP for Christchurch East and Labour’s earthquake recovery spokeswoman – invited Johnson to be her running mate and would-be deputy mayor in October’s local body elections.

Neither Dalziel nor Johnson would comment on Friday, but Johnson admitted last night he “very seriously did consider” the offer. He finally decided against it on Saturday afternoon.

“I really wanted to do it,” he said. “It was a really difficult decision to make, but I don’t think it is the right thing for me right now.”

Johnson did not intend to run for a seat on the Christchurch City Council and was undecided about standing again for the Riccarton-Wigram Community Board.

He planned instead to finish his law and politics degree and focus on the Volunteer Army Foundation and his work with the Ministry of Awesome.

I often talk to young aspiring politicians, and my advice almost always is not to stand too early. I think it is crucial that people do not just go from student politics to a job in Parliament to being an MP. While there are exceptions, you are a better MP if you have some life experience.

Now Sam has had some pretty incredible successes and experiences, and would have been a credible figure at a young age. But his decision not to rush things shows a good level of maturity.

However, he did not rule out dipping a toe back into politics in the future.

“I’m not a career politician. Later in life, maybe, but right now there are many other things that need to be done.”

Sensible.

Despite Johnson’s defection, Dalziel has not ruled out a mayoralty bid.

She would have been “exceptionally happy to stand alongside Sam”, but maintained she was not committed yet.

Oh, of course Lianne is standing.

Dalziel had previously ruled out standing for mayor but had been persuaded to reconsider, she said.

Oh, yes persuaded against her will I am sure. There’s nothing wrong with saying you want to be Mayor, but I can do without the false reluctance.

Even since Shearer dumped Lianne from the shadow cabinet, the bid was near-inevitable.

Lianne has said she will resign as an MP, if she stands. That means a by-election in Christchurch East. Who would stand for Labour?

UPDATE: I am told my multiple sources that Labour has already had their normal democratic selection process and the unions and hierarchy have chosen Tony Milne. Tony used to work for Tim Barnett, and is currently the National Manager of Public Health at the Problem Gambling Foundation.

The word has been that Lianne Dalziel will announce her candidacy for Mayor in the next two weeks, despite over a year of denials.

The Press reports:

Labour MP Lianne Dalziel has asked the founder of Christchurch’s Student Volunteer Army, Sam Johnson, to stand together to challenge Mayor Bob Parker in this year’s local body elections, The Press understands.

Speculation has been mounting as to who will run against Parker in October. And The Press can now reveal Labour’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery spokeswoman Dalziel has asked Johnson, 24, to be her running mate and would-be deputy mayor.

Johnson himself would have to be elected as a councillor to assume the deputy’s position, and Dalziel is believed to have sounded out other running mates too.

But Johnson’s reputation soared after he organised the much-celebrated student army to help quake-affected Cantabrians and in 2012 he was named Young New Zealander of the Year. He currently sits on the Riccarton-Wigram Community Board and in January indicated he could seek a seat on the city council .

Maybe Sam should stand for Mayor, rather than be Lianne’s deputy!

Peter Beck writes that he will not be standing again for Christchurch City Council:

I’m struggling with the committee work and the paperwork and the number of projects and plans that I need to keep up with as the council makes the major policy decisions which are its responsibility. There are others with much more ability than I have to scrutinise and work with this crucial committee work, reviewing and monitoring the proposals and recommendations of the council staff. I hope the councillors and others in our wider city community with these skills will step up and stand for election.

Many people don’t realise how much work is involved on a Council.

I have found the political infighting hard. At the council table I listen and contribute to the debate and then seek to make the best decisions I can for the city, not concerning myself as to whether or not it will win me brownie points with the electors. I’m sure my colleagues would say the same thing. But it is hard to build the trust that is really needed to ensure the very best decisions are made. It may be that the Westminster style of government with its combative culture, is the best we can hope for, but certainly at a local level, I reckon we can find better ways of governing our city.

