Tag Archives: Representation

Vandervis apologises to Mayor Cull #councilpowerplays

vandervis-mayor-cull-dcc-2[DCC profiles]

█ Refer to the Agenda for the Council meeting on Tuesday 25 October 2016.

Dave Cull initially offered highest vote scoring councillor Lee Vandervis the chairship of Hearings as well as two deputy chair positions in Infrastructure and in the Bylaws and Regulatory area. Cr Vandervis turned these down thinking Hearings would lie outside Council. However, Cr Vandervis received encouragement from various colleagues to pursue what was offered…. After receiving clarification from senior staff the councillor wrote an apology to Mayor Cull in the hope of securing the positions. We await further news.

Mayor – Dave Cull
Deputy Mayor – Cr Chris Staynes

Mayor Cull says (via the Agenda and associated reports):

COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

6. I establish the following Committees as committees of the whole:
a) Finance and Council Controlled Organisations
b) Community and Culture
c) Infrastructure Services and Networks
d) Planning and Environment
e) Economic Development.

7. I further establish the following Subcommittees, with some membership to be confirmed:
a) Hearings Subcommittee (directly to Council)
b) Bylaws Subcommittee (directly to Council)
c) Audit and Risk Subcommittee (directly to Council)
d) Grants Subcommittee (reporting to Community and Culture)
e) CEO Appraisal Subcommittee. (directly to Council)

CHAIRS AND DEPUTY CHAIRS FOR COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

Committees

Finance and CCOs
Chair: Cr Mike Lord | Deputy Chair: Cr Doug Hall

Community and Culture
Chair: Cr Aaron Hawkins | Deputy Chair: Cr Rachel Elder, Cr Marie Laufiso

Infrastructure Services and Networks
Chair: Cr Kate Wilson | Deputy Chair: Cr Jim O’Malley

Planning and Environment
Chair: Cr David Benson-Pope | Deputy Chair: Cr Damian Newell, Cr Conrad Stedman

Economic Development
Chair: Cr Chris Staynes | Deputy Chair: Cr Andrew Whiley, Cr Christine Garey

Subcommittees

Hearings
Chair: [Cr Kate Wilson] | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

Bylaws
Chair: Cr Andrew Whiley | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

Grants
Chair: Cr Aaron Hawkins | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

Audit and Risk
Chair: To be confirmed but an independent member | Deputy Chair: To be confirmed

CEO Appraisal
Chair: The Mayor | Deputy Chair: Cr Chris Staynes

8. I have made the following Councillor appointments to Community Boards:
Mosgiel Taieri Community Board – Cr Mike Lord
Strath Taieri Community Board – Cr Christine Garey
West Harbour Community Board – Cr Aaron Hawkins
Saddle Hill Community Board – Cr Conrad Stedman
Otago Peninsula Community Board – Cr Andrew Whiley
Waikouaiti Coast Community Board – Cr Jim O’Malley

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION – BRIEFING FOR THE INAUGURAL COUNCIL MEETING 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Clause 21 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that, at the inaugural meeting of the Council and Community Boards following the triennial election, the Chief Executive Officer must provide a general explanation of the following legislation:
a) The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987;
b) The Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968;
c) Sections 99, 105 and 105A of the Crimes Act 1961;
d) The Secret Commissions Act 1910; and
e) The Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:
a) Notes the advice regarding key legislation that applies to members of Council, its Committees and Community Boards.

Related Council report
[worth skimming the discussion of each Act as it applies to Councillors]

****

Fri, 21 Oct 2016
ODT: Rejected position; apology ensued
The Dunedin City Council’s committee appointments may be in for a change before they have even been approved, after Cr Lee Vandervis refused a role then realised it could have been “an acceptable position after all”. Cr Vandervis apologised to Mayor Dave Cull after realising a hearings committee role he had declined “as a sop to council involvement” was in fact a more responsible appointment. But by that time, the role had been changed and offered to another councillor. Cont/

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

6 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Infrastructure, Media, Name, People, Politics, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Town planning, What stadium

DCC encourages Election Candidates

FYI Dunedin Issue 41 July 2016 (PDF, 251.1 KB)

DCC FYI Issue 41 July 2016 Chief Executives Desk

DCC FYI Issue 41 July 2016 Call for Candidates (1)

Read online or source back copies at:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/fyi-dunedin

█ HOT PRESS.— Fees and Charges
Most DCC fees and charges will rise by an average of 3% from 1 July.

IMPORTANT DATES
Nominations for candidates open Friday, 15 July and close 12 noon on Friday, 12 August.

