Prior to Council’s recent decision to replace the Community Board Terms of Reference with a new Community Board Accord, I wrote to all Community Board Chairs, Councillors, and the Mayor expressing my personal views, as set out below, and urging them to retain the existing Terms of Reference.
I did so because I believe the significance of that decision for local democracy and community empowerment cannot be overstated.
As a Councillor between 2010 and 2013, I was one of the architects of the Community Empowerment Model during its development and implementation. I subsequently worked within that framework as both a Councillor and Community Board member until October 2019.
The philosophy underpinning the model was simple: the closer a decision is made to the community affected by it, the better the outcome is likely to be.
That is why it was called the Community Empowerment Model, not the Community Board Empowerment Model. The objective was never to empower Community Boards for their own sake. It was to empower communities through local decision-making.
Under the Terms of Reference, Community Boards were delegated authority to make local governance decisions relating to parks and reserves, community facilities, libraries, airfields, swimming pools, cemeteries, community grants, local strategic planning, local roads, harbour facilities, and local economic development. They also held a range of additional responsibilities that recognised their role as the local voice of their communities.
The difference between that model and the current situation is stark.
Today, many communities feel disconnected from decision-makers. Community Boards are frustrated, and residents increasingly feel they have little influence over decisions that directly affect them. Those concerns were raised repeatedly during the last election campaign and were a significant reason for my return to local government.
Earlier this year, seeking to understand the source of that frustration, I reviewed the Community Board Terms of Reference. What I discovered was surprising. The 2019 Terms of Reference remained in force. As recently as 2024, Council reviewed them and made only one amendment, allowing Council to set the value of Community Board discretionary grants through an Annual Plan or Long-Term Plan.
The problem was not that the Terms of Reference had been repealed or replaced. The problem was that they were not being implemented.
Community Boards possessed significant delegated authority on paper, yet in practice many of those powers were not being exercised. The very document capable of restoring meaningful local decision-making had effectively been left gathering dust.
Rather than requiring the existing Terms of Reference to be implemented, Council chose to replace them with the Community Board Accord.
Supporters of the Accord argue that it will strengthen the relationship between Council and Community Boards. I hope they are right. Council’s credibility is now tied to its success.
However, the Accord does not confer meaningful decision-making authority. It largely formalises the ability of Community Boards to provide feedback, recommendations, input, and advice to Council. Those functions are important, but they are not delegations of decision-making power.
In practical terms, the Accord leaves Community Boards with only a handful of minor delegations, including approving attendance at conferences, allocating community grants, and approving street names, all within existing policies and budgets.
That is a significant reduction from the authority contained in the Terms of Reference.
The issue was never the Terms of Reference. The issue was the failure to implement them.
Seven months of this Council term have been spent developing a replacement for a system that already existed and, if properly applied, would have delivered the local decision-making many communities have been calling for.
The difference between the Terms of Reference and the Accord is not semantic. It goes to the heart of who makes decisions in our communities and whether local voices genuinely matter.
I fear that in replacing the Terms of Reference, Council has exchanged a proven framework for community empowerment for one that offers little more than consultation and advice.
I would like to acknowledge Councillors Rasmussen, Smith, and Ashman, who voted to retain the existing Terms of Reference. They recognised that the solution was not to replace community empowerment, but to restore it.
