"...we have the pou, sitting awkwardly at our entrances at nearly three times the budgeted cost, conspicuous in all but meaning."
"...we have the pou, sitting awkwardly at our entrances at nearly three times the budgeted cost, conspicuous in all but meaning."
SPENDING, spending and over-spending.
When you're in public office, a government department or a local authority, all you can do, it seems, is smile a bit shamefacedly and apologise after the budget has blown out.
In the private sector, heads roll if you over spend or spend frivolously. In theprivate sector, you can effectively do what you want - as you're not answerable to the taxpayer - but shareholders may have something to say and your company's future depends on their goodwill, as well as your profit margin and cash flow.
But with public servants and council officers, it's just a matter of chalking up an overspend to bad luck and we'll do better next year. There's also the element of: hey, okay, we spent a bit much, but it's on behalf of our community, and it looks good.
God help you if it doesn't look good. The new display screen for the main reception of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in Wellington probably looks fantastic, as does the sign outside, but now is not the time for grand and expensive gestures with taxpayer money. This isn't the early 2000s and they are not Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch. Back in those days (and I worked on these construction sites in London) greed really was good. Exorbitant fittings were considered good taste for an investment bank. Waste was acceptable. Not any more.
The public is not in a mood for expansive projects that are little more than decorative. We understand spending millions on roads, including Transmission Gully. The public is struggling to wear the $25 million it will cost to put our flag to the vote, but there is some pride involved. But what they are especially not in the mood for is expensive waste on something with a dubious outcome - and in that, we have the pou, sitting awkwardly at our entrances at nearly three times the budgeted cost, conspicuous in all but meaning. We can accept the fact they are a novelty, a curiosity. What we can't tolerate is that they fail on their most basic premise - visible symbols. If we have to have something weird, it should at least work. All the council can do is acknowledge their shortcomings, and try and remedy it, perhaps hoping the public, yet again, will chalk it up to bad luck.