It is a pity Beck doesn’t say who is responsible for the infighting.

Personally I blame party politics. When people are more loyal to their ticket and party, than to working together for the city. As I blogged previously if you are going to have party politics at local Council level, then you need to look at having a Mayor with more executive authority.

At this stage Bob Parker has declared that he will stand again. My hope is that there is one, and only one, seriously credible alternative so that the city has a clear choice. That is good for democracy. It is good for both candidates. Whoever is elected will then hopefully carry a real mandate of the people.

It will be interesting to see if this comes to pass, and if so who it will be.

Lois Cairns at The Press reported:

Simmering tensions between some Christchurch City councillors and senior staff are hindering the city’s ability to make progress on key issues, insiders say. …

Cr Barry Corbett, who is not seeking re-election in October, said some councillors engaged in political point scoring which was destroying relationships within the council and hindering progress on key issues.

“Some councillors, when they wake up in the morning, all they think about is how they can stick it to the council, how can they embarrass Bob [Parker], and how they can make sure that National doesn’t get elected next year,” Corbett said.

If they had issues with staff, they tended to raise them in a public forum rather than approach them directly.

Naturally, that created tension because staff felt they were being “hung out to dry”.

Asked if he felt the tensions between staff and councillors hampered the council’s ability to make progress on key issues, Corbett responded: “Heck, yeah.”

This is one of the weaknesses of the Council model. It works pretty well in smaller areas where there are not party politics. But party politics has infested the larger city councils and you get Councillors who are more interested in bad publicity for others than making the Council work well.

We solve this issue at national level by having the Government separate to and accountable to Parliament. Not all MPs are Ministers. We have an Opposition who don’t actually have to work with Government staff until they are in Government themselves. Their job is to oppose and scrutinise and propose alternatives – but not to govern.

At the Council level, all Councillors are Governors. They all sit on committees that make decisions and all have an equal vote at the Council. There is no Cabinet or Ministers. So when some Councillors have an agenda of trying to screw over others, of course you get dysfunctional.

As I said, I think the Council model works well for smaller authorities. It works less well when you have party politics. So one solution there may be to recognise the reality and move Councils to more of a parliamentary model. This means more executive powers to the Mayor and Councillors picked by the Mayor to chair committees. The other Councillors can then focus on scrutinising the executive Councillors, holding them to account, approving bylaws and budgets. And at electon time they can campaign as a team for a change to their team.

I prefer the model where there is no party politics, and Councillors focus more of the wellbeing of the Council, not their political interests. But the bigger you get the more inevitable it is you get the “necessary evil” of party politics. And party politics allows voters a clear choice. But if you have party politics then you need an executive and an opposition as we have in Parliament.

The Press editorial:

On the face of it, the attack last week by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, appears to be amply justified.

While there may be room for quibbling about the exact numbers, the pace with which the Christchurch City Council has repaired and replaced the social housing damaged by the earthquakes has been slow.

Quoting from the council’s own latest report, the council has closed 327 social housing units but has managed, in a programme that is supposed to be urgent, to repair and relet only six of them.

Astonishing.

Brownlee is quite right to draw attention to it and to try to set a fire under councillors to get something done about it.

His singling out of Cr Yani Johanson for criticism was, however, misdirected. It is possible to understand the minister’s temptation to target Johanson. In the political spectrum of the council, Johanson sits on the gadfly Left wing.

After some years in office, he still has the slightly bumptious and irritating air of the student politician about him. He is also not slow to criticise the performance of others.

Indeed.

So when the council fails in a serious responsibility he appears to be in charge of, one can see how taking a swipe at him would be hard to resist.

It is, nonetheless, unfair.

For one thing, while Johanson is chairman of the committee that is in charge of the social housing stock, he is only one councillor among the others. He is not like a minister of the Crown. Any failure with repairs to social housing lies not with Johanson alone but with the other councillors on his committee and with the whole council.

I agree, Johanson is not solely responsible. However his share of responsibility must be greater than other Councillors as he chairs the committee in charge.

