The Auckland super city was supposed to rationalise the bureaucratic waste of 7 councils but ended up replacing them with 21 Local Boards.
A reader sent The BFD a copy of the Kaipatiki Local Board’s draft annual plan. This is the consultation document that the public is supposed to make submissions about spending for the next year. 35 pages of Te Reo tokenism and vague waffle about being “inclusive” and “connected”, it is hardly what I would call a plan.
It identifies “opportunities” and “challenges” in single-line bullet points, lists “initiatives” that “advocate” for “objectives” such as “enhancement”, and concludes by affirming their “commitment” to these “goals”, all without actually telling the reader anything real about the plan. There are no project outlines, cost-benefit analysis, business plans, measurables, KPIs, or substance of any kind to consult on.
Is an “improved aquatic play space” a good idea? I guess anything that is “improved” is a good idea but I don’t actually know what they are planning on doing to improve it. Whether it is a good plan depends on both the detail and the cost.
The only financial information is a single page with no breakdown of the $12 million capital expenditure. I note this figure is twice their revenue, so ratepayers should prepare to dig deep into their future pockets to carry the debt.
The plan could have been written by the Riddler and the Joker. Frankly if this is considered consultation, don’t even bother.
Planning ahead
Councils are busy with annual plans. These are among the most important documents that our elected representatives are involved in, and are a requirement of the Local Government Act.
The plan details the spending in the coming year, and sets the rates to cover that spending. It is the chance for council staff to slip in all the extra millions in funding to cover the shortfalls of the 10-year plan that was decided just two years ago, and to squeeze in surprise new projects while everybody is busy.
If you think I am being cynical, be aware that most councilors will get three days’ notice to process a thousand pages of reports before putting it to the vote. Nobody should be surprised by bad decisions.
Some concerned citizens in Hamilton lobbied last year to get this extended to a massive five days. Councilors supported it but the chief executive (an unelected employee) opposed it, so they settled for four days. Yet council staff have already slipped back to just two days for recent meetings.
Councils are not allowed to run deficits except in unusual circumstances, so in this covid-environment, expect to see plenty of deficits being racked up with a ready-made excuse.
Our “democracy” requires a public consultation process for submissions. Hamilton City Council announced a 19-day period starting on the 20th of June. Unfortunately, the announcement was on 22nd June (Facebook) for those few that bother to look. By comparison, the Hamilton Gardens Management Plan got a 30-day consultation period, and even had some banners to promote it. Every year it becomes clearer that they really have no interest in public feedback.
