Future at risk
In leaving council, I despair at the possible make-up of the new one.
The progress the city seems to be making in reputation, slight population increase and turning the corner now seems to be all at risk.
Councillors Rob Vinsen and Philippa Baker-Hogan seem intent on their blind cost-reduction
philosophy on the new WWTP. This mentality is what appears to have led to the design and failure of the last one.
Where's RISK in all of this?
Their philosophy should be consigned to the council shredder. They're wanting to experiment on top of a failed experiment.
All of Whanganui Beyond 2030's emphasis so far has been on the WWTP. They are devoid of any vision other than to suggest increasing the population by half with no strategy other than to build another sawmill - hardly high-tech. I understand we've had two attempts already and both failed.
Lists of prospective candidates featuring old white men and some newbies added to give token balance and asking you to vote purely on how candidates view the new WWTP is dangerously simplistic and wrong - a sign of regression, not progress.
Neville Johnson accuses councillors Helen, Jenny and me of "no interest at all" in his ferry proposal 2-3 years ago. Simply untrue.
I've asked him repeatedly to put numbers to his attractive concept and to create a net present value analysis, otherwise he'll never attract funders. He always fails to deliver. He presents his $14 million WWT plant, but again never any detail.
There is almost no talk of innovation.
Our prodigal son, Sir Paul Callaghan, would also likely be dismayed at what he would see.
We are the most "wired" city in the country re internet access and have a magical, sustainable lifestyle.
MARTIN VISSER
Whanganui District Councillor
Vested interests
I read Mr Domm's report about the sewage treatment saga and, unlike Jay Kuten, I was less than impressed by some aspects of it.
Mr Domm made three main points: The contract with MWH was not tested in the market by competitive quotation, the council accepted advice from staff and consultants without sufficient questioning, and they failed to ensure consistent peer reviewing of the MWH designs.
Mr Domm also brushed off suggestions that the existing plant had worked for a time and could, perhaps, be rehabilitated by saying that they came from vested interests.
He was, of course, restrained by his terms of reference, which limited the scope of his inquiry.
I believe that there were legitimate reasons for the way in which the MWH contract evolved, which I could explain if you wish.
It is interesting that Mr Domm's services were not selected by competitive quotation.
Although he made serious allegations against MWH and council staff, his report seems to have been accepted by the current council without question or critical review.
Surely Cardno BTO had very considerable vested interest in recommending a completely new plant, designed by themselves, but they were contracted without competitive tendering.
Pigeonhole the report and move on?
