The Porirua Wellington Web Blog

Maryan Street: It's your defence of people that's making us shake our heads. And this is a surprise!

RODNEY HIDE: Who is this member? I have never heard a contribution quite like it. It is true, contrary to what New Zealand First members might be asserting, that there are people in every electorate in this country who are struggling. I was rung up last week by a Roger Beauchamp. He has been hit. He is a pensioner who has lived in his house since 1960-it is a family home. This story is repeated up and down New Zealand. He has been hit with a rates demand of $2,800. I say to Mr Donnelly that it is true that Mr Beauchamp does not live in Epsom, but he is getting hit with rates of $2,800 and he cannot afford it. Mr Beauchamp asked me what he gets from the Porirua City Council that is worth $2,800 in a year. The answer is not much.

So he went to the council and said: "I can't afford this." Do members know what he was told by the caring people in local government, which is supported by the Labour Party and now New Zealand First? He was told to sell his House if he could not afford his rates.

Even the Sheriff of Nottingham did not do that to the peasants. But this Labour Government, in association with New Zealand First, expects pensioners to have to sell their houses to pump up local government so it can have its flash offices and build its monuments while the poor people of New Zealand lose their family homes.

RODNEY HIDE: No, it is not, but I will tell the member what it will do. It will stop them going up at more than plus 2 percent inflation a year, and that has to be a good start. Why are New Zealand First members going around supporting rates increases of 10 percent and 20 percent a year-which New Zealand First's own supporters cannot afford and are complaining about to them-and saying: "We don't care."? Why does New Zealand First not care? Because it has the baubles of office. Members should think about the inequity of this situation-they can look it up. Helen Clark's rates as Prime Minister are $1,600 for the year. The rates of this poor pensioner in Porirua City are $2,800. Where is the equity and fairness in that situation, which this Labour Government with New Zealand First is defending?

Mark Blumsky: She doesn't pay rates for the one she lives in up in Thorndon, either.

capitalism works, according to a blog reader

Investment bank Goldman Sachs rewarded its chief executive Lloyd Blankfein with a bonus of $53.4 million this week. Blankfein, who became the firm’s CEO in June 2006, received $27.3 million in cash and the rest in stock and options.

Aside from Blankfein, 11 other Goldman Sachs executives will be given a total of more than $150 million in bonuses this year. Co-presidents Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried were awarded $25.7 million in bonuses each. The firm’s chief financial officer, David Viniar, received a $19.1 million bonus; Suzanne Nora Johnson, a vice chairman, $15.4 million; John Weinberg, also a vice chairman, $15.1 million; Chief Administrative Officer Edward Forst, $16.5 million; co-general counsels Gregory Palm and Esta Stecher, $8.96 million and $8.29 million, respectively. Three other company officials received smaller amounts.

"What Christmas means for some while other Americans languish in Iraq"
r
Saturday, December 23, 2006

removal of the canopies

The consultants' idea that we now pull down the canopies in the city centre, when we have only just finished paying the $5 million for them, is unlikely to meet with public approval.
r
Tuesday, December 19, 2006

ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL

city centre development concerns

Dear Euon, Ken, Robert, John, Roger and Matt,

A number of representatives of the RAs attended the briefing meeting on the Kobus Mentz proposals for the city centre revitalisation plan. Since then we have been communicating and I have been asked to let you know our collective thoughts on issues raised from that briefing. We thank you for being given this oppertunity to engage in the planning process at an early stage. We don't want to appear destructive of the proposals presented by Kobus and there was some very good ideas presented. For example the pedestrian access to the northern end of the North City Plaza, better pedestrian access to the station, and the idea of a partially dammed waterfront was interesting (eg a second Aotea Lagoon) but cost may be prohibitive. We also see the need to disguise the somewhat overpowering 14m S&EC wall facing the park. The move towards some inner city apartment development would also help to bring life and security to the area. They would be well placed for rail and road to Wellington and offer a good alternative to apartments in Wellington itself. However the following aspects are somewhat worrying and perhaps need reassessing

. The removal of the canopies would seem a retrograde step. Currently, it is possible to move about the main shopping area in inclement weather without getting wet. The North City Plaza, PO, Council Offices, cafes etc can all be reached from a covered car park without needing rain protection. The economic rationale was weak for taking such a step. Perhaps we should think more about some form of side protection to reduce wind tunnel effects. Opening up more traffic access ways into Cobham Court would cut across the secure and child safe pedestrian precinct and lead to more congestion in the court itself. It is one of the features that we agree makes Porirua attractive for local shopping. Separating cars from people seems a wise course and remixing them would provide no real benefit. Better route signage would be preferable. Parallel parking may suit the better drivers but many people find it more difficult and much prefers angle parking. Backing out of an angle park is no more of a hazard or obstruction to traffic flow than people backing into a parallel park. At least the traffic moving forward has right of way whereas traffic stopping to back into a park will hold up traffic regardless of right of way. Angle parking also gets more cars into the parking space.
The Te Rauparaha Park proposals were a revelation. Kobus was clearly worried about the daunting visual impact of 14m high blank wall created by the S&EC to the west of the park. This has set some of us discussing what this will be like viewed from the useability of what remains of city's central green space.

While standing in the park the visual scenery of the western hills will be lost Two hours before sunset the shadow cast by the S&EC will extend about 30m into the park and, by one hour before sunset, twice that distance. This will be even worse in spring and autumn. The early evening is the time when the park is used most for events and the early shadow will make the venue cold and less pleasant. The intent that it will create shelter from the wind may be less real than we believe. It is more likely to create turbulence, gusts and down draughts A blank wall of those dimensions is extremely unattractive and will require some extensive screening. It could well become a 'white board' for graffiti artists. 14m tall trees take time to grow and take up space in what remains of the park and ultimately exacerbates the shading problem. It also costs money to plant trees of a size to make a difference in the shorter term acceptable.
Kobus also thought that commercial access was necessary from Titahi Bay Road. We should not ignore that advice and it makes sense. This requires more cash and could raise other traffic safety and reserve issues.

We consider Item 4 above questions the desirability of the chosen location for the S&EC. It is not too late to rethink the advisability of this siting. We will have to live with the consequences for many years to come and some second thoughts now would be prudent and we are not sure there is money in the S&EC budget for this. The Kobus solution, with boutique shops and a tree line walkway in front of the wall, would take up even more useable space in the park and that may not be acceptable. An idea has been canvassed in the group. That is of Cobham Court becoming a park. Kobus suggested a part of it being used as a small inner park but if the whole area was a pedestrian space it would be very attractive and add to the pedestrian precinct concept we currently enjoy. This, of course, would require more car parking elsewhere. The petrol station opposite is quite out of place and should never have been approved. Perhaps, that may offer alternative use or another parking building in another location. Such a concept would indeed make it the social centre of Porirua for young and old to circulate and enjoy this open but dynamic space. We thoroughly support a city planning process but we have seen many plans presented by various consultants only to be overcome by the next 'vision' (roads closed and reopened, changing site for S&EC, beautification proposals shelved, traffic plans superseded etc). We have to recognise that we start from what we have and not from what we would have liked it to be. We also have to recognise the sort of city Porirua is. It are not a stand alone city but part of a regional complex and Porirua is really a collection of dormitory and satellite villages and the CBD (so called) is not the 'heart' of greater Porirua. That might be Wellington City for many and many more would see their own village areas more important to them than the CBD. That is not to say we should not try to make the city as attractive and user friendly as possible within our limited means and against other priority needs.Jim D
Monday, December 18, 2006

local government in porirua city since colonisation

1840 - The New Zealand Company, which founded Wellington at Port Nicholson, sold the original colonists a "Constitution", complete with an annually elected council. This alternative local government preceded by some nine months the formal proclamation of British sovereignty over New Zealand. It's council had uppity ideas and in June 1840 Hobson despatched an armed force to disband this "illegal and treasonable" body. Hobson's instinct was to wait until the inflow of numbers and wealth sufficiently reduced the glaring disparity between the ideal and the feasible. In late 1841 he was overridden by his superiors in London.

1842 - There was introduced and passed through the Legislative Council the Municipal Corporations Ordinance, the founding document of New Zealand local government. Any district reaching a population of 2000 (Wellington was the only one) was to be proclaimed a borough. A council elected would have the power to rate and the obligation to provide roading, wells, sewers and gaols and to prevent fires and nuisances. An election of a council in Wellington took place in October 1842. It became the first duly constituted local body in the colony.

1845 - The Public Roads and Works Ordinance came into being which allowed a petition from a majority of electors to bring into being commissioners empowered through the levying of a rate to construct roads, bridges, waterworks and markets. The arrangement was intended to complement a future network of boroughs rather than substitute for them.

1849 - The Town Roads and Streets Ordinance and the Country Roads Ordinance were passed which allowed elected town boards to impose rates for the upkeep of streets and quays.

1852 - The House of Commons set in train six provincial councils. The provincial legislatures were to be substitutes for municipalities with the right to make all laws for the peace, order and good government of their districts.

1854 - Wellington Province was gifted a roads ordinance but Wellington town itself subsisted until 1862 on an ad hoc arrangement whereby small committees of civic-spirited citizens solicited donations for improvements.
Local Government in the Porirua basin had its origins when the Porirua Road Board was gazetted on 1 June 1854. On Saturday, the 20th September 1856 the first meeting of electors under the District Highway Act for the Porirua Road District was held at Halfway House at 1.00pm. The wardens elected on that day are shown in Members of Boards and Councils.

1864 - The Takapu Road District was defined on 7th November 1864 and an election of wardens was held at the house of Joseph Roots, Porirua Road and thereafter elections of wardens were conducted annually, Members of Boards and Councils.

1872 - Wellington Highway District Board (Hutt County) was in control of the district and those elected, Members of Boards and Councils, remained in control until the Makara and Porirua Ridings were to become part of the Karori-Makara Highway Board.

1876 - The elections for the Kaori-Makara Highway Board were conducted the results of which are shown Members of Boards and Councils. This year was also of major importance with the abolition of the provinces and constitution of County Local Government under the Counties Act 1876. At that time the whole district, which we currently know as Wellington Region, (with the exception of Wellington Town and Petone Borough) were located in the County of Hutt and that was the case until 1907 when by the Makara County Act, the Porirua and Makara Ridings of the Hutt County were separated from that County to become Makara County, the first election being held on 28th January 1908. There were no major constitutional changes in Makara County until 1951 when the Tawa District was taken out of County control and constituted as a Town Board, holding it's first election on 26th May 1951. Tawa was granted Borough status in October 1952.

1962 - The County of Makara was abolished on 31st August 1962 and the Borough of Porirua constituted the next day.

1965 - On 2nd October 1965 City status was conferred on the former Borough at a public function, by His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir Bernard Ferguson becoming the twenty-first city of New Zealand. The transition from borough to city has never been achieved by any other area in the country and highlighted what rapid strides of development had taken place.

The election results of the Makara County, Porirua Borough and Porirua City are listed in Members of Boards and Councils.

Superimposed over the Local Governance structure were elected bodies granted powers under the Underground Water Act who were granted dispensations from any By-laws and the authority to make bylaws for water supply. The first of these was the Wellington City Council Water Supply Committee, which was set up in September 1870. The City and Suburban water Supply Board first met in February 1928. This board was raised when local authorities in Lower Hutt/Hutt County were seeking additional supplies and the high incidence of goitre aroused their concern about the effect of the low iodine content of their artesian supplies. Hutt County and Makara County were without any public supply except for a small local catchment serving the asylum property in Porirua.

In February 1946, the Board resolved to extend the suburban area, as defined in the Wellington City and Suburban water Supply Act, 1927, by including the whole of the Johnsonville Town District, while Makara County joined the Board under the provisions of the Wellington City and Suburban Water Supply Amendment Act, 1947. Legislative authority was obtained to give the newly constituted Tawa Flat Town District full membership on the Board.

In the mid 1940s the development of the upper reaches of the Hutt River to supply water to consumers was agreed to by all local authority with the work being vested in the Hutt River Board which had been established in 1899. Water to Plimmerton and Paremata was being delivered by pipeline by 1957.

1959 - An authority was set up to safeguard the artesian supplies. The Hutt Valley Underground Water Authority (HVUWA) was established to "…..control the tapping, use and pollution of underground water". Members of this authority were appointed by Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and Wellington City Councils, Eastbourne and Petone Borough Councils and Hutt County Council.

1967 - Water and Soil Conservation Act was passed which required the water resources of the country to be administered by a number of Regional Water Authorirites. This power in the Wellington Region was originally vested in HVUWA.

new rule - what does it mean?

Now I have reviewed the new Standing Order for public participation at full council meetings. Incredible is it! One person can evidently speak for 30 minutes at the start of any council meeting.

127. A period of up to 30 minutes will be set aside for a public forum at the commencement of Council meetings. The public forum is to be confined to those items that are on the agenda for consideration at that meeting, provided the meeting is not sub-judice.

The term "sub-judice" is used. What does that mean? It is the hyphen that causes the interest first. Then it is what the term might mean in its context.

I quote from the Oxford English Dictionary: sub judice , ‘under a judge’; under the consideration of a judge or court; undecided, not yet settled, still under consideration.

Standing Order 127 seems to be saying that the public must speak about things that are under consideration, and then go on to say that they must not speak about things that are under consideration.

The idea when the policy was struck was that the 30 minutes time frame would be fixed for very good reason. Now the new Standing Orders include a "General" section which one would expect to apply to the Council meetings. This allows for the Councillors to question the participants at the public forum. That was not envisaged with respect to the full council meetings. What was to have been brief statements without discussion has suddenly become much more.

We still have the horrid Standing Order 132. It enables "delegations" to gain a total of 12 minutes to address full council or committees, but individual persons to have only 5 minutes. Why are the topics of delegations more important than those of individuals?

It is vital that the council sorts itself out properly. The rules need to be clear, logical, facilitating, and in plain language. Do not expect the meetings to go well until this is done. Even then you need a good chairperson to hold everyone to the rules.
r
Saturday, December 16, 2006

new standing orders

It did not take the council's officers long to print the new Standing Orders. The slight irregularity in their adoption does not seem to worry anyone.
r
Friday, December 15, 2006

chief executive's process on the rates enquiry and local authority funding

The ceo is consulting the community to equip himself to provide advice to the Council. Who he consults and how he does it is his business. I prefer to stay right out of it.

newspaper story misleads - takapuwahia

The story in the Kapi Mana News about the cost of drains at Takapuwahia has confused some people. The work being done in the current financial year is to cost more than expected, and this money comes from savings on the Eastern Porirua Trunk upgrade project. The second part of the Takapuwhaia project will be considered in the Annual Plan. Thus, there will be further consultation on the project.The idea that there has been a great blow out in the Council's budget is just wrong.
r
Friday, December 15, 2006

a right mayoral mess - trying to change the standing orders

There was total confusion when the full council tried to adopt a change to the Standing Orders as per the recommendation from the Strategy Committee. The mayor wanted to remove all reference to the Standing Orders that pertain to committees, and suggested a clumsy amendment along those lines. She had arranged for the deputy mayor to move this amendment. Councillors all objected because they could not understand the amendment and the mayor was unable to adequately explain it. Hence, after some heated debate with Cr Kelly the mayor said she would try another amendment. She said all words after the word "meeting" would be removed. The only problem with this was the word "meeting" appeared twice in the motion. More confusion.