ENROLMENT TO VOTE
Check your enrolment details online at www.elections.org.nz or at any NZ Post Shop.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: screenshots by whatifdunedin

99 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, What stadium

Dunedin City: Representation Review determination

Received.
Friday, April 08, 2016 11:04 AM

From: Donald Riezebos [mailto: Donald.Riezebos @dia.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Mick Lester (HDC); Belinda Smith Lyttle; Brian Miller; Carissa Cooper; Chalmers Community Board; Colin Weatherall; Geraldine Tait; Leanne Stenhouse; Martin Dillon; Moira Parker; Mosgiel Taieri Community Board; Otago Peninsula Community Board; Saddle Hill Community Board; Strath Taieri Community Board; Sue O’Neill; Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee; Waikouaiti Coast Community Board
Subject: Local Government Commission Representation Review Determination – Dunedin City

Attached is a copy of the Local Government Commission’s representation review determination for Dunedin City, along with our media release. These are embargoed until 11.00am at which time the media will be advised.

Regards

Donald Riezebos | Principal Advisor
Local Government Commission Mana Kawanatanga a Rohe

Media Release
8 April 2016

Commission announces decision on representation arrangements for Dunedin City Council

The Local Government Commission today announced its decision on the Dunedin City Council’s membership and ward arrangements for the 2016 local elections.

The Council had proposed that:
• The council be elected at large (rather than from wards)
• The number of councillors remain at 14
• The boundaries of the Chalmers, Otago Peninsula, Saddle Hill and Waikouaiti Coast Community Boards be altered by transferring two areas between communities and excluding other areas from communities altogether
• A Rural Taieri Community Board be established comprising the Strath Taieri Community Board’s area and the rural part of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board’s area

There were 16 appeals against the Council’s proposal.

After hearing from the Council and the appellants the Commission has decided to:
• uphold the Council’s proposal for the Council to be elected at large
• retain the existing community board system (apart from renaming the Chalmers Community Board as the West Harbour Community Board and two boundary alterations).

The boundary alterations are the transfer of an area above Sawyers Bay from Waikouaiti Coast Community to West Harbour Community and the transfer of Quarantine Island from West Harbour Community to Otago Peninsula Community.

The Council’s representation arrangements for the 2016 local elections will therefore be as follows:
• A Mayor and 14 councillors elected from the City as a whole
• Six community boards as follows:

Strath Taieri Community Board
Waikouaiti Coast Community Board
Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board
Saddle Hill Community Board
West Harbour Community Board
Otago Peninsula Community Board

• Each community board will have six members and one councillor appointed to the board by the Council

The determination is available on the Commission’s website: http://www.lgc.govt.nz

Summary of the Representation Review process

Councils are required by law to undertake a representation review every six years. The following is a brief outline of the process:

• The Council makes its proposal
• The Council invites submissions on its proposal
• The Council considers submissions and makes a final proposal
• People can object to or appeal against the proposal to the Local Government Commission
• The Commission may hold an appeals hearing
• The Commission makes and releases its Determination

Ends

Media contacts:
Donald Riezebos | Principal Advisor | Local Government Commission
Simon Cunliffe | Communications Advisor | Local Government Commission

Downloads:
4549539DA – Blank Document [Determination 7.4.16]
Dunedin City – Media Release

Related Post and Comments:
11.6.15 DCC representation review

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

33 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Resource management

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board threatened with demise

Received from Maurice Prendergast
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 at 12:32 a.m.

[Undated email by excerpt. -Eds]

From: Maurice Prendergast
To: Bill [Feather]
 
In response to your e-mail below in which you seek feedback from Board members on the recommendation of the Representation Review team, I offer my comments as described below.
 
Effective representation and fair representation; while enshrined in legislation, are really just haughty ‘weasel words’ because while members may masquerade during election campaign as being representative of a particular catchment/community; once elected they can freely abandon their ‘fine principles’ and commit their loyalties to quite alien causes. Case in point: Rural electors who thought they would be effectively and fairly represented by a rural Councillor/ representative of the huge City hinterland found that same Councillor voting to remove their one precious budget consideration (the seal extension budget) and curiously voted for the same amount of funding to favour the provision of cycleways. Conclusion: there is no discipline that binds elected members to the principles of fair and/or effective representation. Cr Wilson has demonstrably personified this. This segment of Local Body law should be removed and pronounced unworkable.
 
