Comment
Boxed out
What is to be done with the rabble? The ratepayers who disagree? Residents, who challenge decisions? The general public who resists the arbitrary judgement of government institutions? What of the poor and marginalized who must go about their day with more urgent challenges in front of them? Or those who merely question the collective wisdom of the elected (governors) and the bureaucrats (the executive) tasked with getting things done? Those who push back against rules they don’t understand?
Some rural boards and councils simply endure it. Some ignore them. Others sue their naysayers into submission. Shire Hall has another idea. Box them out. And call it efficiency.
Before Christmas, Shire Hall posted a list of procedural changes it wants Council to approve in February. Time-limited meetings. Fewer deputations. Fewer comments. Less debate. Less talking.
Council must reject it all. Or surrender their seats to those who will.
It is hard to comprehend how some of these proposals saw the light of day. Just three deputations—public presentations to council—per meeting? Thirty minutes of comments? How will they choose who gets to speak? First come, first speak? A lottery? Or will it be left to the whim of the executive? Or the newly empowered mayor and their deputy?
The muzzles aren’t limited to the public. They have been engineered to stifle council members too. Elected representatives will be permitted one question and one followup under the proposed rules. Imagine an issue arising with Wellington’s waterworks, yet its lone representative is permitted a single question and a follow-up. It is wrong and must be rejected.
But there’s more: A new deputy mayor will be appointed who will preside over every meeting in which the mayor is absent. Both the mayor and his deputy will be vested with broad new powers to curtail deputations, questions or debate. To ensure members’ obedience.
No questions will be permitted to staff during deputations. No member shall be permitted to speak until recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may refuse to put a motion to a vote. The presiding officer may restrain members who don’t follow the rules.
The terms obey, curtail and restrain are spelled out in black and white in the proposed draft. Perhaps council members (the governance layer) are the real target of this thick blanket of suppression?
As a package, it is a horrifying attack on democratic speech that would make North Korea’s Kim Jong Un blush. It seeks to undermine and overturn basic notions of representative government—that we speak up when we, or our representatives, feel we are headed in the wrong direction.
Perhaps the greatest insult to Council and voters is that these rules didn’t arise from the grassroots. There is no constituency that has been clamouring for more efficient meetings. Nor has Council—or a subsection of councillors—been mulling over the length of sessions either.
No, the new provisions to curtail and restrain debate and demand obeyance were produced from the mind of a lone consultant— contracted by Shire Hall. You paid for this.
Shire Hall leadership may counter that its online shouting wall—Have Your Say—is a sufficient pathway to enable residents, ratepayers and the public to ventilate their grievances. It is not. It does have the advantage of walling off the malcontents into a dark corner. To be more easily ignored. That’s it.
As of Monday, just seven folks had commented on the proposed changes to the procedural bylaw. Even on publicly contentious issues, few use this online tool. Nor do ham-handed surveys give voice to the genuine concerns in this community. Instead, they serve only as cattle chutes meant to herd the public to a predetermined outcome.
Unsure about that? Consider the survey presented to waterworks customers last November. One of the 12 questions asked if the customer preferred full funding for the massive borrowing program to be repaid in 10 years or 14 years. No other options. No context to help explain the consequences of each choice. There was no explanation why other terms weren’t considered. It was a useless and self-serving bit of democratic theatre.
Perhaps the greatest indictment of this method of assessing resident feedback came from Shire Hall’s Chief Administrative Officer Marcia Wallace during the water rate discussion. The County manager cautioned council members not to rely on survey data to base their decisions.
“Frankly, we had a low response rate on the survey,” said Wallace in the water rates meeting. “It is worrisome to rely on a few people” [to make this decision]. Wallace added that Shire Hall’s leadership team was looking at a broader strategy—politely nudging Council to put its stamp on the rate hike and leave the bigger thinking to Shire Hall. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Therein lies the problem. Tension always exists between the governing and executive branches of government. Too often, past councils have been caught up with basic competence issues or a misunderstanding of their role. Neither is true of this council. Yet, whether due to Covid or other forces, they have conceded far too much to the executive— its managers.
In this election year, we need to talk about this.
Good decision. Why would a Councilor abstain however?
There is no requirement for taxpayers to pay one cent. Council delivered on this one.
Council got this one right!
Good on Council on rejecting $250,000 of taxpayers dollars for a private business interest.
Completely agree with your comments, and I’m surprised more members of the community haven’t spoken up. And, Have Your Say is not a helpful, user friendly site for community input. I don’t understand what my age is, or how I identify, has to do with my opinion as a voter/taxpayer ( I do, however, understand the data mining potential value but object to using this as as a platform for doing that). Presumably the idea is to weed out comments from non residents, but there must be a better, non intrusive way.
Michelle and Fred should read the council agenda a little more closely. In 2011 the County entered into an agreement with the former owner of the property to provide $250,000.00 in development charge credits to the former property owner(s) in exchange for an easement over the property for the boardwalk and the construction of said boardwalk by the owners. The easement was granted, but construction was never started. The current owner has begun construction apparently. The current owner has no need of a development charge credit and has asked the County to consider a cash payment in order to honour the spirit of the original Memorandum of Understanding. The current owner will be responsible for the upkeep of the boardwalk as will any successive owners. The County will assue liability for the boardwalk. The County will be responsible for up to $250,000.00 in construction costs with the owner paying any excess. Seemingly a good portion of this money can be realized from the Development Charges account….around $170,000.00. No plot here. No scheming that I can see.
After reading the agenda for Tuesday’s Council meeting, staff are recommending giving $250,000 of taxpayers money to a business who have the Picton Harbour business for one dollar. Hmmm!
Bizzare proposal. Of particular interest beyond all the wrong with this bylaw, is why the procedure of staff is not included. If staff are presenting a report to Council to pay a business owner $250,000 in lieu of development charges and that business owners relative is employed and supervised by the report author, I believe we have a conflict of interest.
It is a beat down of the public voice. Sooner or later folks get the feeling that nothing they say or do will make any change , like talking to a stone wall. When i do read the voice your opinion I usually feel like what is the point they have already made there minds up. and know what they are about to do, they just want us all to believe we have a voice, and what we say matters to them! There actions speak much louder than our words.