In the course of all of this it became clear that the reference to the committee in the original motion was in the view of the officers related to certain matters about the publics notification of their desire to speak. But, that is not what the motion itself said.

The mayor then put the motion. She did this suddenly without discussion of the need for a three-quarters majority to change Standing Orders. I had mentioned this need to her, but to no avail. Hence, she did not call for a division. Hence, we do not know if the motion had a three-quarters majority, and as some voted against it, it may well not have done so. We needed to put the motion again as a "division" and hence to record the vote. I moved a "point of order" to suggest that we immediately had a division and resolve the matter. The mayor refused to hear a point of order (contrary to the Standing Orders). Hence, we are left with a motion which some will say changes the Standing Orders and which most likely does not. If the officers of the council now attempt to implement that motion they will be acting ultra vires (beyond their powers). You might find amusement in this farce, but reflect that it costs the ratepayers' money and generates frustration and tensions within the council.

The Christmas supper after the meeting was a very low key affair and only two officers appeared. Most left very quickly, including myself.
r
Thursday, December 14, 2006

alteration of standing orders - public access to meetings

To Whom It May Concern

The last minute report of the CEO to the SFR Committee 30 November
recommended up to 30 minutes of public participation at the start of both
full Council and Committee meetings.
That is now the recommendation for adoption by full Council tomorrow.

A condition applied to full Council meetings (that it only be with regard to
Agenda items) is understandable.

However that same condition is proposed for Committee meetings as well.
Why ?

The NZ Standard 9202 reads:
"In respect of local authority, committee and subcommittee meetings, the
public forum is to be confined to THOSE ITEMS WITHIN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
OF THAT MEETING, .........." (my emphasis).

This is the rule normally applied by all Porirua's neighbours.

But Porirua is proposing
"public forum is to be confined to THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA FOR
CONSIDERATION AT THE MEETING"

So why this change in wording?
Why this limitation?
Why is Porirua proposing to still muzzle the public on any other concerns
within the purview of that committee?
(Suppose the public had things which the committee may then want to
consider? Maybe with urgency?)

Is this an oversight?
Or have we still got a council reluctant to engage the public?

Graeme Ebbett
Chairman
Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc
C/- 37 Terrace Rd, Titahi Bay, Porirua.
Work Ph 568 6377, Fx 568 2374
Home Ph 236 8574, Fx 236 8591

ROBERT COMMENTS
Hi Graeme

The situation for the committees should not be changed in my opinion,
unless it is to make two opportunities for public participation. One
being to comment on decisions about to be made and to be at the start
of the meeting; the second to be to comment on anything that is vaguely
council business (new things) that to be a separate and new part of
general business. There are two separate reasons for the public to
approach the council. They should be put in their proper place in the
Standing Orders order of business.

I find the current plan a bit confusing regarding the committee. What
we are doing so far is agreeing the matter in principle, and it is my
expectation that the ceo will come back with proposed wordings for the
Standing Orders.

All this seems to be progress. Then next important thing in this area
is the access of the public to workshops. Perhaps you and the others
need to be tossed out of a workshop to advance that reform.

regards

r

ps - "terms of reference of that meeting" is a difficult idea.

rats

Rats are on the increase at Battle Hill Farm Forest Park. This is the result of the successful campaign to remove stoats.
r
Tuesday, December 5, 2006

new zealand law - people keep asking me questions i cannot answer

A New Zealand self help legal site presented in a HowTo... format. You may also seek advice from lawyers or accountants throughout NZ.

christopher returns from iraq

This is at Southport, and the Duke of Westminster presented the medals. As his mother wrote " He talked a little of what he'd seen and done, didn't sound like fun and he's seen things nobody should be exposed to".
r
Tuesday, December 5, 2006

esplanade review

Porirua City Council, Transit New Zealand, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Land Transport New Zealand are to work together to review the upgrade of the road between Plimmerton and Paremata, including the T2 lanes along Mana Esplanade, and St Andrews Road.

The review, agreed to today by the councils and Transit, will look at the operation of the road, the environmental effects, and the safety and efficiency of the work to see whether any changes are necessary. The review was a requirement of the Environment Court ruling that approved the designations on the road, which also created the T2 lanes. As construction work on Transmission Gully has not yet begun, the review must be carried out before the end of December this year. Transit has already collected information about the road capacity and traffic flow, safety on the road, and the operation of the T2 lanes.

However, Porirua City Council Chief Executive, Roger Blakeley, said it is essential that any evaluation of the road from Mana Esplanade to St Andrews Road has to include the views of residents. "The residents' perception of the safety must be taken into account," Dr Blakeley said. "Two important issues to consider are why so few vehicles are parked along Mana Esplanade, and whether residents feel safe entering and leaving properties onto the highway. "One of the reasons the Environment Court introduced the T2 lanes was to move trucks and other vehicles into the centre lane outside peak hours in order to reduce noise and vibration in the houses along the road. The evaluation of any options has to take account of this. "The Environment Court decision clearly did not envisage the road becoming a four land highway." Dr Blakeley said the current data is incomplete and, without the views of residents, cannot form the basis for any recommendations for the road.

Council City Services Committee chair, Robert Shaw, said this is the start of a difficult process that is going to impose stress on the community. "The immediate task is for [Transit Wellington Regional Manager] Graham Taylor and Dr Blakeley to produce for us the terms of reference for the investigation, a proposal for a consultant, costings, and a time-line for decision-making. The committee of representatives will then discuss these things and work will begin."

"I am pleased that it was agreed that the Porirua City Council will be a party in the management of the process.

"We must, however, keep in mind, that the road belongs to Transit New Zealand. At this time they approach the project with an open mind and an awareness of the complexity of the decisions they must ultimately make," Councillor Shaw said.

The review will also consider side road and pedestrian delays at Marina View intersection and for properties south of Pascoe Avenue to see if any modifications are required at these intersections, or whether more research is needed.

melissa & your $17.5 million

My daughter had her last exam yesterday. It was Melissa's last day of school and she is at Tawa College, having been at St Mary's for the previous 4 years. Both schools did very well by Melissa. Teachers are dedicated people. Melissa discovered the joy of academic work about 5 weeks before the examinations and has been doing her best to make up for 5 years of social activity and no study. The plan is that she goes to Victoria.

To recover, we went for a swim. In the sauna I heard two women talking about Palmertson North. It is evidently a great place for sport. They love their sport up there. What is more it has a good effect on the children and keeps them out of trouble. I was thus reminded of why we are building the sports and events centre. It must cater for as many of our young people as possible.

Then a chap in the sauna began to chat to me. He came from Titahi Bay. We talked about rugby and children as men do. I decided to ask him about the sports and events centre. A survey of one. He said two things: it is expensive; we have to advance and have these things. That pretty much sums up the overall feeling in the community, if I read it right. Most people are not engaged in the debate with their city council. You have to mix with a range of people to get the feel of opinion. The same arugments were extant when the Council built the swimming pool complex. I voted to spend the $6 million from Enegry Direct shares on the laying off of debt, not on the swimming pool complex. And here I was sitting in it yesterday.

Incidentally, take care what you say in public saunas - you might be making Council policy.
r
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

clarity on speed humps at plimmerton

Robert and John 

Re your emails.

Russell Black is proposing a 50 mm rise. That is what we are talking about.
It is not "speed humps" which is the term that seems to have scared people.
We are talking about the same thing as Russell  Black-it is just a question
of how high the rise and how many km/hr is an acceptable speed environment. 

The consultation on Saturday is over concept plans for the Plimmerton
Promenade produced by Russell Black. These drawings contain 50mm threshold
treatment. Russell's drawings are concept drawings. These have been reviewed
to identify issues that will need to be considered in developing the
detailed drawings and specification for construction. The report of this
review has identified that the threshold heights would need to be raised
from 50mm to 75mm and the ramps up to them steepened to have confidence that
a 30km/hr speed environment was achieved.

The advice that will be given by officers at this consultation is that the
threshold NOT be increased or the ramps steepened because this would create
too severe an environment and would quickly lead to requests for their
removal. However, in accepting this recommendation the community needs to
accept that a 30km/hr speed environment will not be achieved. Council
Officers will try to get some data on current traffic speeds before Saturday
as I expect this will assist acceptance that a 30km/hr speed environment
will not be achieved. 

It is expected that the contracts for this would will be within the CE's
delegation as the work will be broken down in three or four sections to
enable early starts to be made on sections while details are being completed
for others, and ensure the contract packages match the trade skills required
for the different components.

I hope this helps.

Regards, Roger
Roger Blakeley

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

porirua consultation meeting - transport strategy

Public consultation meetings on Regional Land Transport Strategy – Planning for the future of our transport network
Greater Wellington is inviting people to have their say on the future of the region’s transport network with the release of the Draft Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS) this week.
The draft RLTS is a key planning document that sets the direction for our land transport network for the next ten years and beyond. It outlines Greater Wellington’s long-term vision and the objectives and policies that guide regional transport decisions, together with implementation plans for roading, road safety and encouraging alternatives to car use.
The draft RLTS also proposes transport projects to address congestion and reliability, strengthen connections between regional centres, and build passenger transport capacity.
Also released for consultation alongside the RLTS is the draft Wellington Regional Passenger Transport Plan (PT Plan). The PT Plan sets out Greater Wellington’s framework for delivering passenger transport services in the region.
The PT Plan includes strategies such as improving service levels, easier access to timetable information, better linkages between services (including between buses and trains), and better quality vehicles.

A summary of the draft RLTS and PT Plan has been sent to every household in the region. Submissions close on 16 February 2007.
Public Consultation meetings

specifics on plimmerton village strategy problems

As discussed tonight, this is the concept design review and project plan as sent on Friday.
Cheers
Helen

Dear Helen
PCC have engaged the consultant for the traffic review of the concept design done by Russell Black. The report has been completed and submitted to us. I enclose a copy of the report. The most significant recommendations are highlighted through the text, but it still would be worth to read the whole document.

Please pay special attention to Recommendations, particularly recommendation relating to changes to traffic devices at the intersections.We have planned to engage the consultant for the detailed design as soon as 27th Nov 2006, and have scheduled the section with threshold at railway entrance and two raised intersections (with Bath and Queens St) as the first stage, as we expected any possible feedback from the public consultation on 27th Nov (as originally planned for 25th Nov). However, this consultation meeting has been rescheduled now for 2nd Dec that clashes with our schedule.

We will not be able to obtain required information/feedback from the residents/public on suggested changes of raised intersection, which will consequently affect the design plan. Therefore, I decided to send you a copy of this report with recommendations, and would highly appreciate if you can get yourselves familiar with them and get back to me with your comments on these changes before the consultation meeting, so that we can make a decision relating to this issue, and to instruct the consultant for the detailed design of the intersections.

Also, I sent you a project plan that we have made now. There might be some changes, and we will try to inform you regularly on all updates and/or changes.We've made 4 copies of concept design drawings for your reference before and during the meeting. I'm still expecting some additional drawings from R Black to add to this lot. How would you like to receive these drawings - probably prior to the meeting, by mail or to pick-up personally? Please advise.

I hope to hear from you soon with the comments on suggested changes of the intersection treatments, to enable engagement of the consultant and starting with the detailed design before the consultation meeting.If you would like to contact me, please do not hesitate to do so. My contact details: 237-1413 (ph) or e-mail.

See blog below. Anyone who wants a copy of the plans should email Helen or attend the consultation meeting on Saturday. Although, it is now a bit odd, for the consultation being conducted is about one thing and the Council's action plan seems to be something else.
r

meeting on sports and events centre - outcome

Dear Robert,
I think I have agreement from all about my comments and yes you may "go public" if you would like to.
And thanks to you for your position during that meeting. I think we all got some greater understanding out of it.
Regards
Jim
----- Original Message ----- From: <robert@porirua.net>
To: <jim.dearsly@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting to discuss S&EC

thanks Jim, is this boggable?
r

On 26 Nov 2006 at 04:31 pm, JIm.Dearsly wrote:

Dear Euon,
On behalf of the Joint Residents' Associations Group, our thanks to you
and, Clrs Ken Douglas and Robert Shaw, Roger Blakeley and Gary Simpson
for meeting with us last Thursday.

We believe it was an informative meeting and clarified the Councils
position and intent. It also enabled the RAs Group to gain some
important insights and assurances about the process, budget and project
definition. We were also pleased to be assured that any significant
deviations from budget or scope would involve public future discussion
and input. These assurances will, no doubt, be recorded in the minutes.
I believe we all feel more comfortable with the position taken to
contain cost and deliver what was specified.

It was requested we should more actively support the S&EC project. This
is a significant step from our current position of 'accepting' the
project in the context of the LTCCP as approved by the Council. As I
explained in the opening remarks at the meeting. Our objection to the
S&EC was related more to the financial repercussions and affect on other
community needs rather than the Centre itself. Our position on that
issue remains unchanged. It also acknowledged that the Council had no
option at present but to implement the LTCCP and there is no point (or
potential for success) in trying to have that amended bearing in mind
the current Council's priorities. The difference of opinion between some
Councillors and residents/ratepayers is something that will be resolved
democratically as ultimately our council representatives will be
answerable to the residents. Clearly governance, participatary
government, fiscal management and engagement with the community are
issues we are concerned about and that will be debated during next years
elections.The decision to construct of the S&EC as currently specified
forms part of those matters and, as such was and is not supported.

I thank all concerned last week for their time and open discussion.

Best regards
Jim

consultation on plimmerton village plan

This Saturday, 11am to 3 pm, Plimmerton Pavilion. See the plans, talk, have your say.

plimmerton residents' association meeting - roads & village plan

Sue Dow, Maureen Gillon and I met with Gary after the last Plimmerton Residents association mtg due to a range of concerns that were presented to the mtg. It seemed to me that Gary had a pretty good take on what was going on and that once a pending traffic study had been undertaken the association and council could move on to the public consultation mtg scheduled for 2/12.

I was somewhat surprised therefore at the feedback given to the mtg following correspondence with Gordana from Utilities. These suggested that; The traffic calming plans prepared for Steyne Ave with the PRA, and due to be presented at the consultation mtg, had been discounted in favour of speed humps.

A consultant had been appointed and had been asked to proceed to prepare plans for their implementation. If this is in fact what is occurring I would question; Why has council not gone back to the association/community and discussed why their proposed traffic calming measures are now being abandoned? Why has a consultant been retained and asked to proceed with the preparation of design plans for speed humps PRIOR to the community consultation mtg? What is the point of a community consultation mtg if PCC is simply going to ignore the work that has been done to develop the village plans to their present point. Who is going to front on behalf of council at the community mtg on Saturday? - not a roading engineer, but someone who knows about the background to village planning and its implementation.

