Those are not the signs that are worrying...
I've started as Councillor on four occasions. Twice as a North Shore City Councillor, and twice as an Auckland Regional Councillor. Maybe I see the starts of those terms through rose tinted spectacles (with the exception of my last term at ARC - that was a bit of nightmare - but I won't go into that....)
Each three year term started with significant public debate and discussion about the term, and about the year ahead. There were opportunities for councillors - some new, some old timers - to share ideas and generally get the measure of each other. Testing times. But there was a genuine direction-setting process.
You will recall that the first term of the supercity there was a lot of this (2010 and 2011). NZ Herald covered those times comprehensively. There was a high degree of public interest and engagement.
What is worrying is that we are not seeing that this term.
Here's what the Mayor told a public meeting on the North Shore a few weeks ago:
"...One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget. I’ve talked to thousands of Aucklanders over the past few months. People want to be assured that we’re doing everything to keep rates low while keeping a close eye on debt and making thoughtful, strategic investment in infrastructure, which has been neglected and underfunded for so long. As Aucklanders, we need to have a discussion about funding – what funding mechanisms are acceptable to us for the infrastructure shortfall, how we could utilise public private partnerships, and possible sponsorship agreements for day-to-day operations, such as our swimming pools. Fairness is critical to the new Auckland, and I know some of the changes we have faced have not seemed fair to some communities. Berm mowing and rates are two examples. Auckland City was the only former council which mowed berms. We faced the decision between saving $3 million to cease mowing, bringing the area into line with the rest of Auckland or spending an additional $12-$15 million to mow all Auckland berms. We needed to consider what was fair practice and what was the fairest and best use of our finances. Moving to a single, region wide rating system was a challenge that would face the first Mayor and council of all Auckland, irrespective of the people in the hot seats. Properties of equal value being rated on an equal footing is the principle, but I acknowledge it hasn’t felt equitable for many people on the North Shore in the transition from a land-value based rating system to a capital value based rating system. Uneven impact of the change is why we asked the government to enable us to have a three-year transition period. The first term of Auckland Council has been a big step forward – never has there been so much debate about our future direction as well as so much real progress. The second term will be no less significant as we make real progress towards making Auckland the world’s most liveable city...."
There's not a lot in there that you might take exception to.
Not a lot in there to get excited about either. No mention of debt. But it starts with this line:
"One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget...."
Look more closely:
"One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget...."
When Mai Chen delivered her Auckland Conversation a couple of weeks ago, she reported feedback from 50 or so conversations she'd had. What people liked and disliked about the supercity. Interestingly there were strong views expressed about the Mayor's Office. Strong likes and strong dislikes.
As an aside I note that Doug McKay did not agree with Mai Chen's assessment that all the foundational work stemming from amalgamation was done - and that now it's onward and upward. McKay considers that there is more foundational work to do....
In the first supercity term I my observation is that Councillors and Council and Mayor only really engaged with Auckland issues when they were forced to by public pressure. For example the Unitary Plan and density planning, and Ports expansion proposals. Public interest forced Council to function like a Council, councillors needed to inform themselves, understand local concerns, take considered positions, and then work together as a team to arrive at decisions. Local media were there to see the debate, report it, and keep the public informed as it progressed.
Democracy in action. Might not be perfect. But it's what we have to work with.
Imperfections in the Council process include councillors who make statements that are designed to attract media attention rather than contribute to a consensus decision. That's politics, part of the political process. Noisy and opinionated. When issues first arise, or begin to attract public attention, then councillors come from many points of view. Some are informed, but appear not to be, others are uninformed but act is if they know what they are talking about. Again, all part of the process, par for the course.
My worry about the Mayor's office is that unless there is evidence of public interest and pressure, the mayor's office will maintain a low profile, and will do only what it needs to do, to nurse decisions through the democratic process. There are all sorts of arguments for this - some felt, some stated, sometimes true, sometimes not true:
- Council meetings take time and waste time
- Councillors use the opportunity to make statements that might embarrass the Council
- Councillors add little to what skilled officers recommend
- Council meetings are organised chaos
- Council meetings are risky because they are hard to control and predict
- Councillors are a liability
- Look for opportunities to delegate decision-making to officers.
- Avoid collective decision-making if possible - by getting officers to work with key councillors on a one-one basis beforehand - so the decision is effectively made before the meeting.
- Avoid public debate of contentious items.
- Avoid contentious items.
The problem that I see emerging is that the Mayor's office is turning itself into the meat in the sandwich between Central Government and Council. It's neither one thing nor the other.
This was certainly the case toward the end of the last term. We see the fruits of that in the Ernst and Young paper on PPP's, and the Mayor talking about that idea, after the election, and before having a formative debate about that controversial issue with his new Council. What's going on here? Are we being treated to a kiwi version of Tony Blair's Third Way? Is that on the table? What's the purpose of having 20 councillors?
This challenge and process needs to be brought out into the open more. Transparency required.
And just as the Mayor needs to rebuild trust with the wider Auckland community, he needs to be building a political relationship with his new team of councillors, and in doing so, enabling them to build political relationships with each other. That takes work and effort and focus.
The benefits include more public understanding too.
That doesn't happen with a single one-on-one chat after the election and the allocation of Chair and Deputy Chair roles. I would like to see the emergence of a collective leadership approach at Auckland Council. This needs to be led and facilitated. A good start would be the formation of some sort of leadership team between the Mayor and his key Chairs.
It is not a happy sign that Mayoral papers, reports, agendas and suchlike descend into the attention of Councillors, and appear on their tables, at the very meeting they are to be debated and decided.
These worries need attention to avoid more questions about who/what really controls Council.
The time has passed when meaningless statements like...."making Auckland the world’s most liveable city...." will pass for leadership. Sure given recent events it might be hard to front up and show leadership. But it is not good enough to rely on faceless political bureaucrats to develop your leadership position and to write your leadership statements. Now is the time to work with your varied team of councillors, who do want the best for our city, who - given the chance and the space - can be encouraged to work as a team, and build the city's political leadership in public.
No comments:
Post a Comment