The persistence game at Tasman District Council

I guess, everybody knows what persistence is. Children want their ice creams, a dog or whatever it may be. They will remind us vigorously about the fact that they really want this or that, that we had promised to go to the pools, get the dog, but not kept to the promise. They may have done their share of the bargain or not.

It really comes down to a critical assessment, including assessing our own behaviour. For that it needs integrity. As parents we carry the responsibility to guide our children, to teach them what is appropriate and what is not. If we made a promise and they remind us of that, are there valid reasons for us to not hold that promise right now? On the other side, am I being a good role model to give in after the third time I am being asked to buy the ice cream? What am I teaching my children by doing that?

Well, I dare say that by giving in simply because someone persistently demands something of me, I teach that my boundaries are weak. I teach that my initial explanation does not mean much, my word is up for negotiation. I do not hold authority over my decisions.

There seems to be certain pattern of persistence when it comes to Council decisions. The Waimea Dam project was voted out in 28 August 2018 in an eight against six vote. Earlier that same year, when public submissions were consulted on as to whether or not including the Waimea Dam into the Long Term Plan, Councillor Greening stated that there had been a "resounding rejection" of that funding model by the community. "Having considered all the submissions and evidence, I do not support this funding model," he said.

Councillor Peter Canton said he believed to support the resolution would be a "snub" in the face of democracy. "Would I die for water? Maybe. Would I die for democracy? Absolutely," Canton said. "So I can't support this because overwhelmingly, our community has said to us that they do not support [it]."

Councillor Anne Turley said consultation had taken place. "We need to give our community the dignity of knowing that we have listened so I won't be supporting it.“

Councillor Dana Wensley said she would like the proposals to go into the LTP but to put them through "carte blanche" would make a "mockery" of the consultation. "Five days of consultation, I didn't hear a community that was happy with that arrangement," she said.

The Stuff article also mentioned “councillors were advised by council staff to put aside matters raised by submitters that were out of scope“.

But then, early September we read the following article:

“The controversial Waimea Dam is back on track after Tasman District councillors changed their minds and voted to continue with a new funding model.

The Tasman District Council met yesterday and voted 9-5 to revoke an in-principle decision it made on August 28 not to continue with the $100 million dam in the Lee Valley near Nelson.

The joint venture with Waimea Irrigators had been voted down the first time because of fears the dam, which would provide water for much of the region, would be too expensive for ratepayers.

Tasman Mayor Richard Kempthorne said on Thursday the decision was overturned after new information was presented to councillors that showed the cost to ratepayers of a $23m increase in the overall project price would be minimised.“

We all know how much the dam has cost the ratepayer so far.

Another example is the Cat Bylaw proposal by staff. On 5 December 2021 we read in the newspaper

“A staff report says the council has received representations that a bylaw requiring the microchipping of cats would assist in managing cat trespass, cat-transferred diseases, domestic cats being attacked by feral cats and threats to native birds”.

However, after a lengthy discussion on Thursday, a majority of elected members on the council’s regulatory committee voted against the proposal for a bylaw and going out for consultation. They agreed instead to a non-regulatory approach to responsible cat management via education. Now, in 2024, the Cat Bylaw is back on the table at the Council eating away finances. Why, we don’t know.

In the last weeks, both Community Boards were asked to reduce their costs by only having 6-weekly meetings or even only every 8 weeks. This suggestion was presented on the Chair’s report.

Golden Bay deputy Chair Grant Knowles who attended last week’s Motueka Community Board, was asked what the reasons were that were brought forward by staff for suggesting such move. He said that the reasoning was to be more in line with Full Council meetings and this was being brought forward multiple times over the years. He personally did not agree to have fewer meetings, but the majority of his board did, so they will give it a go. They could always change their opinion.

The Motueka Community Board was advised that the Local and Democracy Services Team were under resourced and this move would help them to manage their challenges. There was an overwhelming opposition from the public forum, that also included former Board members, as well as from contributions from members of the current board that this was not at all what would support the board’s work. Councillor Maru also added that surely they wouldn’t make a decision on a point on the Chair’s Report. There should be a decision required report. They would however, give feedback to staff. I think this is very reasonable.

What I am very concerned about however, is another very persistent way of bringing a point across. Since October 2023, there is a statement that persistently reappears on the Motueka Community Board agenda in between other points of decisions, without being given the space to decide on the matter separately. Staff provided for the third time since October that the Motueka Community Board is assumed to be under the code of conduct adopted by a previous board.

This was slipped in between an announcement of a workshop on the topic, again when the decision on adopting a draft policy was to be made in March 2024 and again, one month later, in April 2024, when this decision of adopting a draft policy was tabled again as the decision was adjourned back in March.

In October, three members responded to this “little insert“ by requesting their position to be noted in the meeting minutes, namely that the board was not presented with a code, did not table it, did not discuss it, did not vote on it. However, the meeting minutes did not contain this information. Because the in-house advice on the matter differs from LGNZ advice, clarification would be sought.

The March report was not reflecting any clarification, simply stated the same again. The Motueka Community Board is subject to a code adopted by a previous board. If they vote on adopting a new one, the old one would only be replaced.

The problem is, and is well understood by all board members right now, that this ultimately means that this Board is not given the discretion as per Local Government Act to choose whether or not to adopt a code of conduct at all. A complaint was filed with the Chief Executive in March as a report of that nature is, according to the Standing Orders, under responsibility of the Chief Executive. However, her answer was “unwilling to investigate“. Code is in place. Fullstop.

When the Board finally voted on adopting their draft last Tuesday on 16 April, there was no clarification presented on that question. It needs to be said that Full Council passed a resolution on a code of conduct complaint in November 2023, so just after the statement appeared on the Motueka Community Board agenda for the first time. The position of the member subject to the complaint was made clear, namely that the member does not accept that the code which was used to investigate the complaint, was ever adopted by the current board.

A previous article talked about this case at length. Several members of the Motueka Community Board will have a clear conflict of interest in regards to this question, some because they voted on Council’s resolution back in November, others because of their involvement in the case. There could have been a clear statement from the Board to that effect and a clarification that the Board is merely voting on adopting their own code, without making any statements on staff’s position that a code is already in place. But this was not the case.

What is worth noting though is that a request for official information was filed with the Tasman District Council to find out whether the Board’s voting on adopting their own code would also mean they are endorsing the report which was presented to them, namely that they are already bound by a previous board’s code. We were simply given the answer that the request is being refused as this official information does not exist.

We had to contact two further external agencies to find an answer to this question.

In summary, it appears to be a persistence game.