Certainly on the basis of the feedback report to the ass'n this evening something is starting to seriously unravel. I hope there has been some confusion which means the feedback is in fact not correct. Robert was at the mtg tonight however was not fully up to date with the issue - as I was there at the last mtg and had also attended the mtg with Gary, Maureen and Sue it was left to me to follow this one up. Can I please have some urgent advice as to just what is going on here so I can in turn discuss with the PRA.
Councillor John Green.

Cr Green has recorded things as they appeared at the Plimmerton Residents' Association meeting last night.

The idea of speed humps on Steyne Ave is absurd and will cause a riot. I will riot! How a consultant can suddenly produce this plan in the middle of a consultation that is about something else is beyond me. Never in the long debate about traffic calming for Steyne Ave was speed humps endorsed by anyone. The plan is to use other techniques.

Also, the pre-emptive appointment of a consultant to dash off in another direction when Russell Black and about 20 others have worked for over a year on a wonderful plan, is insulting. The final consultation is this Saturday.

I want a senior officer at the residents' association meetings! We have to improve communications and cut back on the number of meetings that are to fix things. The Association should invite the ceo to provide an officer for the next meeting and then work towards the tradition. The officer could be present for the first hour (say).
r
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

next city services committee meeting

Everyone interested in Council business should check out what is on the agenda for the next City Services Committee. If you want to say something about what is proposed please email me. You can submit comments in writing for the meeting, or you can appear in person at the start of the meeting.

You will be able to see the recommendations that I am making to the councillors.(All ready, I know several matters will be challenged by way of amendments.) Your bright ideas and helpful comments are most welcome. At this stage in the process, I have been involved with three private meetings with officers about particular issues, one chairpersons' meeting with all the senior officers together (Cr Naureen Palmer as deputy chair attended also), and several discussions with councillors and groups of councillors about specific matters they have raised with me.

To see the extent to which I have departed from the officers' advice, compare the recommendations they gave with the recommendations I am making to the Committee. You will see quite a difference on some items. I do not simply accept the officers' advice. The debate on some items has already been very fierce. Personally, I enjoy policy debates, and I must say the officers are generally quite enthusiastic. It is through this total process that we arrive at the best possible decisions for our Council and our city. I appreciate the help of everyone, including the residents' associations who often bring long memories and expertise.
r
Saturday, November 25, 2006

First, when you talk to me in my chairperson's role or representative role, it is not for the blog. If you want to have something on the blog that has the advantage of advancing the debate as a whole. However, when you talk to me, or any councillor for that matter, it is understood that you are in a privileged and confidential position.

Second, this sort of information is what I believe council should be sending out in media statements, not the self-congratulatory stuff that is all too common. Yes I will list key items as soon as I have time to do so. The main one in this lot is the Sister Cities Governance structure. The paper about the committee structure is in the Strategy Committee bundle. I will write about that as soon as I have a moment.

Third, there is also the Strategy Committee to consider, and that is chaired by Cr Douglas. He will manage that his own way, which is of course proper. Perhaps he will start a blog, but that has not been mentioned to me.

Forth, if you prefer to telephone in your views that is fine ph 233 0252. Also, you can of course telephone any councillor. They like to hear from the public, particularly with election year ahead. Our council holds a wide range of views and animosities and hence any divergent view will be run by someone.

Fifth, the Takapuwahia drains recommendations are within existing budgets and parameters. Yes, it is largely operational now and over to the officers, but they wanted to have these things in front of the committee, I suspect to protect themselves and to be open with everyone.

Sixth, yes, I am looking for opportunities to delegate management matters to management.

Seventh, I have asked officers for a digitised copy of the memo to councillors concerning St Andrews Rd and Mana Esplanade. I suspect there is follow-up work there, and yes it is the City Services Committee. There is a Transit / Community / Council meeting this week on it. I expect a report from Mr Bailey on this and welcome other comments. If anyone wants to bring anything to the City Services Committee on this they only have to ask.

kenepuru "hospital" - PREPARE YOURSELF FOR ANOTHER FIGHT

· Accident & Medical Centre
Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week
PRIVATE OPERATOR WHO CHARGES (THIS MAKES A PROFIT)

· Medical Ward (Ward 5)
11am to 1pm and 2:30pm to 8pm daily (no visiting between 1pm and 2.30pm during patient rest time)

· Surgical Medical Unit (SMU)
11am to 1pm and 2:30pm to 8pm daily (no visiting between 1pm and 2.30pm during patient rest time)

gordon mckenzie on taxes & rates

Useful letter in the Kapi Mana News from Gordon McKenzie of Whitby pointing out that the fire service levy is compulsory for those who insure their homes, but those who do not still get the benefits of the fire service. He also runs the tax on a tax argument for GST. He also makes the point that those elderly people who have downsized do not fully benefit from the rates rebate that is now available. Hence, the responsible people are the people who suffer.

Mr McKenzie's main point is that the Council should become a stronger advocate for central government reforms because they have imposed a "significant rates increases for the new sports and events centre".
r
Friday, November 24, 2006

Letter to Kapi Mana News - THE MIGHTY KEN DOUGLAS

THE SKY HAS NOT FALLEN IN AS YET

Like a fool I believe we should respect each other. Our council will work best that way. That does not mean we must all agree, but it does mean we must to stick to the facts. I refer to your correspondent's letter (W Zimmerman, 21 November, 2006). He targets Ken Douglas, who he believes orchestrated the vote not to suspend Standing Orders. As someone who was involved, I can tell you Cr Douglas had nothing to do with it. It is easy to see how Mr Zimmerman may have been misled by the media.

There was a chairperson's meeting arranged by the chief executive which just happened to be in advance of the full council meeting. To this meeting, Mayor Brash brought a new item of business. She said she had decided not to support Jim Dearsly's request that Standing Orders be suspended. We considered the reasons she gave and said we would support the Mayor. When we came to the meeting, the mayor accepted a motion from other councillors on this matter (which is fine) and then she moved a motion to gag us (ie that there be no debate). To use Mr Zimmerman's expression, she "stymied debate", not Cr Douglas.. Hence, there was no opportunity to consider the situation, and no opportunity to explain what was going on to the public who rightly became upset. To top it off, in spite of her asking us for to support her, the mayor actually voted the other way.

I do not usually get involved in postmortems. But this incident shows how we must be careful of the media. One of the reasons I started www.porirua.net was to enable a greater depth of discussion.

Someone might see this letter as evidence that the councillors are in some kind of conspiracy behind closed doors. They might think I am writing it because I am in some way a supplicant to Cr Douglas. Hence, I must add that as often as not Cr Douglas and I are on different sides of issues, he has never voted to support me for any position on council, and the sky has not fallen in as yet.

Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor

now here is a progressive thought

It is usual for councils to move into publicly excluded business when they sign off on tender documents and award contracts. But must they? Given the interest in the Sports and Events Centre, why not consider having the decision-making open to the public. I would personally have no problem with this, but we had better ask a lawyer for an opinion. The law that pertains is complex. Most of the Sports and Events Centre action is the implementation of policy and the responsibility of the chief executive, but there is at least one point where he does not have a sufficient delegation to make the required decision (ie to award a contract of about $12 million.)
r
Thursday, November 23, 2006

less bark and more bite please

COUNCIL MEDIA STATEMENT
After a three year break the New Zealand Kennel Club National Dog Show is
returning to Porirua City next September.
 
The annual event to be staged at the Kennel Club in Prosser Street and at
the Porirua Recreation Centre from 27-30 September 2007, is something the
city can look forward to, says Porirua Deputy Mayor Euon Murrell.  

 "The National Dog Show was held at the New Zealand Kennel Club's exhibition
centre from 1981 to 2003 before the NZKC decided to take it on tour for the
benefit of members who live across the country.

 "Its return next year will not only bring a fun and enjoyable event to
Porirua but it will bring economic benefits of up to $2.4 million as well."

 Economic measures from last year's show in Palmerston North have been used
to estimate future economic benefits, he says.

 "Over 2000 NZ Kennel Club members and their dogs will converge on our city
from all around New Zealand and some from overseas," Mr Murrell says. 

 The NZKC has owned its one hectare property in Prosser Street for 25 years
and provides a Wellington exhibition centre for over 45 dog clubs in the
Wellington region.  

The 2007 National Dog Show will also feature a range of Young Kennel Club
activities. The YKC caters for people involved with dogs aged from six to 24
years. It was established earlier this year to provide activities, events,
training and fun for young people.

What on earth is the council up to with media statements like this? Why should council use your money to advertise the dogs when they fail to tell residents and ratepayers how to be involved with council and how to influence decisions? This weeks Kapi Mana News is a hooch pooch of miss information and confusion, all of which should be addressed by council's media people. Instead, they think their role is to publicise things that happen in the city, like these very nice dogs.
r
Thursday, November 23, 2006

Council must consult properly

22 November 2006
COUNCILLORS must show proper respect to the people who elect them, says the Federation of Wellington Progressive and Residents’ Associations.

Federation president Rosemund Averton will this week make a submission to Wellington City Council calling for the establishment of a group to monitor how honest, respectful, timely and fair council is when dealing with the concerns of the community.
The submission to the Strategy and Policy Committee comes as council discusses a Draft Engagement Policy, which outlines appropriate procedures for council consultation with community groups.

Averton says the draft policy is largely aspirational, and a group must be established to monitor whether or not council is meeting its obligations to deal fairly with the community.
"Being honest with citizens means not being dismissive or disparaging of divergent opinions but will also mean that if, for whatever reason, a position has been taken by council that does not reasonably require public input, that will be made clear at the outset along with any explanations of how the decision was reached," Averton says.

Council developed its Draft Engagement Policy in response to complaints that surfaced in the 2005 Residents Satisfaction Survey. The survey found a steep decline in the percentage of residents who felt council was consulting properly.
Nearly half of those surveyed felt council did not consult the community sufficiently, while two-thirds thought council was not adequately incorporating the public’s desires into its decision making.

The new policy aims to increase public confidence in the council’s decision making and encourage more community groups to get involved in the decision making process.

smartlinx 3 - PCC has 10% ownershiip of company

1. How many km of broadband cabling has Smartlinx installed in each of the three cities?

2. How much cabling was installed in each of the three cities in the last 6 months?

Finally, a question about the MED funding. Council resolved to fund the MED funding $1 for $1 up to a capped amount. This is a clear resolution of council. It was never envisaged that Council would pay a share call BEFORE MED had contractually committed. This should have been clear from Smartlinx's application to MED.

The way to deal with this is for Council to provide MED with a letter of undertaking. The letter of undertaking would say that council undertakes to match cash contributions from MED within X working days of Smartlinx receipt of MED funding tranches.

Can Smartlinx negotiate for a letter of undertaking from the council to MED regarding the council contribution?

David Haynes response is:

The answer to both a. and b. is;

approximately 0.02km

Most connectivity is wireless, rolling out fibre optic cable is very expensive and that's what the bulk of the BBC (Broadband Challenge) funding is for.

The above attachment shows the area of current extent of coverage in the three cities of Smartlinx 3's network.

In respect of the last point we are still in contract negotiations and I will continue to try to do the best for all our shareholders.

Rgds

Gary

what councillors do

Phone call: he complains long and loud about his rates and the council. Then he gets onto the councillors themselves. Evidently, they do not do anything and are a very bad lot. I did not comment on the competence of councillors but did comment on the work load. This weekend took 4.5 hours for documents. Also, I opened a carnival for children and sent a barrage of email to officers. The documents were: agenda papers for City Services Committee, discussion paper on new zone (open space and recreation), land transport committee reports from GW, backlog of notice to councillors from the officers. I enjoy the work and the people. But, I admit to being a bit short tempered with the chap who rang up to say I do nothing.
r
Monday, November 20, 2006

plimmerton beach - removal of power poles

There are about 7 of these structures to be removed. There will be an oral report on this to the next City Services Committee. We need to clarify the contractual arrangments and who is responsible for what.
r
Sunday, November 19, 2006

roger bradshaw

For anyone who wondered where he went, I met him and his partner on Friday by accident at the Plaza. Evidently, he shifted to Wellington and immediately stood for the community board there - knowing as it turns out just 10 people. He still has a strong interest in local government and is full of ideas.
r
Saturday, November 18, 2006

reform of council processes - councillors and officers

As a part of the total reform package we need ways to involve the councillors in a proper way in the operational activities of the council. At this moment the councillors have very few opportunities to discover what is going on and how things are actually done. I refer particularly to the works and facilities side of the council (for example, the library, Pataka, depot, landfill, water business).

Officers have been discussing some options. These include invitations to have the councillors sit in on staff meetings. This is not a chance for the councillors to dabble in decision making at the officer level, but a chance to participate in the process and to learn. Hence, at the council table our councillors would be better prepared for the decisions they have to make. A development such as this would strengthen the three step budget development model that has been set out at length in the blog and was positively considered by councillors at the October 06 retreat.

All that would have to happen for this opening up of officer activities would be for a notice of invitation to be placed in the weekly notices to councillors. Those inclined may take up the offer. I would prefer that we worked in this way, as opposed to having councillors given portfolios to mind. The portfolio idea might emerge from some practical experience. It is one thing to be "passionate about" something and quite another thing to be an expert on it. We need councillors who are experts and have to invest in making them so.

On a separate tack. I am concerned that the council itself is not being represented at a range of important events. These are in the main in the arts and sports areas (for example events in Pataka). Here, I suggest we have a schedule of events developed and councillors assigned to front up and say a few words on behalf of the city and the council.

Makara/Ohariu Community Board Vacancies: 1
Candidate	Status	Iteration	Votes
Craig Shepherd	Elected	3	152
Garry Maude	Not Elected	3	150
Roger Askin	Not Elected	2	61
Roger Bradshaw	Not Elected	1	10

This does not refer so much to the invitations the mayor receives. I have just this moment returned from opening a carnival in the town centre, a job that would normally have been done by the mayor (who is overseas on her holiday) or the deputy mayor (who is unwell). If I was the mayor I would allocate all such tasks to councillors. But, that is most unlikely with the present mayor who sees her responsibilities differently.
r
Saturday, November 18, 2006

town centre - current problems

I am aware of a raft of practical and immediate problems being raised by retailers. I cannot list them here, but I have been invited to meet with some retailers the week after next (leading people are away next week) to advance a list.
r
Saturday, November 18, 2006

emma koch of durham street

Emma Koch hand writes a letter. She says she works from home and tells me about her interests that include "art, social psychology and product manufacture as well as moderating died with exercise". She wants the council and the government to stop giving cash to the unemployed, solo mothers, the elderly, and youths. Instead she advocates the provision of food vouchers and "property ownership".
r
Friday, November 17, 2006

move the porirua hospital chapel

The Porirua Hospital Chapel is one of the last two remaining psychiatric hospital chapels in constant use in New Zealand.

Designed by Henderson & Associates and built at a cost of £20,000 by Braine Builders - the chapel opened its doors on 28 November 1965. Funds for the building were raised by the Wellington Hospital Board, hospital staff, churches and the wider community.

For 30 years it was the “village church” for the Porirua Hospital Community—which, with 2000 patients, was the largest mental health facility in Australasia.