Taking the opportunity provided by Brownlee’s broadside to have a dig of his own at Johanson, Cr Aaron Keown suggested there were tensions between Johanson’s committee and council staff that were impeding progress on repair work.

If that is correct, the remedy is not, as Keown suggested, to transfer the work to the committee on which Keown sits, but for any difficulties to be identified and fixed. Council staff must provide councillors with prompt, accurate, complete information, and councillors must provide staff with clear and precise directions.

It is hard to say what the solution is, until we know what the problem is. The Council needs to clarify why it has only been able to fix six houses in two years and what changes are necessary to speed this up.

It was almost exactly a year ago that Brownlee lit a rocket under the Housing Corporation for its apparent lethargy on getting state houses repaired and replaced. More action quickly followed.

Beleaguered city council tenants will be hoping his latest blast will be as effective.

That would be good.

Personally this reinforces my belief that Councils should not be landlords. They tend to be very bad at it, and providing community housing is better done by Housing NZ and community groups. If the Council was not the owner, I suspect many more of those houses or apartments would be repaired by now.

Lois Cairns at The Press reports:

If Christchurch is to become a city for cyclists, then the city council should spend the $69 million needed to create a city-wide cycleway network.

That is the view of Cr Aaron Keown, who says that if the council is serious about turning Christchurch into the Amsterdam of the South Pacific, it needs to put its money where its mouth is.

He said number crunching by council staff showed that if ratepayers were prepared to accept an extra 1 per cent increase in their rates, the network could be funded and built within two years.

“The average household in Christchurch pays $1600 a year in rates, so a 1 per cent rate increase is an extra $16 a year,” Keown said.

“If the people of Christchurch really want a cycle network, are they prepared to pay an extra $16 a year for it?”

Christchurch looks to be an ideal city for cycling as it is so flat. The idea of cycleways is a good one. However I am unsure about the robustness of the $16 a year figure.

There are around 140,000 households in Christchurch. $69 million is in fact $492 a household. Not $16.

The story refers to it being funded within two years. So that would in fact require $250 a household per year – not $16.

This wasn’t hard to calculate. It would be nice if media had the resources or inclination to fact check claims made by politicians, rather than just report on them.

The Press looks at the possible contenders:

• Lianne Dalziel – says not standing and that a change of mind is “unlikely”
• Tim Carter – not ruling it out, will decide next year
• Garry Moore – never say never
• Mike Yardley – No plans, will not stand for Council
• Humphry Rolleston – would not comment
• Peter Townsend – Not standing
• Peter Beck – Initially said too soon to say, and then later said no
• Glenn Livingstone – Not decided yet

Ipredict has Garry Moore at 70% likely to stand and Peter Beck 55% likely.

The only two I read as definitely not standing are Townsend and Yardley. The others have all left some wriggle room.

Parker is at 47% to be re-elected.

The Press editorial:

The desire expressed recently by Mayor Bob Parker for Christchurch City Council to take back more control of the city’s affairs echoes the feelings of many Christchurch people. The mayor spoke of the matter two weeks ago, when he said he was looking forward to the council regaining control of the central business district from the Central Christchurch Development Unit “sooner rather than later”. While acknowledging the important role the Government had in the rebuild, the mayor said: “We think [the city centre rebuild] is something that should be driven by the people in the city and council.”

An understandable desire, but it is worth pointing out that most Councils are equipped to deal with one or two major projects at a time. Dealing with a rebuild of an entire city centre is to be blunt well beyond the resources and capability of a city council.

The greatest interference with the council’s functions, though, came from the creation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as a government department and then later the CCDU as a unit within Cera to plan the reconstruction of the central city. This, according to Parker, has left the council’s elected representatives feeling “politically impotent” and accounts for the dysfunction (“so-called dysfunction”, according to Parker) on the council.

