There has been much political noise lately about two issues, one being the central government led amalgamation of local authorities and corresponding elimination of Regional Councils, and the other being the issue of the recent disempowerment of Community Boards within the TCDC. Both are related so should be considered together, which I will do; firstly, with the Community Board issue.
A Community Board has a statutory purpose to represent, advocate for and engage with its community. Its specific functions typically include submissions on the council’s long-term plan, advising the council on local concerns and carrying out specific powers delegated to them by Council. It is the changes to specific powers in the recent Accord which is central to the concerns raised by many. The previous situation was managed by a Terms of Reference that were described by former councillor Tony Fox in issue 1212 of The Informer. He explained that all District/Core functions funded by the district, genuine non-core services, were to be managed locally by Community Boards.
Under this situation the Community Boards had authority over local matters but the problem, especially during the last council term, was they were not observed by the Council and ignored. Working with and communicating with council and staff became more difficult. A Whangamata Mayoral candidate, Patrick Kerr, recently confirmed in a letter to the Informer (Issue 1212) that he “campaigned for Boards to receive up to 5% of the district rate take” to address this issue. He obviously understood the funding issue.
Funding for TCDC communities appears to be totally wrong. The number of residents on the eastern coast is 55% of the total to 45% on the west coast. However, the rates burden is totally out of kilter with 75% of rates being extracted from the east coast. This leaves the east coast paying $13,931 per resident per year to the west coast’s $3,638. Despite this imbalance, capital expenditure budgets in the latest long-term plan swings the other way; 59% to the west coast with only 41% to the east coast. Something appears to be wrong and this is behind much of the current dissent.
To address the problem of communications an Accord was submitted for Council consideration which sought to improve communications between Community Boards and Council but also removed the previous authority given to CBs. This was described by one correspondent as trading in a Ferrari for a skateboard. One Mercury Bay councillor, John Grant, supported the Accord, writing in The Informer (Issue 1212) that the “Primary job of a Community Board is to represent and advocate”. Councillors Rasmussen and Brijevich did not favour the Accord with its resultant disempowerment of the Community Boards. So where do we go from here?
Well, we also have another major issue to consider which is the central government directed move to amalgamate with other local government entities and take over regional council responsibilities. I have had people write to me to suggest Mercury Bay should be using this time to push for independence from our Thames dominated Council. While I sympathise with this, I cannot see it happening. Once a government decides it wants bigger, it will very rarely accept smaller as an option. Also, the current TCDC entity would not be keen on losing a cash cow that pays 36% of its rates income. Our efforts therefore should be aimed at using the transition demanded by amalgamation to improve the current imbalance of authority that exists between communities and central powers.
There is a model for the improvement of the situation where central local body power gets more imposing and communities’ risk being swamped. This model is the Auckland super city. The act that created the current Auckland situation also created Local Boards, a change of wording to avoid confusion with the Community Boards throughout the rest of the country. These Local Boards have much more authority than Community Boards. Their legal core responsibilities are to make budget decisions and plans tailored to their area, managing local amenities (parks, libraries and pools etc) and distributing grants to community organisations. They must hold monthly public meetings and seek public feedback on local projects.
This contrasts dramatically with the current situation at TCDC. Currently our communities are able to submit re funding for long term planning whereas the Local Boards have a legal power to make budget decisions for their area. Currently our communities must hope the central powers that be allow them to do stuff whereas the Local Boards have a legal power to make such decisions. Currently our communities seem to be able to have meetings only when the staff feel they are able to fit these in, whereas Local Boards are legally bound to have monthly public meetings.
Independence is most likely not an answer for communities but a Local Board structure that is identical to Auckland’s would be a major step forward for all communities, giving us a certain amount of independence and insulating us from the central powers, be they located in Thames, Paeroa or Hamilton.