Following the closure of Porirua Hospital, the chapel has continued to be the spiritual home for mental health clients; both on the hospital campus and in the wider community. It has evolved to become a “drop-in centre” and a place of worship for former patients. The Chapel is the centre for the Chaplains and the Chaplaincy Service. It also caters for staff weddings, and for christenings and funerals for the local community.

Ian and his team will address the Council at the City Services Committee shortly. They have worked on this excellent project for many years.

eric mckenzie

I was interested to hear Ken Douglas speak about the work that the late Councillor Eric McKenzie did in our commuity. Eric was the chairperson of the Finance Committee of the Council for many years and a strong Labour man. He used his skills as an accountant to restructure and revive many sports organisations over the years. I visited him from time-to-time when I was first elected to council and he freely gave of his advice.

Ken and I, along with Taima, and Maureen, spoke at a "speak off" which was a competition with the young people of the City. Euon and Naureen attended to cheer along our side.
r
Thursday, November 16, 2006

letter to editor - the public & the council

Council must move ahead and change the way it does business. So far we
have cut the number of committees and put all councillors on every
committee. This has resulted in a better focus on the decisions of council.

Now the challenge is to involve the public in a new way. One aspect is
this is the day-by-day integration of the public in the decisions and
discussions of the council. How can people participate as issues arise?

I suggest for discussion the following:
(1) Public submissions at the start of committee meetings on decisions
that are about to be made. The focus here is on the advice given by the
officers and the recommendations that the chairperson has made to the
committee.
(2) Public participation regarding new issues as a part of the General
Business of committee meetings. This would be a chance for people to come
along and say ‘what about this?”
(3) Public submissions at the start of the full council meetings on
decisions that are about to be made.
(4) Council “workshops” be open to the public and provide an
opportunity for the public to participate. The tradition is that workshops
are held behind closed doors. They are an opportunity for the councillors
and officers to exchange ideas before “going public”. This creates both
suspicion and misinformation. It generates unnecessary work because the
same issues have to be considered with the public later. I believe the
councillors are mature enough to cope with the public present.
(5) Only in very exceptional circumstances should the advice of
officers to councillors be confidential. Those who seek grants or
commercial contracts from the public purse must be told that the public
has right to know where their money is going. A council is a public body;
it is not a private business.
Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor

the ubiquitous andrew bonallack

No fewer than 6 major articles in City Life this week were written by Andrew Bonallack. Which is incredible given that the whole paper is only 20 pages, including advertisements. This Andrew is not listed in the the "meet our team" section of the paper at all.

The main person featured again in the paper is Councillor Litea Ah Hoi, which could account for her not being at council meetings. Way to go Litea!
r
Thursday, November 16, 2006

youth gangs

Whether we have a youth gang problem on the streets or not, we have one in the media. City Life has a full page article on the work of Maori wardens in Cannons Creek and their call for action on the youth gang problem. Of course mayor jenny features again - when will she ever learn. See earlier blog Litea 1: Jenny 0.

Interestingly, another Mongrel Mob member is quoted (they really need to employ more people on the public relations side of their business).

He says the Mob has problems with the recruitment of young people. The youth of today are just not joining things any more. He speculates that this is the result of the American influence. He has also seen a falling off in the quality of Mob recruits over the years. They have tightened the entry criteria, and now you have to have a job if you want to join the Mongrel Mob. Further, the Mob has training problems when large groups of young people join. Perhaps there is a social welfare fund available to assist them? Perhaps they need to join Business Porirua and access the free courses on motivation, training, and business planning?
r
Thursday, November 16, 2006

sports and events centre

whitby residents' association meeting

how does our council establish a better relationship with our community?

At length in this blog there has been discussion about the problem of integrating the Council with the community. Basically, people feel, and are, alienated by the Council, and they cannot understand how it happens, nor how the council arrives at the decisions that it does make. There is little understanding of council practice, or of particular decisions. In this climate residents either give up or suffer through the process of attempted engagement. The debate becomes personal and motives are questioned. Equally, the councillors find the whole thing unsatisfactory. This for a range of reasons and with different effects.

I propose the following changes. These would involve alteration to the Standing Orders:

Other ideas and thoughts most welcome. I have no idea the level of support from others, but I felt specific proposals need to be on the table to focus the discussion. Many people are important in this discussion.
r
Friday, November 10, 2006

Robert
Your thoughts should get a chance to bear fruit. If those suggestions came to pass we would see a return to participatory democracy raising, for some, its ugly head in Porirua. For too long the gulf between Council and the community has been allowed to widen due to the lack of desire to engage with the constituents who pay the bills. Far too much "councillors know best" has pervaded the centre of power presided over by some power and influence seekers who believe they have the first and last word in all matters.
Keep it up. Sooner or later the penny will drop.

Cheers - John W

Greetings Robert - Your suggestions to change Standing Orders are great
and if actioned would be a "great leap forward". Changes would need 75%
of councillors present - do you feel you have the numbers?
There is no big deal about (1) all the other councils effect this one.
Your comment about (3) is pertinent - I always thought workshop meetings
were not subject to standing orders and would be the best way to have dialogue
with councillors as a group. Cheers - Pip

Thanks for this. I think this is an important step in the right direction and I appreciate that. But does it go far enough?

It seems to me (and indeed it's spelled out in the statutory definition of public consultation) that the public needs more than just an opportunity to speak. There also needs to be active listening by councillors and a sincere willingness to consider and take on board matters raised by the public. Indeed, there needs to be a real dialogue. An exchange. An engagement.

Maybe it's not practicable to have a public debate during formal committee or full Council meetings, but surely at "workshops" members of the public should be allowed to participate fully and not just be allowed to make one statement for the ritual of it.

I've contrasted before the experience we had as submitters to the RLTC consultations on Transmission Gully with that we had before the Porirua Council on the LTCCP.

Terry McDavitt and his fellow commissioners inquiring into the Western Corridor plan had to study 6,000 submissions and listen to literally hundreds of personal presentations over several months. I believe every submitter, regardless of their views, left feeling they had been given every attention and consideration - there was true "consultation". Even though the commissioners must have got bored by considerable repetition and some less adequate submissions, each of them showed real respect to everybody coming before them. They all listened actively to everyone. They showed by their questioning that they had read and knew of everybody's written submission. All of the commissioners asked intelligent and courteous and constructive questions of almost every presenter. In my view they demonstrated "best practice".

I think it a great shame that Porirua City Council didn't learn from that when it came their turn to "consult" on their LTCCP. The public was urged by the Mayor to engage in the process; to consider all the matters presented in the draft and to make submissions on it. I was one of many who did so, making what I believed to be a comprehensive and considered submission, expressing my views on many issues (not just the Sports Centre, which was the sole focus of most people). I made numerous comments on infrastructural and financial issues. While I certainly didn't expect Council to agree with all I said, I did expect to have my views considered by our elected representatives. And frankly I don't think they did anything of the kind.

When I came to Council at the appointed time to give my personal presentation, I had to wait while people rushed around trying to find five councillors to make a quorum. I gave my brief presentation while the councillors present read or shuffled papers and gave me no real attention (ie no active listening by any of them). Then one councillor asked an inane question which showed clearly she had neither read my submission, nor listened to what I had just said. The Mayor intervened, pointing out I had in fact made my position clear on the matter. Then another councillor said I should be given the "courtesy" of a written response from Council officers, rather than being questioned by councillors (!). And that was that. It left me despondent. I can't help feeling Terry McDavitt should be engaged to train our local councillors in how to consult properly!

I don't want to dwell on the past. I want to look forward and help re-build bridges between Council and the wider community. That is why I'm keen to see if we can work out a better way to hold public consultations in the development of Porirua's submission to the government inquiry into local government funding. This is a most important matter for all of us and it's far more complex than many think. We must seek synergy by harnessing the brains of everyone and Council needs to take a lead in achieving this. It will require a new approach for true consultation.

I agree with those who think that this involves a change of attitude (along with a change of rules). No one said this is going to be easy after 30 years experience in a particular fashion. There is no magic way that a new approach can be brought about. We have to keep on talking about it, and keep on thinking about it. The officers, the councillors, the residents' associations and some motivated individuals, all have an important part to play. What other things might be done to effect an attitudinal change, I wonder?

Incidentally, for most of my time on Council I have not been in a position to address these things at all. They have never been on the agenda. One present task is to keep them on the agenda. Generally, we lumber along with decisions most dependent on personalities and personal likes and dislikes. Mud is slung at people. It does not help.

As someone said to me - if you vote with the mob you are a part of a conspiracy, if you have a different idea you are a "loose cannon".

LTCCP consultation also needs to be done in a different way. My above suggestions relate to the day-by-day involvement of the everyone in council decision making. We should consider the LTCCP process shortly.

Finally, the experiment that Porirua is embarking up - the re-structure of how we all work together and decisions get made - is probably quite unique in New Zealand. We are pioneers - sounds dangerous.
r
Sunday, November 12, 2006

I question whether we need any changes to councils standing orders. Standing orders are simply a guide to good practise during the formal discussion and decision stages of a meeting. Changing standing orders does little if the mindset of those listening does not change. There is no reason whatsoever that a community spokesperson couldn't have spoken to council at its last mtg, other than more than half said no. Does not in any way ensure they will listen if standing orders are changed. If such a change guarantees the right to be heard, I will clearly support it. I have some reservations about just how much interaction there should be from the public at meetings/workshops which are held to better advance the understanding of councillors. There are clearly some where officers wish to work through a range of issues with councillors prior to bringing forward a 'position.' Many however could well be open to the public to enable them to better understand the issues and conflicts cr's have to grapple with at times - ie: they would be informative to the public in the same way as they are to cr's. At the end of the day the cr's are elected to represent their communities and make decisions - this does not mean they do so in isolation from their communities and in this context I refer back to my comments about the need for real dialogue to occur. The fact that there is to be at least a meeting - lets hope some dialogue, re local body funding, is a step in the right direction.

Robert Fisk: This was a guilty verdict on

America

as well

So America 's one-time ally has been sentenced to death for war crimes he committed when he was Washington 's best friend in the Arab world. America knew all about his atrocities and even supplied the gas - along with the British, of course - yet there we were yesterday declaring it to be, in the White House's words, another "great day for

Iraq

". That's what Tony Blair announced when Saddam Hussein was pulled from his hole in the ground on 13 December 2003 . And now we're going to string him up, and it's another great day. Of course, it couldn't happen to a better man. Nor a worse. It couldn't be a more just verdict - nor a more hypocritical one.

It's difficult to think of a more suitable monster for the gallows, preferably dispatched by his executioner, the equally monstrous hangman of Abu Ghraib prison, Abu Widad, who would strike his victims on the head with an axe if they dared to condemn the leader of the Iraqi Socialist Baath Party before he hanged them. But Abu Widad was himself hanged at Abu Ghraib in 1985 after accepting a bribe to put a reprieved prisoner to death instead of the condemned man. But we can't mention Abu Ghraib these days because we have followed Saddam's trail of shame into the very same institution. And so by hanging this awful man, we hope - don't we? - to look better than him, to remind Iraqis that life is better now than it was under Saddam. Only so ghastly is the hell-disaster that we have inflicted upon

Iraq

that we cannot even say that. Life is now worse. Or rather, death is now visited upon even more Iraqis than Saddam was able to inflict on his Shias and Kurds and - yes, in Fallujah of all places - his Sunnis, too. So we cannot even claim moral superiority. For if Saddam's immorality and wickedness are to be the yardstick against which all our iniquities are judged, what does that say about us? We only sexually abused prisoners and killed a few of them and murdered some suspects and carried out a few rapes and illegally invaded a country which cost

Iraq

a mere 600,000 lives ("more or less", as George Bush Jnr said when he claimed the figure to be only 30,000). Saddam was much worse. We can't be put on trial. We can't be hanged. "Allahu Akbar," the awful man shouted - God is greater. No surprise there. He it was who insisted these words should be inscribed upon the Iraqi flag, the same flag which now hangs over the palace of the government that has condemned him after a trial at which the former Iraqi mass murderer was formally forbidden from describing his relationship with Donald Rumsfeld, now George Bush's Secretary of Defence. Remember that handshake?

Nor, of course, was he permitted to talk about the support he received from George Bush Snr, the current

President's father. Little wonder, then, that Iraqi officials claimed last week the Americans had been urging them to sentence Saddam before the mid-term

elections. Anyone who said the verdict was designed to help the Republicans, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, blurted out yesterday, must be "smoking rope". Well, Tony, that rather depends on what kind of rope it might be. Snow, after all, claimed yesterday that the Saddam verdict - not the trial itself, please note - was "scrupulous and fair". The judges will publish "everything they used to come to their verdict." No doubt. Because here are a few of the things that Saddam was not allowed to comment upon: sales of chemicals to his Nazi-style regime so blatant - so appalling - that he has been sentenced to hang on a localised massacre of Shias rather than the wholesale gassing of Kurds over which George W Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara were so exercised when they decided to depose Saddam in 2003 - or was it in 2002? Or 2001? Some of Saddam's pesticides came from

Germany

(of course).

But on 25 May 1994 , the US Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs produced a report entitled "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to

Iraq

and their possible impact on the Health Consequences (sic) of the Persian Gulf War". This was the 1991 war which prompted our liberation of Kuwait , and the report informed Congress about US government-approved shipments of biological agents sent by American companies to

Iraq

from 1985 or earlier. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax; Clostridium botulinum; Histoplasma capsulatum; Brucella melitensis; Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli. The same report stated that the

provided Saddam with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of chemical, biological and missile-system programmes, including chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans). Yes, well I can well see why Saddam wasn't permitted to talk about this. John Reid, the British Home Secretary, said that Saddam's hanging "was a sovereign decision by a sovereign nation". Thank heavens he didn't mention the £200,000 worth of thiodiglycol, one of two components of mustard gas we exported to Baghdad in 1988, and another £50,000 worth of the same vile substances the following year. We also sent thionyl chloride to

Iraq

in 1988 at a price of only £26,000. Yes, I know these could be used to make ballpoint ink and fabric dyes. But this was the same country -

Britain

- that would, eight years later, prohibit the sale of diphtheria vaccine to Iraqi children on the grounds that it could be used for - you guessed it - "weapons of mass destruction". Now in theory, I know, the Kurds have a chance for their own trial of Saddam, to hang him high for the thousands of Kurds gassed at Halabja. This would certainly keep him alive beyond the 30-day death sentence review period.

But would the Americans and British dare touch a trial in which we would have not only to describe how Saddam got his filthy gas but why the CIA - in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi war crimes against Halabja - told US diplomats in the Middle East to claim that the gas used on the Kurds was dropped by the Iranians rather than the Iraqis (Saddam still being at the time our favourite ally rather than our favourite war criminal). Just as we in the West were silent when Saddam massacred 180,000 Kurds during the great ethnic cleansing of 1987 and 1988. And - dare we go so deep into this betrayal of the Iraqis we loved so much that we invaded their country? - then we would have to convict Saddam of murdering countless thousands of Shia Muslims as well as Kurds after they staged an uprising against the Baathist regime at our specific request - thousands whom webetrayed by leaving them to fight off Saddam's brutal hordes on their own. "Rioting," is how Lord Blair's meretricious "dodgy dossier" described these atrocities in 2002 - because, of course, to call them an "uprising" (which they were) would invite us to ask ourselves who contrived to provoke this bloodbath. Answer: us. I and my colleagues watched this tragedy. I travelled on the hospital trains that brought the Iranians back from the 1980-88 war front, their gas wounds bubbling in giant blisters on their arms and faces, giving birth to smaller blisters that wobbled on top of their wounds.