Here, Parker has got his analysis backwards. The creation of Cera did not cause ructions among otherwise efficient and smoothly functioning councillors to erupt. Cera was necessary for several compelling reasons. But one of them, surely, was a fear, among other things, that councillors would not be able to put aside their differences to face the mammoth task before the city without petty distractions.

Whatever the cause, councillors certainly proceeded to live down to expectations when in the midst of the calamity, and egged on by irresponsible outside elements, they plunged the depths of mindless backbiting and bitchery in an ultimately trivial row over the chief executive’s salary.

Exactly. The Council came close to being dismissed for their inability to function, as the backbiting was so extreme. Things have improved, but a long way to go.

Power over the city’s affairs will of course eventually be returned entirely to the council. So far as the CCDU is concerned, Parker is holding discussions with Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee. In order for him to be able to make a persuasive case, however, the council must show that it is capable of doing the job. Whether that is the case yet is far from clear. It is alarming, for instance, to hear that it is in danger of losing its accreditation as a building consents authority because of 17 identified shortcomings.

I think the saying is look after your own backyard first.

The fact the CEO thinks he can grant an extra 12 days paid leave to all Council staff without even informing the Mayor and Council of his intentions in advance, shows that there is still a fairly high degree of dysfunctionality.

The Press reports:

Christchurch mayor Bob Parker will seek another term in office.

Speculation was rife that Parker, whose two terms in office have been marred by controversy, would step aside at next year’s local body elections, but in an interview with The Press the former television presenter confirmed he would seek re-election.

No-one else has publicly signalled their interest in the mayoralty yet, but behind the scenes the hunt is on among Christchurch’s movers and shakers for a candidate to challenge Parker.

Christchurch East Labour MP Lianne Dalziel was tipped, but ruled out standing because she has her eyes on Gerry Brownlee’s job as Canterbury earthquake recovery minister.

She is believed to be pushing prominent businessman and rich-lister Humphry Rolleston to stand. Rolleston is on the board of several listed companies and was for many years a business partner with the late Timaru financier Allan Hubbard.

Former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore is another who could be persuaded to stand. He has been outspoken of late about the loss of democracy in Christchurch and the stranglehold Wellington has on decision-making here.

Rolleston would be a very formidable challenger. Moore was a popular Mayor, but I’m not sure people will want to be seen to turn the clock back.

Among the city councillors there are three who stand out as possible contenders – Burwood-Pegasus councillors Peter Beck and Glenn Livingstone, and Hagley-Ferrymead councillor Tim Carter.

Carter is a first-term councillor and, at 35, could be considered by some as too young, but Vicki Buck was just 33 when she became the city’s first female mayor.

Beck has been on the council for a matter of months, but his former role as dean of Christ Church Cathedral means he has a high profile in the city and is widely respected.

Livingstone is in his first term, but has proved to be an effective councillor and has recently led council moves to get an insurance advisory service set up in Christchurch to help those locked in insurance disputes.

I’m not sure any sitting Councillor would win against Parker, as people were unimpressed with all the infighting. However Beck being new may be an exception to that.

The Press editorial:

It will now be possible to consider Dalziel’s criticisms of the recovery process – and they have been many and seem to encompass just about everyone involved – the mayor, the minister, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority – without the thought they are designed to advance any designs on the mayoralty.

And the Council. Dalziel has been pretty relentlessly critical of everyone and everything.

Whether, if Labour were to win power in 2014, Dalziel would be a good choice to take Gerry Brownlee’s job as the minister for earthquake recovery is highly debatable. It is, in any case, a slightly unambitious goal. By the time it could come about, more than 2 1/2 years from now, the hard political and financial decisions on earthquake recovery will largely have been taken. By that time, it must be hoped, the recovery will be well under way and any ministerial involvement will have become peripheral.

Indeed. In fact the big decisions should all be made by mid 2013 I hope.

While Dalziel has many commendable personal qualities – and her energy as a critic of what is being done has been indefatigable – whether she would be the right person for the job is doubtful. She has been a minister before, of course, and though she was competent enough she hardly shone in the role.

