Grace Ayling, a new councillor on Carterton District Council, has felt the heavy hand of management aided by go along to get along councillors - as my father used to call them call “seat warmers and seconders of motion”
To give the contrary view, in some cases Councillors arrive with no prior knowledge or expertise and don't bother taking the time to learn before trying to get pet projects and impractical solutions implemented by "staff" who actually have valid expertise & institutional knowledge to inform their pushback. AND 3 year election cycles which can drastically flip the ideology & focus of the body of Councillors can be both distruptive and $$ costly to ratepayers with projects being dropped after a lot of time & money has been expended, etc.
My point is, there needs to be a balance against the hubris of either side. It certainly seems absurd for the ELECTED members to be so totally constrained, so the pendulum has swung too far in those instances shared by you & the other commenters. I would like to think a middle ground would allow for robust debate (no needs for insults though!) & alternative views from all involved, but in the end elected members have to have the final say as they are the only ones accountable directly to their ratepayers. Paid staff can resign & tell the public WHY they can't/won't implement any particular decision(s) if they feel that strongly, and of course stay & record their dissent if not.
I have experience on both sides of the fence both as an elected member (presently) and also as a council staff member of many years, and have seen the consequences of the pendulum swinging too far one way or other. Either staff feel unappreciated and untrusted (I have been there), or elected members can feel taken for granted and/or held with contempt (which is my situation now). In my opinion, it is significantly up to firm leadership from the Mayor and elected members (i.e. the ones elected to represent the wishes of the people) to get this balance right, because they can by majority decree change the way things are done. Staff will in general only do what they think is the right thing to do, with the powers granted to them. Elected members can change the balance of power under the Local Government Act, staff do not have this ability.
Thanks for this - I would just like to amend "firm leadership" to "firm but fair" in my ideal scenario, as unfortunately we are dealing with humans who sometimes get a bit arrogant with "power"!
Oh how this article speaks to my heart. I was an elected member of the Far North District Council last Term and felt bullied by the staff more often then not! Especially by senior and management staff. I decided not to stand again due to this imbalance.
As a long time ex council employee,, this really rings true. Maybe councillors have a pet cause when voted on about which they are a bit active, but otherwise they tend to do what council staff tell them to. And council staff as a group tend to be strongly ideological.
I am a Councillor in Taupo (and also happen to be an ex council staffer from a long way back in another district) and this article rings so very true, in fact I have been putting out my own social media posts to Taupo locals informing them that this is how it really works in practice. But Chris you make a sweeping statement that I am not so sure about: “Operational” matters are the CEO’s preserve – and councillors are legally forbidden from adopting a “hands-on” approach to the governance of their city." Provided that an elected member has the requisite health & safety training etc, it is my perception that there is nothing stopping an elected member receiving the delegated authority to empty roadside rubbish bins if they so wish (except the other elected members who vote against it). Admittedly this is a an extreme example and quite possibly wrong, but a more realistic one is say for the application of broken yellow lines in a roadway. Some Councils give delegated authority to elected members only, before these can be installed and be legally enforceable. Others just delegate this to council staff. So what is defined as "operational" and what is defined as "governance", is really quite subjective. And it is foolhardy in the extreme to actually believe that reports prepared by staff and presented to elected members for approval are unbiased and objective - for that is a key flawed assumption of this operational/governance divide ideology.
Lots of anecdata in this opinion piece. Is there robust analysis we can cite in support of your thesis? e.g. exactly how many councils has these 'democracy managers', what are the job titles used, etc.
This is not an academic paper, Andrew, it's a post based upon what I have been told and what I have observed over many years covering the strengths and weaknesses of democracy in New Zealand. If it's footnotes and citations you're looking for, then I suggest you consult the academic literature.
For a more academic analysis, one would think that an institution like Local Government New Zealand would be the most obvious to undertake. However, my observation is that LGNZ is more interested in applying top down direction to Councils from Central Government and other international interests. Most Councils pay them for this privilege, when LGNZ should instead be representing the interests of ratepayers.
Excellent article Chris. That is exactly what is happening in the Western Bay of Plenty District Council.