The British and Americans didn't want to know. I talked to the victims of Halabja. The Americans didn't want to know. My Associated Press colleague Mohamed Salaam saw the Iranian dead lying gassed in their thousands on the battlefields east of Basra . The Americans and the British didn't care. But now we are to give the Iraqi people bread and circuses, the final hanging of Saddam, twisting, twisting slowly in the wind. We have won. We have inflicted justice upon the man whose country we invaded and eviscerated and caused to break apart. No, there is no sympathy for this man. "President Saddam Hussein has no fear of being executed," Bouchra Khalil, a Lebanese lawyer on his team, said in Beirut a few days ago. "He will not come out of prison to count his days and years in exile in

Qatar

or any other place. He will come out of prison to go to the presidency or to his grave." It looks like the grave. Keitel went there. Ceausescu went there. Milosevic escaped sentence. The odd thing is that Iraq is now swamped with mass murderers, guilty of rape and massacre and throat-slitting and torture in the years since our "liberation" of

Iraq

. Many of them work for the Iraqi government we are currently supporting, democratically elected, of course. And these war criminals, in some cases, are paid by us, through the ministries we set up under this democratic government. And they will not be tried. Or hanged. That is the extent of our cynicism. And our shame. Have ever justice and hypocrisy been so obscenely joined?
Monday, November 6th, 2006

new topic for debate

I read in the Kapi Mana News that a councillor says her colleagues do not have their heads in the sand, they have them up their arses. (Front page, 7 November, 2006)
r
Thursday, November 9, 2006

coronation street

We lurch along from episode to episode with excitement all the way. Nothing is resolved, each episode (be it a meeting at the council or in the community) sets up the tension for the next episode. Everyone has highs and lows - emotions run high, playing the personal and emotional game becomes a part of playing any issue. Personal hates and campaigns emerge. Then alliances break and reform.

When problems build, exceptions are made to the rules. If the public makes enough fuss then compromises are found. If the Council digs in, the community gives way. So we all lurch along. Year after year. Decisions are largely personal and political. We all learn to play the game, and everything repeats itself.

My interest is in solving the base, structural, problems. In changing the rules. We do not have to suffer as we suffer now. We can design a better system. There are several elements to this better system.

The first element is to re-design the way we operate as elected councillors. The big step here was the restructure of the committee system that took place over a year ago. Now all councillors are on all committees, progress has been made separating out what is the responsibility of the councillors and what is the responsibility of the chief executive, and time is being recovered so the councillors can work on the deeper problems of the council and the city (some would call this the strategic issues).

The second element, that is being worked on right now, is a re-design of the budget mechanism. Significant progress was made on this at the recent retreat for councillors.

Third, we need rules that in their operation reinforce genuine partnerships between all concerned. The mechanism of propose-consult-decide does not work. The redesign of the budget mechanism is a part of this, but a wider perspective is important here. People must feel that the are a part of everything and not fighting a monster.

If our Council can make progress in this way, we will produce better decisions, and look less like Coronation Street.
r
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

litea 1: jenny 0

Litea and the Mongrel Mob appear in a full page article with a magnificent picture in the Dominon Post. They say Porirua has a problem with violent youth gangs. Jenny then rushes around and contacts the police and others to have the Councl's media man prepare a rebuttal.

This week the Kapi Man News has a front page story that carries on the debate begun in the DomPost. Porirua's Youth Gangs, real or imaginary, have life. Jenny's aim was to set the record straight and to outscore Litea. Had Jenny said nothing, she would have done both of those things. The record would have straighened itself by silence. I am not suprised at the outcome, it is not in the nature of mayors to hold silent. It tried to warn Jenny about her instincts on this, but literally could not get her silent for long enough to say a complete sentence.

Personally, I have not seen a youth gang in Porirua. This proves Litea's statement that councillors do not know what is going on at "street level". But, perhaps I saw them and just thought they were school children. How does one tell the difference? I learn they are called the "Bloods and Crisps". Perhaps the councllors should form the "Duds and Lisps".
r
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

pukerua bay road issues - meeting report

Notes on the Presentation by TNZ Regional Manager Mr Graham Taylor to Pukerua Bay Residents Association AGM on October 24th 2006G Taylor showed overheads of each major junction of local roads with SH1.1. Gray Street
TNZ – Nothing proposedResidents - concerns:No changes proposed.

Major problems with speeding highway traffic
lack of safe vision
Need to turn right to reach the Community
Second busiest junction

Suggestions

Graduated restricted Speed Zones approaching from the South. (Used extensively in Australia)
Driver feedback signs
Merging lane for local traffic turning left (still with in 50kph zone)
Seagull islands
Moving junction further South to allow above (plenty of road reserve)
Ditto will give option of better visibility of approaching traffic from the South
Ditto the ability to delete the current minor highway access to several properties, by making a short detour to the extended Gray St.
(Note - Muri Rd used to have its own junction with SH1 right beside the overbridge. This was deleted and an extension constructed to join with Gray St.)

TNZ agreed to look further at possible options

Teihana Rd West

TNZ – suggested and explained how a seagull island junction would work here, and it was well received.Residents - concerns

Lack of safe visibility
Highway traffic fast and hard to judge speeds
Increased delays in getting in and out of the major junction
Local traffic slowing to turn left into Teihana Rd East for public transport access being rear-ended
Narrowness of the existing highway
Problems both entering and exiting adjacent Teihana Rd East.
Weekend heavy traffic in both directions, exacerbating safe egress

Have a look at a seagull intersection
Also view traffic light option (separate notes)
Make provision for Teihana Rd East.
Wairaka Rd

TNZ – Nothing proposed

Residents - concerns No changes proposed.

Lack of turn right bays
Highway traffic turning right being rear-ended
A lot of Community facilities accessed on Wairaka Rd
Poor visibility in both directions, combined with steep access to and from the highway
Highway traffic turning left clashes with pedestrians crossing Wairaka Rd (on a School route)

Suggestions

Eliminate the bus stop ‘dish’ opposite
Make right turn bays
Seagull islands
Tighten/alter lane markings to push left entering traffic away from the footpath
Work jointly with PCC too address pedestrian needs and local road levels
Consider access to 6 properties on Takutai Rd, which are actually directly off SH1
Roundabout
Traffic lights
Raise level of Wairaka Rd to allow easier access

Pukerua Beach Rd

TNZ – A variation of a seagull, adding an exit left turn lane

Residents - concerns

Exiting side road South – currently only space for one car in turn right bay
Exiting side road North is hampered with only one exit lane, and a too tight manoeuvrer
Highway traffic turning left clashes with pedestrians crossing Beach Rd (on a School route)
Lack of signage warning intersection ahead, because approach is on a bend (southbound)
Where does proposed extension of Ara Harakeke fit
Access to Te Ara Rd

Suggestions

Seagull islands with increased waiting bays
Re-design junction to include the proposed Ara Harakeke extension
Raise level of Beach Rd to allow easier access
Move intersection further North using more of Haunui Rd
Work jointly with PCC to address pedestrian needs and road levels, and whole redesigned junction
Pedestrian barrier needed at the highway end of the Haunui Rd Access Way to Highway footpath, similar to the one at the end of the steps off Te Motu Rd.
Take into account access to and from adjacent Te Ara Rd, almost opposite the junction

Pa Rd/Onepu Rd/ Waimarino Rd and Toenga Rd/Te Pari Pari Rd Crossroads
TNZ sought community options here.

Residents concerns
Speed of highway traffic from the North.
Pa Rd has poor visibility to the South, but trees valued.

Suggestions
Lengthening the Northern restriction zone to include all of the community, as well as the appropriate length of approach before the first junctions, which are the northern ends of both Onepu and Te Pari Pari Roads.
Space is available for a roundabout, as a crossroads is involved.

Comments

Support for the current central flush median constructed a few years ago
Support for the 2 raised islands and 1 pedestrian refuge also recently constructed
The flush median gave opportunities for flexible use as a turn right bay for entering or exiting either of the above local roads.
Current facilities probably sufficient

Other matters of concernTraffic Lights at Teihana Rd West
Residents and TNZ discussed the pros and cons of such.

Felt it would be the answer to both pedestrian and local traffic concerns in one solution, using Smart (computerised) Traffic Lights
Traffic lights would operate continuously- not able to be switched off during quiet periods.
Highway would need to be 5 lanes wide for min 100 metres (pref 300) to allow 2 lanes in each direction for required capacity increase plus the turn right lane in the middle. (As per the T. Lights at Paraparaumu)
Underpass at Teihana Rd West

TNZ reported design work still in progress. Looking at options using either of both sides of Teihana Rd.
For safety, it is preferable to have visibility straight through an underpass. May have to look at ramps at right angles, but with parallel steps.
After next round of Community Consultation (final design), construction may be in first half of 2007.
Pukerua Bay School has expressed an interest in decorating the underpass with murals.

Pedestrian access across SH1 to Muri Station

Divided opinions on solutions to above.
Space is available for an Underpass, but very isolated, and therefore unlikely to be used.
Options for an Overbridge would involve long ramps.
PCC are requested for feedback on availability and maintenance required of the redundant Plimmerton overbridge currently in storage.
There is high ground available off Haunui Rd and Te Ara Rd for locating an overbridge with minor ramps needed. New footpaths would be involved.
Can Res Assn canvas residents for simple options for a crossing?

Engine braking zone

A problem experienced at both ends of the Community, but particularly at the Northern end, with the continued use of engine brakes down the hill.
Properties are high above the highway, and as such, the noise of the engine brakes outside the speed restricted zone is still of concern.
There appears to be no signage available to say “Thanks, the engine braking zone ends”

Other local road/highway junctions – mostly on Eastern side
Res Assn invited to talk to residents about any concerns and suggestions.Speed Camera for Pukerua Bay

This is c/o NZ Police. TNZ suggested the Res Assn push for such through the Safety Administration Programme.
Pukerua Bay is the site of the highest number of speed tickets issued in the Wellington Police District.

TNZ agreed to also check:

Height of Southern 50kph Threshold sign
Look at spacing and size of 50kph signs though the community
Lengthening the Northern restriction zone to include all of the community, as well as the appropriate length of approach before the first junctions, which are the northern ends of both Onepu and Te Pari Pari Roads.
Whether Pukerua Beach Rd intersection is signed as ‘hidden around the bend’
Driver Feedback signs inside both entries to the community,
- Possibly sited at Gray St / @ optimum metres inside the restricted zone.
- Sited at Northern end to reflect new lengthened restricted zone.

Meeting Agreements

TNZ will work through the price of each option, and return to the Community.
Community will have to look at trade-offs of each proposal, and costs.
Res Assn to gather information on pedestrians/school routes etc, to have a better look at preferred options
Community may need another meeting like this one, to glean further information on options, as the inclement weather has deterred many.
Consultation should also be in the form of displays over a period of days, to enable the maximum feedback.

Background note. Andrew Gray of PCC and Wayne K King of MWH were the two officers who consulted with the Res Assn over proposed extension of the Ara Harakeke.
The extension was supported, as it gave a new access between P.Beach Rd and Waimarino Rd that would be a much better gradient than the existing steep Access Way between P.Beach Rd (via Haunui Rd) and Waimarino Rd, which is probably a converted historical track.

local business venture - new zealand technology actually leads the world, but you would never know it

solving the sports and events centre problems

It is important that we diagnose carefully the cause of the problems we have with the Sports and Events Centre and the public's frustration. Then we need to amend the rules of Council so the system works better. I seek a permanent fix around the concepts of partnership and relationship building.
r
Tuesday, November 7, 2006

a councillor writes

Why dont you just say Tracey Waters, Litea Ahoy and John Green left the workshop early, instead of a generic 'some councillors'. It casts a shadow of doubt on us all. I mean those who genuinely committed to attend the workshop."

laugh of the week

Greater Wellington has issued their summary of the draft Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2007 - 2016.

The joke is their "What improvements can we expect" section where top of the list is "New roads linking regional centres (eg Grenada to Gracefield). Actually, it is not a joke it is an appalling waste of public money and arrogance. There is nothing at Granada except a tip. Gracefield is not exactly in the ascendancy either. The idea of linking Porirua City to Hutt City seems not to have entered their heads.

Then, right at the bottom of the list is the "Transmission Gully Motorway open within 10 years".

This is a blatant political play that mocks all rational planning and quality public expenditure. Those who put out this document need to take a real hard look at themselves. There was a time when this very document said Transmission Gully was the top priority for the region and was to be fast-tracked and built within 6 years. Now the public demands action and these people impede progress. There document should scream "Transmission Gully" and it should be used vehicle to unblock funding difficulties. Instead, it says to everyone, "take it easy, let's keep mucking around on the minor stuff, we would rather play political games than solve real problems". They do not seek feedback on Transmission Gully, instead it is set to be 10 years out - end of story. The people of the Wellington Region deserve much better.
r
Tuesday, November 7, 2006

sort of right - they see the review as a dirty squabble about who pays and as a chance to grab more money

Basil Morrison, President, Local Government New Zealand says the Local Government Rating Inquiry must lead to better funding tools, including an increased funding contribution by central government, if rates are to be sustainable. "We support the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry and the suggested process for engagement with stakeholder groups and the public on rating issues. However, we already know that an objective examination of the current rating system will show it is under pressure from the additional responsibilities and costs faced by local government.

"One of the major drivers in the recent rates rises has been the need to upgrade and expand infrastructure. New Zealand has recently enjoyed a period of sustained prosperity and growth, with record real estate prices and sales volumes. This has placed greater demands on councils to enhance infrastructure and while some of the costs of growth can be covered by the use of development contributions, the remainder becomes a pressure on rates.

"New Zealand relies on a national network of local infrastructure to sustain economic growth. If the Government is to achieve its goals for economic transformation, then it has to acknowledge the platform for this growth is largely owned and operated by councils, and that it will need to make a greater contribution to councils activities to maintain and build New Zealand.

"I am delighted the inquiry will focus on how to sustainability fund the activities of local government, and not attempt to set limits around council functions. We are pleased the terms of reference confirm the principles and purpose of the Local Government Act. The nature and range of local and regional activities should be a matter for councils and their communities to determine within the framework of the Act." The local government sector looks forward to the inquiry progressing so it can be completed well before the local government elections in October 2007.

We need to consider the allocation of functions between them first, and then the justice of funding in each case, and then the mechanisms of funding.

