Whangarei District Council's chief executive officer Mark Simpson wants to ban the public's 15 minutes of fame (or pain, depending on who you talk to) at the council's monthly meetings.
The election is coming, and the monthly public forum could be hijacked by electioneering candidates. He points out the Officeof the Auditor General frowns upon council resources being used for electioneering.
He also rightly points out there is no legislative requirement to ban the forum - in other words, it is his idea.
Mr Simpson is proposing at next Wednesday's council meeting the public forum cease until the election, when the incoming council can decide whether it continues.
That would mean no public forum potentially in July, August, September and October.
The forum could indeed be hijacked for electioneering purposes. But not if it was regulated with a firm, fair hand.
Other than the "breach of freedom of speech!" and "you're denying my democratic rights!" cries I can already hear, there is another reason to keep the forum, and instead, regulate it with a firm, fair hand. It's already been hijacked.
It tends to be dominated by anti-council protagonists, some of whom put the rest of the public off using it as a genuine dialogue opportunity with the council.
In theory, the forum is a worthy idea. But in practice, it's become a tokenistic headache for the councillors and staff who tend to view it, I suspect, with amusement or with teeth-grinding intolerance. I wouldn't cancel democracy because of an impending democratic act.
Stick it out, regulate it so people who use it know the rules - ban or trespass them if they don't adhere, and then use the new council to devise a new way of interacting with the public.
The public forum is a great idea poorly executed, dominated by negativity.
After the election, the personnel fronting the council will probably change. So too should the personnel dominating the public forum.