That is a bit unfair. While I don’t share her policies, Dalziel was actually an  effective Commerce Minister, and one of the better performing Labour Ministers.

 In addition, her well-signalled party-political partisanship could hinder her capacity to get on with others in a job that requires party politics to be put firmly aside. Her suggestion for some new layer of bureaucracy between the minister and Cera – as if more bureaucracy is what is required – also does not augur well.

I agree. Having the Minister appoint a board who supervise the CERA CEO seems bizarre. You have boards for commercial SOEs, not for government departments.

With Dalziel out of the running, attention can now turn to other possible contenders. While it may be a thankless job in many ways, it is also one of unprecedented opportunity and the incumbent Bob Parker shows no signs of having lost his appetite for it. At this early stage, talk inevitably centres on sitting councillors, and the names of Tim Carter, Peter Beck and Glenn Livingstone have been mentioned. All are very new to the council and their only mark of distinction so far is their inexperience in all the skills that will be needed in the next phase of Christchurch’s recovery. Neither they, nor indeed anyone else on the council, inspires much confidence as a future leader of the city and voters may be forgiven for hoping some better alternatives emerge before the election.

The Council obviously has bitter divisions. A new Mayor from one of those factions, will just compound the frictions. If people want an alternative to Bob Parker, they need someone not currently on Council who has proven leadership experience.

Stuff reports:

But in a speech to the Employers Chamber of Commerce in Wellington this afternoon, Dalziel lashed out at both the Government and the council.

Everyone but Lianne is incompetent it seems.

“Without a layer of governance between the Minister and the recovery authority we have decisions being made by Cabinet, implemented by bureaucrats and undermining the last remaining democratic institution in Christchurch – our city council.”

So Labour’s policy is that there should be a Board for CERA? So the Minister appoints a Board that appoints a CEO, and all decisions go from staff to the CEO to the Board to the Minister. Yes, that will speed things up.

The council itself had not responded properly to the shock of the earthquake either, she said. …

However, the mistakes of the council had been compounded by the Government’s response of “imposing a growing bureaucracy” which “must not replace the core functions that belong to the council – the only body that can offer democratic participation in decision-making”.

It is a strange argument that local government is democratic, but central government is not.

“The solutions to all the problems we face in Christchurch can be found in strengthening the council so that it can perform its proper function in collaboration with the citizens of Christchurch, not to usurp its role with a government department without any practical knowledge and experience of urban planning and design.”

So now the policy is to “strengthen” the Council. Can anyone explain to me, what exactly is meant by that?

Just being angry about everything isn’t a substitute for rational policy and analysis.

The new unit is seconding experienced staff from the Council. Unless one is proposing that the City Council be given the powers of compulsory land acquisition, it has to be done by CERA.

Stuff reports:

A new Christchurch Central Development Unit has 100 days to prepare a ”Blueprint for Action”.

The unit will be headed by Warwick Isaacs, currently the general manager of operations for Cera, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

The new unit was announced today by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee. He said it was time for action and the city needed a clear direction for the centre’s rebuild.

The unit has been created as part of Cera because of the authority’s wide-ranging powers, which include compulsory acquisition of land for major projects.

Brownlee said the Government had largely adopted the Christchurch City Council’s draft plan for the centre.

He said the unit would second staff from the city council and Environment Canterbury, but it would collaborate with the City Council and it was not a takeover.

The council will remain the consenting authority, but Brownlee made a commitment that building consents for the central city would be approved within 14 days.

Isaacs has an extensive record in local government. He was the chief executive officer of the Timaru District Council for 10 years before coming to Christchurch after the February 22 quake as part of Civil Defence’s emergency response team.

Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker welcomed the unit and said he was delighted that the Government had essentially accepted the community’s vision for its city.

He told a business leaders’ briefing this morning that the unit’s ability to develop and implement a plan showed that the Resource Management Act could not deliver the ”speed, direction and outcomes that we need”.