Number of Councillors: The most effective Councils since re-organisation in 1989 were those with 21 and 18 councillors. Why? Enhanced salaries for (presumed) talented chairmen of Committees generates a ‘dash for cash’. Currently (at 14 Councillors) the mayor ‘cabals’ by having guaranteed loyalty from his six Committee Chairmen whose salary he has enhanced by bestowing upon them lavishly paid Chairmanships; thus securing an implied loyalty to the Mayor (or be sacked). Peter Chin introduced this draconian practice. When I was Deputy Mayor back in the mid-nineties the Mayor (Turner) relied on trust and appointed for three years. Peter Chin changed that to annual reviews – just to stop his footmen straying from loyalty to him I guess. So having secured six avaricious troopers, on any given issue he can be sure of six votes plus his own (7) which curiously is half of 14 and in the event of a tied vote he can exercise his casting vote to get across the line. That is what is so magical about the number 14, and that is why it will be strenuously defended (or even reduced). So a decision to have only 14 Councillors gives the Mayor a guarantee that he will preside over his ‘Fiefdom’ This was never possible when (say) there was 18/20 elected members. There was always up to 14 and then 12 (when the number dropped to 18 Councillors) who were not ‘tainted’ by having accepted gratuities from the Mayor. In a perverse way this always guaranteed honourable behaviour and reasoned decision making by Council and ‘debt laden vanity projects’ never saw the light of day. I don’t expect a ‘buy-in’ from the public at large because the rank and file electors (largely) don’t like Councillors, and if there were more I would anticipate an ‘uninformed’ revolt – which is a pity because this would be guaranteed means of discipline. But my analysis is that an addition of (say) six more ‘back-bench’ councillors at (say) $50,000 per annum, ($300,000) would be about the best investment the ratepayers could have made in the recent past. And the remedy is staring us in the face. Who was that philosopher who said “those who ignore their history shall be condemned by it”. The exercise of power that currently burdens us in debt is the product of having insufficient disaffected/ unsullied members – members who have retained the capacity not to be corrupted.
 
Community Boards: I am ambivalent about the Review Team’s proposal. Community Boards have never worked as expected by the Commissioner when established in 1989, and while I have served on six or seven Boards during the 35 year life of the ‘new City’, with the exception of the Strath Taieri Board it has been an unrewarding experience. The Boards suffer from not having any decision making authority and consequently suffer from having no sense of purpose. Initially each Board was granted $2000 per annum (euphemistically referred to by the CEO of the day as ‘drop dead’ money) – such was his limited respect for the function of the Boards and intended for the most menial of chores like keeping the toilet paper and light bulbs up to their community Halls etc. Then a Committee/Working Party was established to review the function of Boards with power to decide – a committee stacked with Community Board members and unsurprisingly the annual grant went from $2000 to $10,000 pa; but this change was not intended for any particular purpose. Without any strict purpose set down for these funds it has often generated an exercise in a kind of cronyism where conflicts of interest seemed to flourish. The distribution of these funds is attended by a set of criteria which is carefully described as ‘Guidelines’. Of course nobody can be nailed for imprudent expenditure of these funds because their distribution is bound by the discretionary word ‘Guidelines’. I attempted to get some kind of discipline on board at a recent Board meeting by changing the operative word Guidelines to a more disciplined caption ‘Rules’ but I did not even get the support of a seconder for my motion. Therefore every other member seemed to be comfortable with the freedom of having no rules associated with this ratepayer funded slush fund, and this kind of caballing is in my view why the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board is being abolished. I cannot raise an argument against that recommendation. E&0E)
 
Sincerely,
 
Maurice Prendergast
 
————

From: Bill Feather
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 3:10 p.m.
To: Sarah Nitis; Martin Dillon ; Maurice Prendergast; Blackie Catlow; Mark Willis
Subject: Representatation Review
 
Good afternoon all,

You each will have received a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Hearing panel released last evening. If not a copy of the report is attached.

The Council are to consider this report at an extraordinary meeting on Monday 15th June at which a number of Community Board Chairs including myself will attend.

I am interested to gauge the feeling of the community over the Review Panel’s recommendations and would like for you to forward to me your assessment of community support or otherwise that you learn of over the next day or two for the recommendations under consideration. The media broke the news this morning in the ODT and are planning a follow-up in more detail in either tomorrow or Saturday’s edition.

Your thoughts are important please respond earliest.

Regards

Bill

[Bill Feather, Chairman, Mosgiel Taieri Community Board]

Related Post and Comments:
11.6.15 DCC representation review

█ For more, enter the term *mosgiel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

34 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, What stadium

DCC representation review

Updated post Thu, 11 Jun 2015 at 11:10 p.m.

DCClogo_landscape (1)

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Representation Review Report Released

This item was published on 10 Jun 2015

The Representation Review Team has completed its review and will discuss its findings with the Dunedin City Council at an extraordinary Council meeting on Monday.

