Keeping Community Boards subservient
During my career as a Senior Safety Auditor with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia, I spent considerable time working on Delegated Authority frameworks. From that experience, I can say with some confidence that what has been presented to the community falls well short of that standard. It reads as a goodwill agreement to cooperate – a “play nicely together” arrangement – rather than a structure that grants any real authority to make decisions. As it stands, the Community Board is not equipped to become a meaningful decision-making entity.
A CYNICAL REVIEW OF THE TCDC ACCORD
- The Accord is like being handed a steering wheel that isn’t connected to the car.
- It’s a ceremonial sword with no blade – impressive at parades, useless in battle. The Accord gives Community Boards the authority to strongly nod, thoughtfully comment, and forward emails upward.
- It’s governance by motivational poster: ‘Together we can achieve anything… subject to Council approval.’
- The document says Community Boards are ‘recognised leaders during emergencies,’ which is a bit like appointing someone as honorary firefighter but not letting them touch the hose.
- The Accord could be summarised as: ‘We deeply value your local knowledge and input, right up until a decision is required.’
- The genius of the Accord is that everyone can claim Community Boards are empowered, while ensuring nobody can quite locate the actual power.
David Yeomans, Pauanui
A vote that weakens power for local communities
At last week’s TCDC full Council meeting, an important vote was taken.
I was utterly appalled to hear that three members of our Mercury Bay Community Board – Kim Abrahamson, Rob Davis, and Peter McKenzie – declined to take up the position that our community all voted for – the empowerment of Community Boards to work closely with the communities they represent
It was a major part of last year’s local government election, and we all believed we had elected a top team that was enthusiastic and committed to what we believed in.
As word spreads across the community, the anger and disbelief grow. It seems Richard Shelford Woodcock, the Chair, is the only one prepared to stand up for our community fully. Unfortunately, he is on sick leave and, in the end, was not allowed to speak in a private capacity, even though he was willing to attend the meeting. Richard had no vote, and he was not represented by the person appointed to uphold his position while he was in recovery.
We are aware that, up to the day before the meeting, all MBCB members were of one mind: go with the option that gave more decision-making power. However, somehow, in the morning at Council Chambers, the three members of our Board voting chose the least desirable option – the Accord.
The new Accord was prepared because the previous Council failed to apply the existing Terms of Reference at all during its term of office.
Their inaction has led them to criticise the Terms of Reference and replace them with this Accord that weakens Community Boards.
Mercury Bay Councillors Flemming Rasmussen and Tony Brjlevich spoke against and voted against the Accord. John Grant voted for the Accord.
Shame on those who stood for empowerment before they were elected, but who voted in a way that did not represent us.
Ady Cole-Ewen, Wharekaho
Shout out – An open letter to TCDC
I would like to give a huge shout out and thanks, to all of your call centre staff and noise/animal control field officers.
The last eight months has seen an upward trend of both nuisance dogs and incredibly unruly residents, into our little piece of paradise in Whitianga.
Your efforts to restore normality to the community are greatly appreciated. I quantity this statement with the ‘likes’ on my recent post on WhitiChitchat.
Alan Sutton, Whitianga
Buildings and land in Council ownership
I believe our district Council, TCDC, needs an audit on its assets and the effects of those assets on their communities.
How often do we here from Council, “We have no money available to complete the project,” and then we hear a follow up to that statement, “We have to put up the rates to achieve your request or complete the project.”
This is a cop-out as Council has millions of dollars invested in assets related to land and buildings. In my understanding, there is no current register on Council owned assets in the district and if there is – why don’t our ratepayers know?
I do not wish to be a constant critic on this issue but feel we need to know more on the subject. What is the strategic plan behind owning the land and buildings. How will the plan, if there is one, serve the advance of this district?
In the private enterprise world, if a business is not successful, it is liquidated, sold, or just closed down.
Council could always own the land but lease the business.
If we are serious about reducing rates in our area, we must look at this important branch of our economy – “Council ownership.”
In addition, this is a concept drawing of what is possible in entertainment terms there at Moewai Sports Park, Whitianga.
Key Features in this design
- Stage shell positioned at the edge of the fields for good sightlines and sound projection.
- Natural amphitheatre slope using the existing terrain for the audience (mix of standing room, picnic blankets, and portable/chair seating).
- Sports integration – fields right beside it so events can tie into match days, school sports, or festivals.
- Durable, weather-resistant materials suited to NZ conditions.
This kind of facility is far more budget-friendly than a large enclosed building. It can only add to the use of this wonderful space and increase the opportunities for outdoor entertainment events. Let‘s not forget this big project was never finished by the Council.