Seems pretty sensible to me. We await the condemnation from the Labour Party Mayoral candidate.

The Press has done a report card on the Christchurch City Councillors.

I think such report cards are a good thing, as the average resident does not follow Council business closely enough to gain an informed opinion of which Councillors are performing. It is of course just an subjective rating, but they give reasons. I do think however that the article should list which staffers did the ratings, in the interests of transparency.

I also think the way the Wellingtonian did it, is a good model. Rather than do ratings just from their staff, they assembled a panel and got them to rate the Councillors.

Anyway the ratings are:

• Tim Carter B+
• Yani Johanson B+
• Glenn Livingstone B+
• Sue Wells B
• Claudia Reid B
• Jamie Gough B
• Ngaire Button C
• Aaron Keown C
• Bob Parker C
• Jimmy Chen C-
• Helen Broughton D+
• Barry Corbett D
• Sally Buck D

The Press plans to repeat the ratings before the October 2013 elections.

Sam Sachdeva at The Press reports:

Christchurch city councillors have defended chief executive Tony Marryatt’s decision to quit a meeting early to play golf.

Yesterday, Marryatt excused himself from a full council meeting to take part in a pro-am tournament at Pegasus Golf Course, being held as part of the NZ Women’s Open, which starts today.

Deputy Mayor Ngaire Button said she supported Marryatt taking part in the “flagship event”.

“The event is also important for Christchurch in that it brings visitors into the region and has so many positives, particularly economic, for our city,” Button said.

Councillor Aaron Keown defended Marryatt, saying he had been granted leave to play.

“The guy’s allowed to take leave when he wants, and if he chooses to take leave to play in a pro-am golf tournament, that’s his call,” he said.

“He can get a tattoo and start hanging out with strippers for all I care, as long as he performs.”

Keown is essentially right. All employees get at least four weeks annual leave, and what the CEO does on his annual leave is up to him.

The council meeting in question did not look to be a critical one, albeit all meetings post-earthquake are of greater importance than in other cities. But the CEO no doubt has numerous direct reports who can handle one half day meeting in his absence.

Having said that, Marryatt can sometimes be his own worst enemy.

He defended his decision to take part, saying he needed “some kind of balance” between his work and personal life.

“I just think I’m allowed to do this: I have annual leave, and I’ve taken half a day’s annual leave to play a game of golf,” he said.

“At the end of the day, I can’t run my life and this organisation on what some people will think.”

His golf game had deteriorated since the city’s earthquakes, and his handicap had “gone out by eight [strokes]” in the last 18 months, he said.

The first few lines are fine, but that last line made me groan. He may not intend it, but it comes across that having his golf handicap worsen is something people should have sympathy for. He shouldn’t have mentioned that at all and just stayed with the line that unless he takes annual leave, he will not be as effective as he otherwise would be.

Sam Sachdeva at the Press reports:

At least 2000 people attended a protest calling for mid-term elections and the removal of chief executive Tony Marryatt and mayor Bob Parker in central Christchurch yesterday afternoon.

It would be nice if protesters had a basic understanding of the law.

I have no problem with people calling for Bob Parker to be sacked. He is an elected official. I would note though that I reckon a fair number of those demanding the Government sack the Christchurch City Council were also those who protested against the Government sacking the Canterbury Regional Council. Consistency would be nice.

I’m actually of the view that the Council may have to be sacked, if the Crown Observer can’t help sort things out. But Kerry Marshall and the Council should be given a chance to sort things out.

But what is really dumb is calling for the CEO to be sacked. Because if that actually happened, a $60,000 payrise would be the least of their aggravations. Marryatt has a 2.5 year contract. He would inevitably win a court battle requiring him to be paid out the remaining two years of his contract, which means he would walk away with $1.1 million.

In my blog at Stuff, I ask can Christchurch’s council be saved?

