Weekly column by Kāpiti Mayor K. Gurunathan.
This week councillors will be ruminating on the bottle of messages following the tide of 532 submissions responding to our Representation Review consultation. It's a process councils are forced to undertake by the Local Electoral Act at least once every six years, and requires councillors to table a preferred option to kickstart the consultation. There are some key points to consider.
Firstly, the staff recommendation to councillors was for councillors to appoint an independent panel of six people appointed from our communities to come up with the preferred option. This option would be put out for public consultation. By a slim majority, councillors rejected this prudent staff recommendation. They instead chose a process led by councillors and staff. I believe a community-sourced, independent panel could have chosen a different option for consultation. This fact should effectively counter criticism that staff were responsible.
Secondly, public consultation brought two strong areas of response. One was around the proposed amalgamation of the Paraparaumu and Waikanae wards. Analysis shows 67 per cent of submitters disagreed or strongly disagreed. Among Waikanae submitters, this opposition was greatest with 73 per cent strongly opposed. Comments included fear of being swallowed up by the more-urban Paraparaumu, and the argument that Waikanae was a distinctly different community. An important observation is that the Waikanae ward suffers a significant under-representation. At a minus 26 per cent Waikanae is well outside the tolerance band between a minus/plus 10 per cent. The amalgamation would have increased Waikanae's representation ratio. The opposition to amalgamation indicates Waikanae values its separate identity and separate representation despite the under- representation.
The other strong area of response has been the visceral opposition to the preferred option's proposal to get rid of community boards. It saw 69 per cent disagree or strongly disagree, with 73 per cent of Ōtaki submitters registering a strongly disagree response. And 68 per cent of Paekākāriki and Raumati submitters also strongly disagreed. But 25 per cent of submitters agreed with getting rid of community boards. Comments expressed included fixing shortcomings "due to the people in various roles and not the structure of representation". Such observations highlight the dysfunctional situation at Waikanae and Ōtaki boards caused by infighting, and resignations. There were also calls to give boards "more teeth". Such calls need to be balanced against the lack of engagement by the boards to a challenge to board members to respond to a five-point letter from the mayor's office sent in February last year. It presented an opportunity to look at leveraging the range of powers and tools of community engagement that boards already possessed, but failed to activate. The boards were asked to discuss the ideas and engage with the mayor. There was no response. If a majority of councillors exercising the prudence of an open mind decide on continuing the function of boards, this five-point approach would be a good place to start.
