Conflicts of interest are problematic in politics. So are perceived conflicts of interest. They both have to be dealt with if the public is to have full confidence in democratic processes.
On the issue of Auckland City Council's proposed new bylaws for commercial signage and billboards, the overallpublic perception is that planning and regulatory committee chairwoman, Councillor Glenda Fryer, is a champion for a much tougher regime.
That's fine. Elected representatives must show leadership, which often involves flying bold ideas up the mast. That's how councils and cities get ahead.
However, there comes a point when passionate champions need to step aside, invite the public to have their say, and then assess submissions fairly. Without doubt, the majority of submissions on council's proposed regulations will disagree with Fryer's perceived position. These submitters deserve to be given a fair hearing.
Having this councillor chairing the hearings panel is not a fair hearing. It can only be viewed as a kangaroo court, not helped by the fact that the four other panel members have also already voted in favour of the proposed bylaws. None of the councillors who voted against the draft bylaws will hear the public submissions or have a say on the final recommendations.
I appreciate that after presenting to the planning and regulatory committee on February 15 on this issue, the committee resolved that the chair consider an appropriate independent commissioner, preferably with urban design expertise, to sit on the hearings panel for the signs and billboard bylaws review.
This, however, does not go far enough. Fryer needs to step aside from chairing the hearings panel. Without doubt she is hopelessly compromised.
No one believes that she is the right person to view this issue with the clarity and objectivity required. No one believes that her recommendations to the committee post public consultation won't be tarred with her bias.
Using council's own language this is a major policy shift which will come with a litany of far reaching and costly consequences for businesses and the ratepayer as council tries in vain to enforce it.
For the billboard industry it's a major blow, with many jobs and families involved. For retailers and businesses, almost all will be affected. The New Zealand Sign and Display Association estimate that the mum and dad small businesses can expect to fork out between $5000-$7000 on average.
All signage above the verandah line will come down and in most case what's on the verandah and beneath will need to be made considerably smaller. It doesn't matter if signs comply to the existing rules. They will need to come down within 18 months.
No one disagrees that there needs to be some rationalisation and that our heritage buildings, iconic architecture and important view shafts need to be protected. However that can be arranged by actually enforcing the existing bylaw and working with an accommodating billboard industry.
What won't be tolerated is Fryer and four other perceived anti-signage councillors playing judge and jury.
If integrity is important, then the hearings panel should be chaired by an independent commissioner and include elected representatives from the other side of the political divide.
Council could then prove it was a strong advocate for democratic transparency and inclusiveness rather than just paying lip service. If Glenda Fryer is not willing to stand down, Mayor Dick Hubbard may just have to come out of hiding and show some leadership. His election catchphrase "Te Tangata Te Tangata Te Tangata: The People, The People, The People" must surely be ringing in his ears.
* Cameron Brewer is the general manager of the Newmarket Business Association and a former employee of the Auckland City Council.
All Access. All in one subscription.From $2 per week