The Auckland stadium is a good example of this, as is our local Sports and Events Centre. The latter is said by some to be regional, but the funding is local. Compare this with Whitireia Park. The decision there is that it is regional and the funding is thus regional. (Personally, I claim some credit for that set of decisions about the park). Wellington has just decided that economic promotion and development should be a regional function and funded by the regional council. All councils must now respect this and stop funding local economic work. Do not hold your breath waiting for them to do this. Watch instead the regional growth strategy for Northern Wellington City, and its impact on Porirua City.
r
Tuesday, November 7, 2006

new zealand institute of economic research - rates review

On the morning radio Maori news someone was saying what I have said. The rates review is misdirected. They used the useful term "wealth tax". That is it - the review is about the ethical issues around a wealth tax. Given the fuss, it is likely the rates review people will adjust their approach. They need to appoint some people with the right kind of training. Strangely enough, those who know about ethics. This reminds me of when the British Government appointed Mary Warnock (a philosopher) to head a major enquiry in what was a similar situation to that at issue now. There is no chance of our lot being that inspired. No chance of actually making use of the experts we have hidden away in universities.

Meantime the NZIER takes us some way in the right direction and I quote their statement from a presentation below. The idea that economists know about ethics is most characteristic of our age. We try to turn moral matters into scientific ones. Maori often know better. The whole presentation is here:

The real issue is who pays and in what proportion - or to use the Maori term, to what extent do we support a wealth tax?.

partnership policy - a long way to go?

At the recent three-day retreat for councillors I gave a presentation on how to reform the budget process. This was about my three step plan. There was a good discussion and it was decided that the chief executive will now work on the reformation of the budget process. Councillors's requested a practical method of decision making for the future, not research into the matter.

In the presentation I gave, I said there were two other related areas that I did not have time to address and the discussion that followed respected that approach. The two areas yet to be discussed were related. First, there is the approach to consultation with regards to the LTCCP and the AP. Then, there is the whole business of council communications (purpose, strategy, methods). Readers of the blog know some of my thinking on these topics.

In a subsequent session, the next day, lead off by Sue Dow, we considered consultation. You can see how this relates to the issues we did not have time to broach the previous day. We did not get too far into the topic, but what was agreed was that we should explore "relationship building" as opposed to "consultation". Now these terms might mean different things to different people, so the details are very important. Another way of saying "relationship building" is "partnership policy". Again, this became an indication to the chief executive that work should be done in this direction. He will bring before us some advice. There was very strong support for this by everyone, although three councillors had left the previous day.

What might such a policy look like? How could we change the way that the Council relates to everyone? These questions are now gaining some priority as the result of recent events. I have some thoughts and will develop them on the blog shortly. In the meantime, I want to talk about them to anyone who will sit still for long enough.

We need to get involved

Letter to the Editor: Dominion Post 6 November, 2006

Are we surprised that the proposed Porirua Sports and Events Centre will cost more to build than estimated in the draft plan (2Nov)? Of course not most of us who oppose the proposal and who bothered to put in a submission opposing it knew that would happen.

What is surprising and concern is that democracy appears to have been hijacked from council by meetings being heavy-handed bullying. People thrown out of meetings, witch hunts to find out who leaked information that ratepayers have no right to know as we only pay the bills, and the ignoring of voices of bona fide representatives of local residents make me think we have regressed into communist Russia of the Cold War era.

Perhaps we could retaliate in Porirua by following the example of Eastbourne. But, would we be better off with any other council? I think not; it is time for New Zealanders to shake off their apathy, take notice of local affairs that have far more impact on our lives than we realise, support the inquiry into local body rates, and make sure we all vote at the next local body elections.

Christine Torbit
Paremata

Presumably the fact that the cost has not gone up is a surprise. However, I agree with Christine's general thesis. The Council needs to behave in a different way. It needs to involve people and communicate. This is what is meant when I say we need a strategy and plan for relationship building.
r
Monday November 6, 2006

central government review of rates - unpromising start

It asks four not very important questions, collects data, and concludes there is not much of a problem.

The problem about local government funding is a moral problem. It is about who ought to pay for what and how much they ought to pay. The argument is ethical not statistical. As the committee says they are due to report on their final question in December 2005, a date which has passed, their credibility is not high. We know that not one of them read their own draft document carefully. [This is about as good as the submissions we all wrote to our Health Board's plans - later I discovered they never escaped from the Ministry of Health and hence neither board members nor senior officers in the Health Board could actually talk about the things we raised.]

The chief executive of the Porirua City Council is working on our collective response to the funding review. We need more than a submission, we need a trajectory that will produce legislative change in a sensible and just way. Our goal is practical and success will require a political action. His first step is to devise an approach to our project that will reflect our aspiration for the Council to work in partnership with the community. This worked well in the case of the TGM exercise.

"The Local Government Funding Project was established to gather accurate statistics on local authority rating levels and the extent and nature of any affordability problems. In particular, the project team was asked to provide answers to the following questions: 1. What is the magnitude/nature of fiscal pressure facing the local government sector? 2. What are the drivers of fiscal pressure facing the local government sector? 3. Are fiscal pressures sustainable for some or all communities, and for groups within the community? 4. To what extent will the revenue raising powers provided in the Local Government Act 2002 (“the LGA”) and the LG (Rating) Act 2002 (“the LGRA”) assist local authorities to meet any fiscal pressures? 5. If a problem is identified, what options are available to resolve the issues, and how appropriate are these? This report deals with the first four of these questions.

The fifth of the above questions will be the subject of a second phase of policy work, which is due to report in December 2005. Methodology In order to make judgments about the sustainability of local government finances, judgments must be made as to whether local authorities can continue to provide the services expected by stakeholders, given current revenue sources. This includes consideration of matters such as current and projected future rating levels, revenue received from revenue producing assets (such as port company shares), revenue from fees and charges, and the ability of funding tools to better match the recovery of costs to the timeframe over which benefits accrue (such as debt and development contributions). Detailed data sets necessary to support this analysis were not available, especially regarding future expenditure needs. The project team has therefore developed its own data sets derived from expenditure, revenue and other projected financial data contained in local authorities’ first long-term council community plans1 (LTCCP). The bulk of Section Two of this report describes the methodology for doing this. Feedback from a focus group of local authority chief executives revealed that some local 1 These plans can be considered to be ‘transitional’ in that they are the first to be produced under the LGA. Funding Project Team Report".

And, the conclusion that they draw is that fewer than 10% of Council's may have a problem. I quote the key paragraph:

"There are a number of fiscal constraints or pressures on local government. It appears that most local authorities are managing these pressures successfully and providing appropriate services and facilities for their communities. Their transitional LTCCPs and financial projections indicate that this is sustainable over the foreseeable future."

the pyongyang report by former councillor don borrie is a rational insight into a difficult situation

Pyongyang Report is compiled by Tim Beal and Don Borrie, assisted by Stephen Epstein, as a contribution towards greater knowledge and understanding of North Korea. Signed commentaries are the opinion of the specific author and not necessarily those of the editorial team. Further information may be obtained from the editors (see final page), and from the website at http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/

stemhead lane & arahura crescent

Impassioned submissions from residents have convinced Council to change its mind on a proposal to turn a quiet Waitangirua cul-de-sac into an access road to Waitangirua Farm.

The Council is in the final stages of buying land from Landcorp Farming Limited, which will be managed as part of the Belmont Regional Park. Some of the remaining Waitangirua Farm land may be used for rural residential development, and the Council has identified a site for a new water reservoir on this block of land. Landcorp Farming had agreed to set aside land for a new reservoir if the Council allowed access through Stemhead Land. However, when Council consulted the residents of Stemhead Land and the Arahura Crescent reserve's neighbours, as required by the Reserves Act 1977, there was overwhelming opposition to the plan and 12 residents wrote in with their objections. These objections were mostly about the effect of increased traffic through a narrow street, the danger to the many young children that live in the street and the potential damage done to the existing reserves. Eight of the residents, including former City Councillor Charlie Ford, spoke to the Council's City Services Committee at its meeting on 19 October, and convinced the Committee to change direction on the plans for Stemhead Lane. The committee decided to continue with the plan to put an access way across the recreation reserve at 104 Arahura Crescent, but to look for alternatives to access through Stemhead Lane.

Committee chair, Councillor Robert Shaw, said he wanted to thank Charlie Ford, and all those who made submissions. "They set out the issues with humour, tact, and insight. They impressed the councillors, who worked very hard on a complex motion involving the fine points of law that are in the Reserves Act. The councillors did well to produce a motion that maximises the situation for the residents and the whole city."

Council confirmed the committee's decision at its meeting last night. The Mayor thanked Cr Shaw and the committee for their work. Council staff will soon be meeting with Landcorp Farming and Greater Wellington to discuss other options for access and the use of the land for a reservoir.

review of new structures after one year of operation, as planned

HWTM AND COUNCILLORS

 

This is to confirm that I have put in place arrangements for the review of
the Committee Structure. 

 

Attached is the Terms of Reference, as discussed at the Council Retreat last
weekend, and as circulated to you earlier this week.

 

I have commissioned Jean Mitaera of Arakotini as a researcher to conduct the
independent evaluation.  

 

The following is some information as background for you on Jean Mitaera.  

 

She is an experienced independent researcher who has participated in both
national and local level research projects.  She works in the Social Work
Centre of Learning, Whitireia Community Polytechnic.  She has a MA in
applied Social Work.  She has worked in a wide range of issues including,
health, family services from Pacific perspectives, policy for Pacific Women,
adult education, organisational development, research and facilitation.

 

Jean will be assisted by her assistant researcher Joy Maehe.  They will be
sharing the interviews between them.  

 

Jean has agreed to the timeframe involved in this project.  The steps will
be as follows:

 

1.           Jean will send an email to you with an electronic copy of the
questions, and invite you to identify a time for the interview.

2.           Jean will arrange for an interview with Councillors and EMT
members.

3.           Jean will write up a report, which will cover the evaluations
conducted during the year for each committee meeting, and this evaluation.

4.           I will submit this report together with officer advice to the
Strategy, Finance and Regulatory Committee on 30 November 2006.

5.           The Committee's recommendation will go for decision to Council
on 13 December 2006.

 

I would appreciate your support for Jean, especially give the tight
timeframes she will be working under.

 

Regards, Roger
Roger Blakeley

  

ROBERT COMMENTS

When we began the new committee structures I asked the ceo to establish an ongoing evaluation of the Services Committee meetings, the intention being to find out how the chairperson could improve.
The evaluation broadened at the request of councillors from being mainly about the chair's performance to include the officers' advice, and the views of members of the public on how they were treated. This latter concern came particularly from the LTCCP meetings. This evaluation business then widened to look at the Strategy Committee at the same time. (We also need to consider the full council meetings but at this moment they are not included.)

This reformation of the committee structures is itself one part of the overall reforms of how the Council functions. The next major advance will be the reformation of the budget process (how we put the LTCCP and the AP in place). In my view the Council needs to sort out its own internal operations before it can do anything much (including build its reputation with the public, and get the rates under better control). Two exercises that have gone well and taught us useful things are the transmission gully project, and our input to the Wellington Regional Strategy. In both cases we produced a result far beyond what might have been expected. I will not trouble you with the disasters at this moment!
r
Friday November 3, 2006

conflict at, and with, council

Last night about 40 people came to the full Council meeting to ask that we suspend Standing Orders in order that they can make a statement. Sounds simple enough. They were people from throughout the city, and particularly strongly represented were the Northern and Western wards. I voted against their speaking, and they did not speak. There is now anger and frustration. I want to meet with as many of that group who wish to dialog and to work through the issues. Can we arrange a time and place please?

The one thing on which we all agree is that the Council is not functioning as it should. We should not have arrived at last night's crunch point. A little analysis shows how it happened. The public was unable to have their proper say at the committee meeting that received advice from the officers on the Sports and Events Centre. I voted for that meeting to be open to the public, but the majority on Council voted that it be a closed session. That vote was taken in a proper way and the room was cleared. When a Council pushes its residents away, it is inevitable that they pop up again more angry and resolute than before. So it was in this case.

Now the Council says, be good residents and come along at the proper time. But, the residents say "we tried that but to no avail". All this is so unnecessary. It generates a great deal of unproductive work as people lock themselves into a struggle. The question is: can we find a better way?

For the record, I think my vote last night was the correct one. There is no doubt it was unpopular. I remain open to debate about the correctness of my decision. I cannot speak for anyone else. In brief, it was a hikoi situation. A large and sensible group with just demands arrived at the steps of Parliament and asked to be let in. They were denied this because of the Standing Orders. This proves that lot do not listen, they say. However, all that is happening is that the Parliament is maintaining its rules in order to ensure everyone has a say and all views are considered. A hikoi is political. So it was last night.

But, wait on - is this not local government, where we seek to have a much closer relationship with the Council and councillors? Yes, it is and mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that - but that is a different issue from the ad hoc alteration of Standing Orders for as special circumstance. I might well have voted differently if I had felt that I did not know what the public view was - but I have heard the arguments on this issue and there was a written summary provided. Or, I might have voted differently had the Council been about to make a decision that was not supported by the public. Whilst the process was a disaster, the actual decisions (the motion to be put), was largely agreed - there is to be absolutely no cost overrun on the Sports centre project. The other aspect was about the facility's justification given the plans that have been discussed in Wellington and Kapiti. For me that was never an issue because I have never thought the Porirua facility would be regional in any significant sense. It is a facility for our children - ie local.

There is obviously more to say. I repeat my request for a significant meeting to work on the real issue: Council's inability to work with anyone. If it is any comfort to you, I think it is appalling that people cannot engage the Council in a satisfactory manner, and find it most uncomfortable!
r
Thursday, November 2, 2006

I guess the point I’m making is that RAs recall with nostalgia the close and constructive relations enjoyed with Council last year over the Transmission Gully fight; recall with discontent the way we were all rejected disdainfully by Council this year over the LTCCP and Sports Centre; and have tried recently (but in vain) to engage more closely again in the post-LTCCP environment. As I wrote to you beforehand our latest approach to Council was explicitly aimed at re-building bridges and the way we were rebuffed so totally by Council this evening is yet another setback to our endeavours.

You say you will work with RAs on the rates inquiry but frankly your public credibility has been shattered by your own rejection of the public. It will be a long hard row to hoe to get Council and RAs aligned again. Personally I don’t think those who refused to listen to us tonight will ever regain our trust.

human rights commission - funny ideas about what is important

The Human Rights Commission circulates an email that sets out the good things that are happening in the area of human rights. It is easy to understand their logic - reward good behaviour and hope for a sea change. Yet this is hardly credible. Consider this example from their email - it relates to Porirua City.

For Shake It, Beat It, Learn It, 2006. Pacific communities in the Capital and Coast DHB district have really taken to a pilot programme that aims to improve the level of physical activity in their daily lives. Launched in July, the number of participants in some areas has almost tripled in just a few months in these exercise groups run by young Pacific students. The scheme came about after Pacific community groups asked the DHB for help running exercise-based activities. The programme aims to inspire people and to show them how they can easily fit exercise into their lives. The ‘Shake It’ initiative is just one of several to be established across the Pacific community in the past year, where the aim has been to improve the health of Pacific people in the district. Further information about the Shake It programme can be obtained by emailing Capital and Coast DHB at info@ccdhb.org.nz ."