Noel Hewlett, Whitianga
Big is not better- in local government
This Government has got the amalgamation of Council’s wrong! Their misguided attempt is to save money. It won’t! Warren Maher has helped ratepayers with his article in The Informer (19 May) clarifying reasons for the Government’s thinking. I’m not saying the government’s thinking is right.
Without a mandate, or prior consultation, this Government has foisted the “big is better” view onto Local Bodies. Their five criteria for this action are arguable i.e. incorrect.
Looking at the Auckland Unitary Authority where 17 Local Bodies were amalgamated, we see future generations will have to pay the costs of borrowing approximately 310 billion. The rates will have to encompass the interest payments for years. Economies of scale haven’t worked. Savings are made by thrifty humans and thrifty decisions.
“Small is beautiful” whereas amalgamation will put our elected L.B. representatives ‘out of touch’. Who does this action help?
My worry is that the Government will entrench this mistake before I can have my vote at the next election.
Peter H. Wood, Whitianga
Community Boards Swapped a Ferrari for a Skateboard
Tuesday last week, Thames-Coromandel District Council voted 7-4 to replace our Community Boards’ Terms of Reference with a new “Accord.” Councillors Rasmussen, Brljevich, Ashman and Smith opposed it, and rightly so.
The 2019 Terms of Reference, still in force, give Community Boards genuine decision-making authority over harbour facilities, parks and reserves, community halls, libraries, swimming pools, cemeteries, local roading, local economic development, community grants and local strategic planning. They have sat unimplemented for six years – by Council’s choice, not their failure.
The Accord replaces those powers with authority to approve street names, sign off training, and allocate small grants — within Council policy and budget. Everything else is reduced to “feedback,” “input” and “advice.” That is not delegation; it is what the Local Government Act already requires (s 52).
One councillor put it bluntly: “We have just swapped a Ferrari for a skateboard”. I agree. Cr Alison Smith voted against because “the closer a decision is made to the community it affects, the better the outcome.” That principle is the heart of local democracy, and the Accord abandons it.
The argument that the Terms of Reference “did not deliver” misses the point. A document cannot be delivered if it is never picked up. Six years of non-implementation indicts Councillors and staff, not the delegation.
Whangamatā’s discretionary budget is around $90,000. When I stood for Mayor last year, I campaigned for Boards to receive up to 5% of the district rate take – for our board, roughly $1.2 million – with matching responsibility for local assets. That is genuine local empowerment.
The Accord is the opposite: it centralises control in Thames, channels every Board enquiry through Governance Services, and gives Boards “speaking rights” rather than decision-making rights.
Amalgamation is coming. The stronger our local representation now, the better placed we will be when boundaries are redrawn. We have just made ourselves weaker.
The Accord is up for review in six months. Want your voice back? Tell your Board chair, ward councillors and the Mayor – loudly, and in writing.
Patrick Kerr, Whangamatā
Supporting our area school
I read with interest and shock, Richard Shelford-Woodcock’s article on a recent attack of a student at Mercury Bay Area School and the on-going issues.
From my experience school leadership can make or break a school in terms of teacher and student morale, and when that morale is low, there is a far greater risk of bullying and behavioural problems.
I’d like to use a couple of examples that I base my opinion on.
Our children attended a primary school, initially, where the principal appeared to be in a perpetual bad mood all the time. He remained in his office, refused to meet with parents who had concerns, often taking the hard line that students being bullied needed to toughen up. At least that is what he told me after my son was bullied and sustained injuries.
The general atmosphere at the school was quite negative and it felt like even the teachers were struggling.
We moved our children to another school, which incidentally had a much higher roll. Here the principal engaged with the students by playing sport with them at lunchtime, talking to them as she walked around the school, and she knew them by name, as she made a point of getting to know all new students at her school.
Each Friday the school held an assembly where parents were encouraged to attend and students were presented awards for everything from good behaviour to achievements during that week, and the most productive class got a standing ovation. The morale at this school was very high in both students and teachers.
I have personally seen the same examples in secondary schools. To change you need to start with leadership. Being a principal or teacher today at a secondary school level isn’t an easy task. It’s actually pretty tough a lot of the time. From what I have been told, the Principal here is often involved with the students as well as supporting the teachers.
So as a community, let’s start by supporting Mercury Bay Area School by endorsing respect and good behaviour in our homes, first. Then at least we will have made the task of teaching them, and avoiding bullying etc, a bit easier for the teaching staff.
Cynthia Daly, Cooks Beach