But the pay rise granted to the CEO seems to be the issue that has generated the most heat. Unfortunately for the council it is the one issue they cannot fix. Once an employment contract has been signed, there is no legal way to require the CEO to accept a lower salary. The council cannot legally cancel the payrise. Only if the CEO voluntarily agreed to go back to his old salary could it happen. And it is hard to see what motivation he would have to do so. …

What do you think is the answer? Do you think the council can right itself? Do you think the only solution is to wait for the October 2013 elections, or is a commissioner warranted? Or perhaps, should the local body elections for Christchurch be brought forward to, say, March 2011, allowing residents to sack or re-elect the incumbents? Is an election campaign though what the city needs now?

d

I knew someone would mis-represent what I said on Christchurch City Council, 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.

It is becoming obvious that some or all of the Christchurch City Councillors must go. Two Councillors have called for the CEO to be sacked, and another has called for the Council to be sacked and replaced with a Commissioner.

First let’s look at those calling for the CEO to be sacked. Tim Carter said:

Outspoken Christchurch City councillor Tim Carter wants council boss Tony Marryatt sacked, prompting Mayor Bob Parker to accuse Carter of playing “a destructive game”.

Carter slammed Marryatt yesterday for acting “as the 14th councillor” at the council table and asked the Government to replace him with a commissioner.

In a statement to The Press, Carter said it was time for the Government to appoint a commissioner willing to engage with the full council and residents in an open and transparent manner.

And today:

Cr Glenn Livingstone agreed there had been a “loss of confidence” in the council by the public, but he disagreed with Wells’ views that the council should be disbanded.

He said he would support moves to sack chief executive Tony Marryatt if it was necessary for the council’s survival.

The thing which is clear to me is that Cr Carter and arguably Cr Livingstone should resign immediately. It is untenable to have a Councillor campaigning for the CEO to be sacked. It is impossible for the CEO to do his job, under such an environment.

The reality is that the majority of the Council voted to re-appoint Tony Marryatt as CEO. The Councillors against that had every right to vote against, and try and persuade their colleagues. But once they lost that argument, and the majority voted to re-appoint him, they have a duty to either accept the majority’s decision, or if they are unable to, resign from the Council in protest.

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.

But when it comes to employment matters, you just can not have Councillors calling for the CEO, who is employed by the Council, to be sacked.

So at a minimum, those Councillors who are publicly advocating for the CEO to be sacked should resign off Council. Their position is untenable, and they are making the Council ungovernable and unmanageable.

One Councillor, Sue Wells, has called for the entire Council to be sacked and replaced with a Commissioner – whom the CEO would report to. This is an extreme step and I don’t think things have got that bad. But there would be one significant advantage of it, if this did happen.

Around 80% of the Council’s powers and functions are reputed to now lie with CERA. Also we have the Regional Council of ECan. And a huge amount of time and energy goes into sorting out disagreements between the three organisations. If the Council was replaced with a Commissioner, then you could (as Cr Wells suggested) combine ECan, CCC and CERA into one organisation for the next couple of years.

As I said, I don’t think a Commissioner is yet warranted, but the status quo is not sustainable either. At a minimum Cr Carter should go.

NewstalkZB reports:

A ‘please explain’ letter has been sent to the chief executive of the Christchurch City Council by a group of his own councillors.

The letter to Tony Marryatt, over the move to relocate the council’s after hours call centre to Palmerston North, was leaked to media yesterday.

I don’t have a problem with out-sourcing generally.

But to have the Christchurch City Council outsource to Palmerston North at the same time as they are urging businesses not to leave Christchurch?

That’s a new level of stupidity.

There seems to be some real problems there. The CEO reappointment process, the CEO salary increase and justification, the attempt to charge quake victims for burial in the special memorial site, and now this.

UPDATE: Not as bad as it first seemed. The original story referred to 18 staff losing their jobs. In fact it seems only one FTE job will be lost. 18 is the total number of staff in the Orion call centre. Six are losing their jobs, but their hours only total 40 hours a week. The decision is still questionable, but one FTE is very different to 18 staff losing jobs.