Dysfunction and dissatisfaction appear to pervade many local government councils at the moment. Increasingly, the blame for this is accumulating around the role of the bureaucracy – the unelected officials and consultants, who stand accused of overstepping their mark and becoming the real decision-makers in local democracy.
The comment about "Yes Minister!" is the one I have been thinking since you first brought this up in the newsletter a few days ago. In a much more minor way, for decades I have been in the role of the admin person who provides the elected or appointed person at the top with support - doing research, preparing reports etc. I would NEVER withhold reports & other information from someone who has to make decisions that can be far-reaching, no matter what I thought of their competence or political views. You always hope & expect that if they have the full range of facts & advice that they (and others involved) will come to the right decision for the circumstances. If not, it is on THEM because you have given them every opportunity. The people who elect them/appoint them/employ them can terminate them for unacceptable & wifully wrong decisions, but they have a defence if they were not provided with the information in the first place?
Sadly there is too little real understanding between "governance & operations" in many organisations from small to large, which not only result in poor decisions if information is withheld from decision makers, but also cause tensions & discourage good people for standing for governance positions when they get the ire of the people they represent, but feel they are powerless to make the changes needed.
Thanks for covering this & linking to others doing the same.
This absolutely explains why rate-payers make remits via elected council officers and nothing ever happens to resolve the issues. Yet another anti democratic process in NZ.
Thanks to this Substack to reveal these undemocratic shenanigans. Wouldn’t it be lovely if we had a fourth estate to bring this news to the fore.
The comment about "Yes Minister!" is the one I have been thinking since you first brought this up in the newsletter a few days ago. In a much more minor way, for decades I have been in the role of the admin person who provides the elected or appointed person at the top with support - doing research, preparing reports etc. I would NEVER withhold reports & other information from someone who has to make decisions that can be far-reaching, no matter what I thought of their competence or political views. You always hope & expect that if they have the full range of facts & advice that they (and others involved) will come to the right decision for the circumstances. If not, it is on THEM because you have given them every opportunity. The people who elect them/appoint them/employ them can terminate them for unacceptable & wifully wrong decisions, but they have a defence if they were not provided with the information in the first place?
Sadly there is too little real understanding between "governance & operations" in many organisations from small to large, which not only result in poor decisions if information is withheld from decision makers, but also cause tensions & discourage good people for standing for governance positions when they get the ire of the people they represent, but feel they are powerless to make the changes needed.
Thanks for covering this & linking to others doing the same.
Great article thanks.
How depressing.
Bad news seems to keep being piled on at the moment ha ha...
Again! This speaks to me as a past elected member of the Far North District Council.
But what is the solution?
This absolutely explains why rate-payers make remits via elected council officers and nothing ever happens to resolve the issues. Yet another anti democratic process in NZ.
Your articles are making me angry. 😂 ❤️