Editorial: Shaky ground for councillors

The district's councillors have been warned ahead of Tuesday's extraordinary meeting about speaking out on the controversial Te Arawa Partnership Proposal.

You'd think there was enough shaky ground already in this geothermal wonderland - but our elected representatives may have found more.

As we report today, the district's councillors have been warned ahead of Tuesday's extraordinary meeting about speaking out on the controversial Te Arawa Partnership Proposal.

A note in the agenda from Strategy and Partnerships group manager Jean-Paul Gaston says it is important that "councillors are able to demonstrate they have approached the matter with an open mind".

Mr Gaston points to councillors' previous statements on the issue which would suggest they may have already taken a stand.

"The media has attributed a number of quite definitive comments to councillors which potentially raises questions from the public of possible predetermination within the elected body."

There's no need to beat about the bush.

Clearly at least three councillors are opposed to the preferred option proposing to give Te Arawa greater representation on the council.

Glenys Searancke, Mike McVicker and Rob Kent are members of the Rotorua Pro Democracy Society set up to oppose the proposal.

That ship has well and truly sailed.

But that doesn't mean those councillors shouldn't have a say on this important local issue.
Otherwise you could argue that the other 10 councillors who voted to progress the proposal at December's council meeting had already voted to support it in principle and were also tainted by bias.

Tuesday's meeting will see the council vote on whether to approve the "statement of proposal" for the Te Arawa Partnership Model.

If approved a public consultation phase will begin on February 23 with submissions closing on March 27.

A lot has been said up to this point. If the council votes 'Yes' on Tuesday it will be the public's turn before the council has the final say in May.

Councillors on either side of the debate would do well to let the public know their views are important, and will be considered as they should be ahead of that final vote.

It's hard to give that impression when you've nailed your colours to the mast.