A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.
A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.
Opinion
Having argued the case for a smaller council governance team, it was interesting to read the Local Government Commission’s support for the existing number of 13 councillors as it determined that the status quo was the appropriate representation model for Gisborne District Council at this time.
The commissioners noted aconcern raised in objections to the council’s representation proposal — which involved reducing councillor numbers to nine — that this would create capacity issues for the council as a unitary authority, given its greater range of responsibilities.
Unitary councils combine the functions, duties and powers of a territorial authority (service delivery bodies) with those of a regional council (regulatory authorities).
In their decision the commissioners said they had not job-sized the role of a councillor in a unitary authority. “We do observe, however, that other unitary authorities of broadly similar population and geographic size (Marlborough District Council and Tasman District Council) both have 13 members.”
They also noted that it was important for a unitary authority to be structured so as to allow separation of decision-making on regulatory and non-regulatory responsibilities, and this needed to be reflected in the council’s committee arrangements.
“We are not confident that a total membership of nine councillors plus the mayor would easily permit this requirement to be met.”
So the fact governance boards are generally seen as functioning best with about seven to 10 members has a solid counter-argument in this case.
However, the negatives of having a board of more than 10 people — as covered in an editorial in March last year, and taken from Melbourne-based Governance Today — still apply, and efforts should be made to try to minimise them.
They are: Increased costs and time to discuss all issues; greater cost to management to manage the board; potential for cliques to develop; not enough work to keep members stimulated and interested; potential for reduced commitment, ie plenty of people to do the work; increased numbers do not necessarily mean better decisions.