The independent panel reviewed the Council’s representation arrangements after hearing people’s views on the structure we have for electing representatives, whether we have the right number of Councillors and how our wards and community boards meet the needs of our communities.

The Representation Review Team’s recommendations include that the Council be elected at large (which means there would no longer be wards and Councillors would be voted for by all residents) and that the number of Councillors remains at 14.

The Review Team recommends several changes to community boards, such as establishing a Rural Community Board to cover the Strath Taieri and Taieri rural communities. It recommends adjusting the boundaries of Chalmers, Otago Peninsula, Saddle Hill and Waikouaiti Coast Community Boards and reducing the number of elected members on each community board from six to four. The Council would continue to appoint a Councillor to each board. 

Review Team Chair Associate Professor Janine Hayward says, “The Review Team is grateful to everyone who participated in this process. We heard from many people from all parts of Dunedin with a wide range of views and perspectives. It is heartening to see how highly people value our local democracy. We encourage everyone to continue to participate in the next phase of consultation also.”

Members of the Review Team will be present at Monday’s meeting to discuss their recommendations with the Council, which will then agree on a proposal that will go out for public consultation.

Councils are required by law to look at their representation arrangements on a regular basis.

The other Review Team members are Len Cook, Paulette Tamati-Elliffe and Mayor Dave Cull.

Report – Council – 15/06/2015 (PDF, 8.6 MB)

Report – Council – 15/06/2015 – low resolution (PDF, 1.9 MB)

Contact Associate Professor Janine Hayward, Representation Review Team Chair on 03 479 8666.

DCC Link

### ODT Online Thu, 11 Jun 2015
Wards’ abolition proposed
By Shawn McAvinue
Dunedin city’s three wards should be abolished and council candidates should vie for the votes of every resident, a team including Mayor Dave Cull has recommended. Under the plan, the number of community boards would be cut from six to five, with fewer members on each board.
Read more

Is this really the end of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board ?? The board with the mostest…. conflicts of interest, and greatest propensity to misuse city council grants ?? HAPPY DAYS.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

88 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Economics, Fun, Geography, LGNZ, Media, New Zealand, People, Politics, What stadium

DCC Representation: LEGAL to remove ELECTED Councillor voting rights ??

Comments received today:

Anonymous
Submitted on 2015/05/02 at 2:07 pm

Discussion - DCC representation 2.5.15(Anonymous)

Anonymous
Submitted on 2015/05/02 at 8:11 p.m.

Discussion - loss of representation 2.5.15 (Anonymous)

Dunedin City Council
Councillor Lee Vandervis has had his voting rights removed for two months:

Meeting of the Dunedin City Council on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 at 1:00 PM, Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers

Agenda – Council – 28/04/2015 (PDF, 96.6 KB)

Report – Council – 28/04/2015 (PDF, 172.7 KB)
Conduct Committee Report to Council

Resolutions passed at meeting of Dunedin City Council 28.4.15 (14. Conduct Committee Report to Council)

█ Download: Conduct Committee Resolution 28 April 2015

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

9 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Economics, New Zealand, OAG, People, Police, Politics, SFO, What stadium

DCC Representation Review: Electoral wards and boundaries

### ODT Online Tue, 23 Sep 2014
Central ward questioned
By Chris Morris
Dunedin could consider scrapping its central ward – and even the need for some councillors – as part of a shake-up of its local body electoral system. However, exactly what – if anything – will replace the current arrangements remains up for debate, as the council searches for panel members to consider the alternatives. Dunedin’s representation review was required by law this term, but councillors at yesterday’s full council meeting voted to extend the deadline for recruiting panel members until November 3.
Read more

Report – Council – 22/09/2014 (PDF, 77.3 KB)
Representation Review – Update on Appointment of Review Team

DCC Ward and Community Board Maps 2013

[click to enlarge]
2013 Central Ward Boundary Map2013 Mosgiel Taieri Ward Boundary map2013 Waikouaiti Coast-Chalmers Ward Boundary map

Related Posts and Comments:
26.6.14 LGNZ #blaggardliars
29.9.13 Alert: Dunedin voters —Mayors gain more powers
17.7.13 Dunedin, ‘small government’ —Calvert
8.6.13 DCC electoral candidates 2013
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
31.1.13 Who? 2010 electioneering
24.9.12 DCC against imposition of local government reforms
25.7.12 Local government change: council rates, core services, efficiencies
19.3.12 Local government reform
30.11.11 amalgamation, Anyone?
9.8.11 CRITICAL Dunedin City Council meeting #LarsenReport
26.3.10 Dunedin City moves to three-ward system
16.6.09 ‘Super ward’ + Stevenson chasing votes over apology (ODT)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, What stadium