Grace Ayling, a new councillor on Carterton District Council, has felt the heavy hand of management aided by go along to get along councillors - as my father used to call them call “seat warmers and seconders of motion”
To give the contrary view, in some cases Councillors arrive with no prior knowledge or expertise and don't bother taking the time to learn before trying to get pet projects and impractical solutions implemented by "staff" who actually have valid expertise & institutional knowledge to inform their pushback. AND 3 year election cycles which can drastically flip the ideology & focus of the body of Councillors can be both distruptive and $$ costly to ratepayers with projects being dropped after a lot of time & money has been expended, etc.
My point is, there needs to be a balance against the hubris of either side. It certainly seems absurd for the ELECTED members to be so totally constrained, so the pendulum has swung too far in those instances shared by you & the other commenters. I would like to think a middle ground would allow for robust debate (no needs for insults though!) & alternative views from all involved, but in the end elected members have to have the final say as they are the only ones accountable directly to their ratepayers. Paid staff can resign & tell the public WHY they can't/won't implement any particular decision(s) if they feel that strongly, and of course stay & record their dissent if not.
I have experience on both sides of the fence both as an elected member (presently) and also as a council staff member of many years, and have seen the consequences of the pendulum swinging too far one way or other. Either staff feel unappreciated and untrusted (I have been there), or elected members can feel taken for granted and/or held with contempt (which is my situation now). In my opinion, it is significantly up to firm leadership from the Mayor and elected members (i.e. the ones elected to represent the wishes of the people) to get this balance right, because they can by majority decree change the way things are done. Staff will in general only do what they think is the right thing to do, with the powers granted to them. Elected members can change the balance of power under the Local Government Act, staff do not have this ability.
Thanks for this - I would just like to amend "firm leadership" to "firm but fair" in my ideal scenario, as unfortunately we are dealing with humans who sometimes get a bit arrogant with "power"!
Oh how this article speaks to my heart. I was an elected member of the Far North District Council last Term and felt bullied by the staff more often then not! Especially by senior and management staff. I decided not to stand again due to this imbalance.
What a crooked world we live in.
As a long time ex council employee,, this really rings true. Maybe councillors have a pet cause when voted on about which they are a bit active, but otherwise they tend to do what council staff tell them to. And council staff as a group tend to be strongly ideological.
I am a Councillor in Taupo (and also happen to be an ex council staffer from a long way back in another district) and this article rings so very true, in fact I have been putting out my own social media posts to Taupo locals informing them that this is how it really works in practice. But Chris you make a sweeping statement that I am not so sure about: “Operational” matters are the CEO’s preserve – and councillors are legally forbidden from adopting a “hands-on” approach to the governance of their city." Provided that an elected member has the requisite health & safety training etc, it is my perception that there is nothing stopping an elected member receiving the delegated authority to empty roadside rubbish bins if they so wish (except the other elected members who vote against it). Admittedly this is a an extreme example and quite possibly wrong, but a more realistic one is say for the application of broken yellow lines in a roadway. Some Councils give delegated authority to elected members only, before these can be installed and be legally enforceable. Others just delegate this to council staff. So what is defined as "operational" and what is defined as "governance", is really quite subjective. And it is foolhardy in the extreme to actually believe that reports prepared by staff and presented to elected members for approval are unbiased and objective - for that is a key flawed assumption of this operational/governance divide ideology.
Lots of anecdata in this opinion piece. Is there robust analysis we can cite in support of your thesis? e.g. exactly how many councils has these 'democracy managers', what are the job titles used, etc.
This is not an academic paper, Andrew, it's a post based upon what I have been told and what I have observed over many years covering the strengths and weaknesses of democracy in New Zealand. If it's footnotes and citations you're looking for, then I suggest you consult the academic literature.
For a more academic analysis, one would think that an institution like Local Government New Zealand would be the most obvious to undertake. However, my observation is that LGNZ is more interested in applying top down direction to Councils from Central Government and other international interests. Most Councils pay them for this privilege, when LGNZ should instead be representing the interests of ratepayers.