Now a few facts. The health needs of Pacific Islanders are not being realistically addressed. We live with the impact of this every day. The Pacific Island peoples in Porirua City were the strongest supporters of Kenepuru Hospital. Every local government entity, including Wellington City and the Regional Council, supported them in their bid to have Kenepuru made into a secondary level hospital, something like the Hutt Hospital. Well I remember all the meetings with PI communities on this matter. The CCDHB ignored everyone and set out to re-build on the remote Newtown site that happens to be an earthquake fault line.

Consideration was given to the Porirua City Pacific Islanders however. When the Kenepuru Hospital was downgraded to a community facility and the Accident and Emergency facility removed (replaced by a pay-as-you-go GP clinic called an Accident and Medical Service), the entrance way was decorated in Pacific Island style. An insult to the needs of people if ever there was one.

The rather obvious fact is that our Pacific Island people will not travel to Newtown. Their health status in the latest investigations has actually deteriorated. This is the Health Board's policy in action. Unrealistic and totally against the stated preference of everyone. The number of ambulance trips from Porirua to Newtown each day continues to increase. Various things have been tried to help Pacific Islanders access health services but all have had minimal effect because they are imposed solutions not deemed of significance by most of the people. Of course if all the health needs of Pacific Islanders in Porirua City were identified and scheduled for treatment the health service would collapse under the strain.

To return to the Human Rights Commission - you can see why their rewarding a very minor programme with PI students (a captured audience) with great fanfare is rather insulting, in my humble opinion. How about an investigation into the health needs of Pacific Islanders? The last full report was that done by the Public Health Commission, just before they were disestablished. Perhaps the Human Rights Commission knows it is best to reward good behaviour.
r
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Thanks Robert, for your comments on the Commission's monthly On The Bright Side. If all we did each month was send out acknowledgments for positive initiatives that have been brought to our attention, your criticism would have more force. We do see a place (and an important place) for encouraging people and organisations to undertake positive initiatives, however small - as a means not only of recognising them but also of spreading their ideas. You have picked one out a dozen or so listed this month, but you will know that the others range from a research report on the experience of racism by Koreans in Christchurch to the organisation of major cultural festivals like Diwali. In other programmes, the Commission advocates for the need to address issues of social and economic inequality. For example, in the annual review of race relations published earlier this year I commented:

"As the snapshot of economic and social statistics in this report shows, the challenge to reduce the serious inequalities between Maori and Pacific New Zealanders on the one hand, and most of the other populations groups on the other, remains urgent. There is a greater need than ever to implement policies and programmes that will address these disparities. The percentage of the population who are Maori and Pacific continues to grow. More than a third of all children born in New Zealand in 2005 were of Maori and Pacific descent. These children currently face the prospect of an avoidable mortality rate over their lifetime that is three times as high for Maori, and twice as high for Pacific people as it is for other New Zealanders. Some social and economic indicators have improved or continued to improve in the past year. These positive trends are important and welcome. The data however confirm that at this stage the gaps remain unacceptably wide, especially in health, economic standard of living and education. While any strategy to eliminate the disparities will be long term and multi-faceted, there must be no let-up in targeted government and community action."

the famous three - problems real and imaginary

You have rightly argued against the exclusion of public from Council meetings, most recently at the SFR Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago when Council even went to the extent of calling the Police to throw out members of the public.

Since the public were unable to attend that committee meeting it is hardly surprising that a request was made of the Mayor (politely, in writing) for a public statement to be made at the start of the full Council meeting this week which will be deciding on the matter discussed by the committee. It would seem a shame if this were to be denied.

I assure you it’s not just a matter of the Whitby Residents’ Assn being concerned at the costs of the new Sports & Events Centre. The issue is much broader than that and the delegation coming to Council represents joint residents associations from Pukerua Bay to Titahi Bay to Pauatahanui, and including Whitby, Plimmerton and Paremata. This is a widely representative delegation from all over Porirua City and surely Council owes them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say. I know that they are coming not to whine about the past, but are seeking to work more closely with Council in the future. Why would Council want to reject them?

I recall in the past you have asked the question how Council can engage more with local residents’ associations. Well, here’s your chance.

There are several different issues here. First, the tossing out of three people from the Council Chamber. Second, public concern over the cost of the sports facility and a lack of confidence or trust in the council's ability to stick to a budget. Third, how the public brings its concerns to the attention of the councillors. Let me deal with them in that order.

A few weeks ago there was a motion to exclude the public from a meeting to discuss the financial aspects of the project and to review the justification for the project in light of developments in Wellington and Kapiti. I voted against that motion as did two other councillors. My view was that more harm would come by keeping people out than by letting them in. That is usually my view in such situations. I had read the paper and I did not think there was much to discuss's that needed to be kept from the public. However, the major of councillors followed the advice of the chief executive and the motion to exclude the public was carried in a proper way. That having happened three people refused to leave. The chairperson at that point either closed the meeting, adjourned the meeting, or asked the chief executive to deal with the situation. He opted to ask the chief executive to arrange for the removal of the three, the Police were called, and the three went when asked by the Police. They had made their point. So far as I could see everything went in accordance with the proper procedures. Our three veteran protesters played their part with style and grace and left their mark. It is possible to seek a review of the councillors vote to exclude the public but it is highly unlikely it would be successful. Indeed, in the past when I have asked the Ombudsman to review decisions of council he has refused because they are the decisions of elected persons and hold a special status as such in our system. That does not mean they are right, just that they have the power of decisions made by those elected to make them. If someone wanted to take up this aspect of concern, I would say work could usefully be done on the Standing Orders, regarding the decision of officers to place papers in the line for public exclusion in the first place. There is a tendency in our council to err on the side of caution. With discussion that could be adjusted. A very similar matter is the openness of workshops for councillors. This is the same issue in a different form. We need greater openness all round in my opinion. That will come with greater confidence and some clear thinking. It is unlikely to come because of legal action. Public pressure however seems to be positive in my view because it says there is an issue and helps to define that issue.

The second issue is the really driven by the lack of trust the public has in the council at this moment. Council could not manage the inflation of a brown paper bag they say, let alone a $17 million project. On the Council's side this message has been heard by some (well, me anyway) and everything needs to be done to keep the project within budget. Because the decision to spend the $17 was such a close one, and keenly fought in the community and at council, it is particularly important that the cost to ratepayers does not escalate. That would be to add "insult to injury" or should that be "injury to insult". The challenge for the council is to manage the project within the budget. A majority of councillors have expressed a firm view on this, although some think that further investment to ensure we get the quality of facility we all want may be a good idea. This latter group are wiling to see the price increase. It is true that public organisations are not too good at sticking to budgets for projects. Look at the Wellington hospital budget if you want a current example. There are forces beyond us that move and force cost increases. In the present case, inflation is a major factor. However, at this moment, the councillors 'decision is clear and firm. "No cost increases". I will not change my mind on this point. Reality is that there is not much that can be done about inflation. However, new projects or facilities within the structure are a different matter. It has been discovered that the entrance to Titahi Bay road needs much more money. Well, in my view, that project just has to wait for another year and it will be considered along with other roading projects. If it is necessary to move the main sewer line however, we might be stuck with that extra cost. The earlier advice was it would not be necessary, then the advice changed, and it may well change again. Needless to say the sewer will not be altered if it is not necessary.

I wanted the whole project at this level of management to be put under the control of the chief executive. His brief being to live within the $17M and to consult the public on everything. However, that approach was not taken and the result is that we have papers coming to the council table (in publicly excluded business) for decisions to be made. This generates risk and public concern. There is a real risk the councillors could jump to support an new bright idea. Remember this whole thing is going to be spread over years, and the councillors can drift if they keep getting the same decisions dished up to them in new packages. Look at the way the town centre keeps opening and closing roads and shifting streets, and utility sites. Now we have a little committee of four councillors to advise the chief executive. I am on that group but, as I keep saying, "I am not an engineer". It is difficult to see what I can say to the chief executive that will assist him. Unless it is that the budget can blow out and I will support that view at the council table with my vote. The presence of this group, confuses the accountability mechanism.

Finally, there is the recent issue about access to the councillors right now. Meaning before Wednesday's council meeting. Because the public was excluded from the earlier deliberations (the rethink in light of the Wellington and Kapiti developments, and officer recommendations on budget increases) the public wants to get in on the action now. That is understandable. They did not see the debate and they know that all that will happen is that council will confirm its committees decision. This decision is actually exactly what those involved (the public group) want, but because they did not see the process of decision-making they still worry. Now they have asked to speak at a full council meeting and the answer to that request has to be "no". This is complicated by the mayor agreeing to other groups having a special privilege here. I support the rules of the Council and not Jenny's rules. Frankly, people, we need a mayor who knows what they are doing. All this confusion and emotion is disastrous for everyone. The real problem is the committee stage cut out the public and now they feel cut out. We create our own problems. If someone wants to say something they ca write to the chief executive and he may or may not table it at the meeting. "Table" here means "put on the councillors' desks". Usually the chief will provide anything that comes to him. Finally here, there is now raised the issue of whether Standing Orders should be amended to allow the public to speak at full council meetings. This is part of a wider issue of the publics' access to the council. I have for over three years at least wanted to see a review of Standing Orders, and this is but an example of what is on that list. To date we have made no progress on that issue, and it is vital if we are to interact with the public in a proper way and save ourselves much grief.
r
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

mob rule

According to Cr Litea Ah Hoy we have a major problem with youth gangs. This is a major story in today's DomPost. Personally, I have never seen them in action.
r
Monday, October 30, 2006

council retreat

I will provide more on the council retreat shortly, but for the moment let me say that I survived the weekend. It was actually hard work. Three councillors quit half way through. I am not sure why. A great deal of useful work was done bringing everyone to a common understanding of how we are to operate, budget, and perform. Those who have heard me talk about the reform of the budget process can note that we are about to give it a go. That is a remarkable development. I am not concerned to review current spending and clip the budget at this moment. I am concerned to put in place a mechanism that will each year improve the overall discipline of the council when it budgets.
r
Monday October 30, 2006

rec centre worries

The Whitby Res Association is worried about the budget for the rec centre. I also worry about the budget for the rec centre. They have asked the mayor to alter the Standing Orders of Council to enable them to speak at a full council meeting. They can of right address a committee. Also, they can send things to the ceo to have them tabled at the full council meeting. He will decide what is actually tabled. There is no provision for groups to address the full council.

In the past, the mayor has broken with the Standing Orders to let a group speak to the full council. There was not motion to supspend Standing Orders, it just happend, regardless of the rules. Once the mayor decided to abandon the Standing Orders and run things according to her own rules she opened the way for confusion and strife. I spoke against the abandoning of the rules immediately after it happend. Now the mayor faces the inevitable consequence of her earlier decision. If one group can speak, why not another?
r
Monday October 30, 2006

meeting access

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Ebbett [mailto:ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz] 
Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:44 p.m.
To: Jenny Brash - PCC; 'Maureen Gillon'; murrells@xtra.co.nz;
john.green@paradise.net.nz; robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz;
suedow@paradise.net.nz; trevor.roberts@clear.net.nz; caroy@paradise.net.nz;
rdf@slingshot.co.nz; pippiper@paradise.net.nz; judid@paradise.net.nz;
j.mlambie@paradise.net.nz; janita@clear.net.nz; moanalodge@clear.net.nz;
dlove@paradise.net.nz; alangray88@hotmail.com; joe.mcgregor@xtra.co.nz;
lwharfe@actrix.co.nz; robing@busdevclub.co.nz; russellmorrison@xtra.co.nz;
timandlana@xtra.co.nz; wiggins.cccj@xtra.co.nz;
trevor.roberts@kielywgtn.co.nz; mgeorge@clear.net.nz
Cc: Liz Kelly; Ken Douglas; Tracey Waters; David Stanley; Litea Ah Hoi; Rob
Rangi; Taima Fagaloa; Roger Blakeley; Gary Simpson; Kris Dande
Subject: Re: PCC Secret Meeting - Sports Centre

HWTM
Jenny Brash

Dear Jenny

There is no provision in law for exclusion of any member of the public from
a council meeting because an agenda item may be "commercially sensitive".

Under the LGOIMA  the principle applied is that all information is available
(ie all meetings are public) unless there is good reason for witholding it.

The only relevant legal reason for exclusion is the one quoted on the Order
Paper of 11 October..
LGOIMA s7(2)(i) - "to enable any local authority holding the information to
carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including
commercial and industrial negotiations)".

That is a much higher threshold than you suggest.

To be able to claim prejudice of a commercial negotiation there obviously
has to be evidence that:-
1  A third party exists
2  That party has a definite commercial interest in the information being
disclosed
3  Negotiations are in progress
4  Public disclosure is likely to prejudice that negotiation.

When challenged, chairman Douglas was unable to produce any such evidence.

Council has slipped into a bad habit of routinely trotting out "commercial
sensitivity" as a blanket excuse to exclude the public (illegally) at the
drop of a hat.

As Mayor you would be well advised to remain on the moral (and legal) high
ground, stick to your election pledge over transparency, and leave chairman
Douglas to fight his own battles.

Yours sincerely

Graeme E

Graeme Ebbett
Chairman
Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc
C/- 37 Terrace Rd, Titahi Bay, Porirua.
Work Ph 568 6377, Fx 568 2374
Home Ph 236 8574, Fx 236 8591
Email ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz

how to turn success into disaster

The Council's media release on the Annual Plan appears below. It displays all that I, as your representative, oppose. You might have seen the blog statement on the Annual Report yesterday (see below if you have not).

Let me give some of the reasons why the media statement ultimately hurts the Council:

The Council sings its own praises. "I am the greatest" it screams to the world. There are aspects to this:
1. First, the Council is rather average and the Annual Report is also rather average. The up-beat style of the media release makes us laugh, because we all know this.
2. Second, none of those who take a close interest in the council, the residents associations, think the council is the greatest. In fact they seek dramatic change. The audience for a media statement on the Annual Plan is our residents and particularly our ratepayers (whose money it is about). The statement should be written for them.
3. When you spend other people's money you should adopt a modest stance. Council works on behalf of the community, and it should not see itself as an independent business which happens to use ratepayers' money.
The statement says all is well at Council, when it patently is not. There are real challenges around rates, increasing costs, reduced capacity. The whole place has been treading water and increasing costs since Mayor Brash became mayor. Again, people know this and the statement has no credibility.
The Council has been late in its recent budget processes and unable to keep to the legal timeframe. Now is not a good time to emphasise the process.
The statement does not say the truths that are in the Annual Plan. Some examples:

Rates have gone up.
Fees and charges have gone up
Achievements are rather thin in comparison with other years at PCC and in comparison with many other councils.
The level of reserve funds is still quite low.

