My career has largely been in the Computer Industry, initially in research areas and then commercial ones. When I became involved in commercial systems I was initially working for a large American company that did a lot of work with local authorities so I became involved with working with various local councils in this region, from Rotorua to Thames and many points in between. One thing I noticed was that most, fortunately not all, councils had staff with a complete disdain for rate payers. Time and time again projects would be organised to it[sic] could be done without “interference from bloody ratepayers” or so that “the bloody ratepayers don’t moan”. I began to think the words “bloody” and “ratepayers” were welded at the hip.
Time has moved on and in the community there is often discussion about how our local governance could be restructured to give better results for the ratepayers. I have also given this some thought but have come to the conclusion that the system doesn’t matter too much, what we have is probably as good as any, provided we can train staff to drop the attitude I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Council, being staff and councillors, must understand and behave, not as though we are “bloody ratepayers” but “the ratepayers who we serve”.
Many Councillors and Staff appear to have personal agendas of what they want to achieve. Many of these agenda items are kept secret until they reach the stage when they are being considered for introduction.
A current example is the drive to introduce Capital Value Rating. Where is the drive for this coming from? Certainly not the ratepayers and I do not recall any Council candidate announcing their support when they stood for election. It seems to be an item that has just appeared and is driven by council staff and some councillors, the majority of whom live in Thames.
But when I specifically asked who was suggesting this (during a Council “Consultation”) I got met with shuffling of the feet, refusal to look at me and comments about lots of councils do this. Not really an answer. Residents of Thames stand to receive significant reductions to their rates at Eastern Ward’s expense with CV Rating so I do not think my question was out of line, especially as the refusal to answer, leaves us concerned about the conflict of interest, downright bias possibly, that is corrupting the process being followed.
If the Council was absorbing the attitude of “ratepayers who we serve” this whole process would be different. The review could present various options including Land Value and Capital Value but also with options put forward by ratepayers. For example how about stripping the regional capital projects out of the general rates and charging a specific rate to wards to cover these. Thames could decide on whether it wants a sea wall, likewise Whitianga would decide whether it was to rework the wharf area or have a wall built on Buffalo Beach. Communities would decide on what they wanted and what they were prepared to pay for, but not have to pay for what was to be used by another community.
TCDC in session, Tuesday 8 April – photo taken during the rates review discussion.
