Dialogue: Council team, not mayor key to local body success

Mayoral candidates ignore the realities of local government when they talk up their power to make sweeping changes, writes GRAEME EASTE*.

Many mayoral aspirants are seriously misleading voters with claims that they will single-handedly dictate the direction of our city councils.

Some candidates speak as if they expect to have absolute power, even though our leading citizens have one voice in a council of up to 20 members. Granted, they have major advantages such as the casting vote, but no mayor can achieve anything without the agreement of his or her councillors.

The simplistic vision of an all-powerful mayor with presidential powers cutting through the bureaucracy is superficially attractive to many voters. But not only is this deceptive, it perverts the election process by diverting attention from the real issues, and reduces scrutiny of those standing for other positions.

Mayoral challengers seek out villains to blame for perceived failings of the incumbents, even though local government affairs are rarely as simple as a sound bite.

Transport planning in Auckland City is a case in point.

John Banks, in particular, has set about vilifying the power of the bureaucrats, blaming them for our transport woes. He naively proposes to solve congestion (too many cars on the roads) with lots more motorways (which will further increase car use).

But these problems did not arise in just three years or even 10. They result from 50 years of consistently pro-road decisions by past mayors (and councillors) that have left us with one of the least developed public transport systems in the world.

Perhaps if blame really has to be assigned, voters who have continued to elect such politicians should share collective responsibility.

Fortunately, in the past few years the Auckland City Council has at last begun putting a great deal more emphasis on public transport.

This is not the work of one person, but results from a change in the balance and culture of the council, which now has a majority that genuinely supports public transport initiatives.

And this has occurred only because of a sea-change in public opinion, which now wants decades of debate about public transport turned into action.

This makes the point that change rarely arises from a single individual. No one person has a monopoly on insight and wisdom. Good decisions reflect consensus reached after vigorous debate between competing ideas, including those of the wider public through consultation.

Leadership is not about compliance with one strong will, but rather about encouraging cooperation and teamwork.

Problems with the present at-large system of electing our mayors continue beyond the election.

Teamwork is stymied if the incoming mayor has campaigned as a one-cause crusader, accusing the incumbent council of being incapable of making the right decision because of a lack of vision. As a candidate, he or she has vowed to change all that through incisive action.

This plays on the media-generated public misconception of local government. Reporters prefer interesting stuff like disputes and clashes to boring things like council working constructively towards some useful outcome. With councillors seen as squabbling and incompetent, mayors are tempted to portray themselves as rising above such pettiness.

If mayors do not do this for themselves, the media may do it for them. But while currying favour with voters, this stance further damages their relationship with the councillors they need to work beside.

This can be exacerbated by elected-on-an-issue mayors staking their political futures on a hell-bent determination to fulfil their big election promise, whatever its practicality.

It is useful to have this inevitable clash of mandates between mayors and councillors highlighted at the very time when the new Local Government Act is being drafted.

A number of local body commentators suggest moving from at-large election of mayors to indirect appointment - that is, election from among their fellow councillors.

Many countries use this system. Regional authorities already elect their chairs from among their members, and deputy mayors and committee chairs have always been elected by fellow councillors.

But what, some say, of the outsider who may genuinely offer leadership, vision and a fresh sense of idealism to their community? Would a change deny us some talented and vigorous candidates from other callings?

It sounds persuasive when put like that. But those same charismatic candidates' intentions may be doomed from the outset unless they can work constructively, if not always harmoniously, with the rest of the elected representatives.

When council decision-making involves spending millions of dollars of ratepayers' money, careful pondering and energetic debate is surely to be welcomed, rather than a rush to be seen to have made a bold decision.

As for wanting a more visionary direction, councils already have strategic plans drawn up after extensive consultation. Slogans and hype at election time are only counterproductive. Unfortunately, the voters are generally not well placed to distinguish ignorant assertions from well-informed statements.

I am also concerned at how many aspiring local body politicians stand with only the sketchiest idea of what the issues are, and even how council goes about its business.

When such a tyro becomes mayor, you have the recipe for dysfunctionality, with the mayor constantly battling the council.

What of the suggested alternative? It would help councillors and mayors to work as a team. Personalities do have their place - well behind the issues.

We could even go a step further and require mayoral candidates to have already served on the council. An apprenticeship would ensure that the mayor is familiar with both the issues and the key personalities involved.

This should improve their ability to work with fellow councillors for the common good.

* Graeme Easte is the deputy chairman of the Western Bays Community Board.

Feature: Local body elections 2001

www.localgovt.co.nz