The old NRB survey is given another run to say how pleased the residents are. These are the real residents, not those who actually come to Council to complain and grumpy chaps who are tossed out in protest. The problems with the survey have been set out for at least the last 10 years and they all remain. When will the Council officers learn that the public understands the survey better than they do, and will not be fooled? For example, I have always been very happy with the sewerage system. Indeed, it has never let me down. I rate the Council as "excellent" in the provision of this service - but the whole idea of saying this is absurd. How do I rate investment in the system? Now that is a different matter. How does a qualified engineer rate the system? - we do not know because we only ask the unqualified public. The NRB survey probably measures the overall "feel-good" of people at the time of asking. It is a bit like the old School Certificate examination, which was just an elaborate IQ test.

I am being a little hard on the Council in this because they have improved in this area. Well I remember the year that in the Annual Report they claimed credit for bringing unemployment down. Fact was the unemployment rate in the whole country had fallen and the Porirua result was behind other places. Yet they claimed it as their success that year.

This year we have seen three exceptional successes. One: some development in how the councillors function together and a resulting improvement in the quality of decisions (eg just last week a m. Two: success in the Transmission Gully campaign (cost, $200,000, chief executive can take the credit). Three: input to the decisions on regionalism (Cr Douglas can take the credit.).There has also been success in ongoing (ordinary) things: eg policy work in the area of heritage, tip management, walkway development. Council also did well in key areas where it can take no credit: asset valuations up, debt down.

So now wait and see that there will be three kinds of response the the media release:



MEDIA RELEASE

 

For immediate use

 

Date: 25 October 2006

 

Fax: (04) 237 1405

Tel:  (04) 237 5089

 

 

PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL COMES OUT AHEAD IN 2005/06

 

Porirua City Council came out ahead in its 2005/06 budget after rapid
development in the city significantly increased the value of its assets.

 

The Council stuck very close to its budget in 2005/06, and prudent financial
management meant that day to day expenses were kept under budget despite a
number of unbudgeted costs during the year.

 

Mayor Jenny Brash said the year was important for planning the city's
future, with the Council developing its first full 10-year Long Term Council
Community Plan, and assisting communities developing their village plans.

 

"Transport issues were important for the city and the Council also took the
lead in the campaign against upgrading the coastal route, and gaining
support for Transmission Gully.

"Other major activities during the year included the refurbishment of the
Trust Porirua Aquatic Centre, the purchase of around 50 hectares of land
next to the Belmont Regional Park, a review of the Council's Economic
Development Strategy and involvement in the development of the Wellington
Regional Strategy, and major art exhibitions, such as Eternal Threads,
mounted by Pataka during the year," Mayor Brash said.

Rapid development in the city meant that the new assets vested in the
Council from subdivisions-new roads, reticulation systems and parks-were
valued at just over $18 million, $17 million more than budgeted.
Revaluation of investment properties also added another $1.3 million to the
Council's income.

Council's General Manager of Support Services, Keith Miller, says the result
was an operating surplus of over $17 million.

"However, this isn't a cash surplus," Mr Miller says.  "It's like an
unrealised capital gain on the house that increases in value-you can't spend
it.  These assets will, in fact, cost the Council money because it has to
maintain them.
 
"The extra $18 million in assets, new assets purchased or constructed during
the year, and revaluation of existing physical assets mean the Council's
physical assets increased in value by $264 million to $796 million.  By
contrast, this is more than double the value of the physical assets of a
major listed company like Fisher and Paykel, which illustrates the
importance of the stewardship role of the Council in managing and
maintaining those assets."

The high scores the Council got once again in a regular survey of residents'
satisfaction with council services is a credit to the skill of the Council's
staff, according to Chief Executive Roger Blakeley.
 
"At least 90 per cent of residents are pleased with important services such
as the water supply, city centre parking, parks, public gardens and the
sewage system, and 80 per cent of residents thought the quality of life and
Porirua's community spirit was good or very good," Dr Blakeley said.

"Council continued to make significant investments in infrastructure and the
environment, including a major upgrade of the waste water treatment plant,
improvements to the public areas along the edge of the Porirua Stream and a
significant revamp of the garden areas and the opening up of Lyttelton
Avenue and the bus transport centre."

Council approved the Annual Report at a meeting tonight (Wednesday 25
October).  The report will be printed and will also be available on the
Council's website.  A summary will be published in Kapi-Mana News on 7
November.

 
Media inquiries initially to Iain MacLean 237 3555

whitby vodafone tower

Well it is funny how things work out. The meeting with residents and Vodafone was held yesterday in the Council building. Turns out the residents followed the report in the newspaper that indicated the placement of the tower. The newspaper had made a mistake. The tower is actually somewhere else. The petition from 80 people did have the effect of our all finding out the right information. Vodafone have undertaken to provide measurements on radiation levels, which is helpful.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

annual report

Today we signed off on the Annual Report. An unqualified audit report. Your council is in a very sound financial position, with low levels of borrowing. I noticed that we budged for income of $1 million in "vested assets" and received $18 million. That relates to the development of new subdivisions. An extra $17 million makes it easy to balance the books.

Rates income last year was $31.458 million. Equity has gone up to $802.019 million (from $519 million) because of re-valuations. We charged you a little less for water and sewerage last year, yet the valuations for these assets went up quite a bit. The library books are still worth $3.2 million.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

political team - election news

A group has been formed to field candidates in the local government election next October. They are going to stand as a team with the intention of gaining control of the council. The basic stance appears to be that we are all incompetent and rates are too high. They must have been reading the blog. They are on the look out for candidates so if you know anyone who would like to be supported in a bid for a council seat, let me know and I will pass on the name. In the meantime the Kapi Mana News is asking councillors if we are going to stand again. Perhaps the new team has announced their intention.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

end of an era

Keith Miller, General Manager Support Services, which means "finance", has left our council after 10 years in the job. He has gone on to the Department of Internal Affairs. John Seddon, former ceo of the council, came and spoke at the farewell function. Many useful insights were given in the speeches. Keith is known for his straight talking advice. I have appreciated it over the years.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

sports and events centre - concern from pauatahanui residents' association

Dear Jenny,
Thanks for yours & Maureen's e-mails. However, rightly or wrongly, there is a perception at large of problems with this project, & Council will have to work hard to address that.

In a recent letter to the Pauatahanui Residents Association you mentioned that by the time the LTCCP plan was adopted the Wellington project had already been increased to 12 Courts at Kilbirnie. But of course when the issue was discussed at a public forum in Porirua, the number of Courts stood at 8, & this was eloquently used by the speaker from Wellington to support the Porirua facility in its entirety & cost. Maybe we are being pedantic, but Council is in the drivers seat here, & it needs to be careful over what it has consulted on with the public & what stacks up with subsequent decisions by Council.

One issue which also arose from that public forum was that sponsorship money would be actively sought, & used to reduce the financial burden on ratepayers. We take this to mean that sponsorship monery will not be used to fund any future costs over $17.5 Million. We trust Council will remember & honour this commitment when it next has to consider funding any further escalation in costs.

Good luck.

Alan Gray
Secretary
Pauatahanui Residents Association
October 22, 2006

three regional parks - good news for us

Porirua City is very fortunate - it has three regional parks within its city boundry. Wellington City has none.

When I was on the Porirua Council many years ago I was very pleased to move the motion that said Whitireia Park should be a regional park. Then, when I was on Greater Wellington, the Regional Council, I moved the motion to accept that Whitireia Park should be a regional park. And now, after waiting for the budget priority to arrive it is all under way. In GW's words they are right now "integrating Whitreia park into the regional park network".

Everything is a "network" today. We do not have groups or collections or lists or clasifications.

There are some things to check out. First, the plan was to have a ranger for Whitireia Park. This would be someone living on the site. Second, the management plan needs to basically maintain the present character of the Park but bring it up to the same high standards as the other regional parks. The budget from memory was $310,000 per year for this ongoing work. Parks do not come cheap!
r
Saturday, October 21, 2006

plimmerton residents association on st andrews road

From: Tim & Lana Sheppard [mailto:timandlana@xtra.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2006 8:02 a.m. To: ' stanley.chesterfield@transit.govt.nz ' Subject: Softly, softly approach reduces speed - why not St Andrew's Rd ?

We've got a Residents' Assn meeting coming up and I'd like to report on progress being made with the continuous speeding and trucks using the kerbside lane in St Andrew's Rd - contrary to the conditions set on Transit by the Environment Court .

You recently sent us the results of the Police speed analysis tubes which confirmed our view that speeding through Plimmerton is prevalent and dangerous. What is being done to enforce the 50kph residential limit? And what is being done to discourage trucks from using the kerbside lane between the Plimmerton and Paremata roundabouts? Yes, most trucks use the centre lane along Mana Esplanade, but practically never on St Andrew’s Rd. At any time you can see northbound trucks moving to the left lane as soon as they reach the Shell station – and similarly with southbound trucks changing lanes only after Goat Point. Transit has clearly never advised truckies the new lane rules apply the whole way between the roundabouts. Six months ago you met with residents and proposed various measures, including VMS to cover the full stretch between the roundabouts (not just the T2 lanes) and driver feedback signs (as have been so successful in Mt Albert Rd and elsewhere). Fixed speed cameras were also proposed.

We understand there was a delay in sourcing the VMS, but please could we have a detailed update on exactly what is being done - and when we can expect to see effective constraints? We're also conscious of the 12-month review of Transit's Mana upgrade. Please can you assure us that there will be local consultation on this? I'm sorry to say that many local residents feel that Transit has done very little to try and comply with the Court conditions and our community has been endangered because of that. We look forward to your timely response please.

A blog is a blog not a newspaper. It is opinion, and ideas, about Porirua City and the Wellington Region. I hope that debate develops and in that way our region becomes smarter and the councils make better decisions. The letters copied here are in their original form, and not the way they were published by the newspaper. Most of the letters were sent to the Kapi Mana News, The Porirua News, The Dominion-Post, the Whitby NewsBrief, or the Northerner. The statements from others are not edited or sanitised. Remember - no attempt is made to ensure there is balanced opinion.

Mayors
W J Brown	1965-1983
J B Burke	1983-1998
J S Brash	1998-Present
Councillors
C S Bell	1965-1965
M R T Down	1965-1965
D McLeod	1965-1965
M Solomon	1965-1965, 1968-1971
B D Hart	1965-1967
R J Archer	1965-1968
L D Ayson	1965-1968
D S Collins	1965-1968
E A S Maxwell	1965-1968
J H Wilson	1965-1968
A E Mexted	1965-1968, 1971-1974, 1980-1983
J J Nixon	1965-1971
T Wineera	1965-1972
W C Arnold	1965-1974
M F Bannerman	1968-1974
R J Willing	1968-1974, 1980-1983
P Katene	1968-1977
E B Taylor	1968-1977
G Te H. Moke	1968-1979
H M Stuart	1968-1980, 1983-1985
A P Dette	1971-1977
E D Nathan	1971-1977
J B Burke	1971-1983
F W Duckworth	1973-1975
K F Gray	1973-1977
A K B Maclean	1973-1977
H M Smith	1973-2001
G W McCormick	1974-1976
O P Church	1974-1977
I A Hardgrave	1974-1989
M Arnold	1974-1992
J G Bennett	1975-1992
P A Jackson	1977-1978
F R Dreyer	1977-1980
A D Te Isaia	1977-1980
T P O’Brien	1977-1980
C A N Beyer	1977-1983
M E Brown	1977-1983
T D Janes	1977-1986
E McKenzie	1977-1986
P J O’Connell	1978-1980
C A Sketchley	1978-1980
M J Goodman	1980-1983
W D Marshall	1980-1983
W Herewini	1980-1985
S Meredith	1980-1986
R Hunter	1983-1986
M J Nolan	1983-1986
W R J Taylor	1983-1988
C A Hudson	1983-1989
N C Peach	1983-1989
J S Brash	1983-1989, 1992-1995
E Annadale	1983-1992
G E Walpole	1985-2001
M M Herewini	1986-1989
T Tuteru	1986-1989
P White	1986-1989
K M Watson	1986-1989, 1995-2004
R J Underhill	1986-2004
M J Henderson	1988-1992
M J Brooks	1989-1992
P J Quin	1989-1992
T S Arthur	1989-1995
G H Ford	1989-1995
N A Palmer	1989-present
M J Woodhouse	1989-2001
E M Matagi	1992-1995
I D Borrie	1992-1998
L K Lepaio	1992-1998
R K Shaw	1992-1998, 2001-present
L P Thomas	1992-1998
S M Dow	1995-present
G I Lavery	1995-2004
D V Stanley	1995-present
K G Douglas	1998-present
M A Gillon	1998-present
J A Green	1998-present
N O Leggett	1998-2004
L L A Ah Hoi	2001-present
T A Waters	2001-present
T C Fagaloa	2004-present
E N Kelly	2004-present
E G Murrell	2004-present
R E Rangi	2004-present

2007 - have your say!

wit of 2006 - our city features in parliament

capitalism works, according to a blog reader

removal of the canopies

ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL

city centre development concerns

local government in porirua city since colonisation

new rule - what does it mean?

new standing orders

chief executive's process on the rates enquiry and local authority funding

newspaper story misleads - takapuwahia

a right mayoral mess - trying to change the standing orders

alteration of standing orders - public access to meetings

rats

new zealand law - people keep asking me questions i cannot answer

christopher returns from iraq

esplanade review

melissa & your $17.5 million

clarity on speed humps at plimmerton

porirua consultation meeting - transport strategy

specifics on plimmerton village strategy problems

meeting on sports and events centre - outcome

consultation on plimmerton village plan

plimmerton residents' association meeting - roads & village plan

next city services committee meeting

kenepuru "hospital" - PREPARE YOURSELF FOR ANOTHER FIGHT

gordon mckenzie on taxes & rates

Letter to Kapi Mana News - THE MIGHTY KEN DOUGLAS

now here is a progressive thought

less bark and more bite please

Council must consult properly

smartlinx 3 - PCC has 10% ownershiip of company

what councillors do

plimmerton beach - removal of power poles

roger bradshaw

Makara/Ohariu Community Board

reform of council processes - councillors and officers

town centre - current problems

emma koch of durham street

move the porirua hospital chapel

eric mckenzie

letter to editor - the public & the council

the ubiquitous andrew bonallack

youth gangs

sports and events centre

whitby residents' association meeting

how does our council establish a better relationship with our community?

Robert Fisk: This was a guilty verdict on America as well

new topic for debate

coronation street

litea 1: jenny 0

pukerua bay road issues - meeting report

local business venture - new zealand technology actually leads the world, but you would never know it

solving the sports and events centre problems

a councillor writes

laugh of the week

sort of right - they see the review as a dirty squabble about who pays and as a chance to grab more money

new zealand institute of economic research - rates review

partnership policy - a long way to go?

We need to get involved

central government review of rates - unpromising start

the pyongyang report by former councillor don borrie is a rational insight into a difficult situation

stemhead lane & arahura crescent

review of new structures after one year of operation, as planned

conflict at, and with, council

human rights commission - funny ideas about what is important

the famous three - problems real and imaginary

mob rule

council retreat

rec centre worries

meeting access

how to turn success into disaster

whitby vodafone tower

annual report

political team - election news

end of an era

sports and events centre - concern from pauatahanui residents' association

three regional parks - good news for us

plimmerton residents association on st andrews road