I sought an explanation and met with the council chief executive Kym Fell, who was cordial and friendly and consistent in telling me he would not reveal the terms. And, as this meeting was an informal OIA, he sent through a formal rejection email.
Kym Fell, representing council, argues that the settlement agreement with MHW is confidential because that is what was agreed between them. To disclose the terms would affect the relationship between council and MHW, and MHW doesn't want disclosure.
Mr Fell states: "Council has concluded that maintaining the confidentiality of the settlement agreement outweighs that public interest in making the information available." And besides, he says: "The settlement agreement does not change the basic fact - a new wastewater treatment plant does need to be constructed."
Unfortunately, the mode of thinking here is one of business negotiations wherein disclosure is guarded by "commercial sensitivity". Missing is the more important, over-arching consideration of political democracy and accountability for ratepayer funding that makes council possible in the first place.
While there is an argument here that council has a relationship to be honoured with MHW, there is a stronger argument that council has a primary relationship to its employers, the ratepayers and renters who pay their salaries and bear the cost of the treatment plant.
That alone changes the meaning of "public interest". It is not idle curiosity - it is the question whether the council is safeguarding the public purse.
The facts presently at hand allow the perception that council spent $864,000 of our money on legal fees and received somewhere between zero and $10 million, excluding recovery of $6727 in costs.
Clearly, that's not satisfactory from an accounting standpoint - and certainly not for political accountability.
The treatment plant has a history that is steeped in politics. It has been widely alleged that its failure was due to decisions made by the previous council and the choosing of a cheaper alternative over other, perhaps better, designs.
As several members of that council are still incumbent, a cloud of suspicion - which may or may not be unjustified - hangs over their heads.
The lack of settlement data compromises the safety of our next election. At this point, considering the costs of a failed treatment plant and a new plant totalling $56.1 million, each of our 20,000 ratepayers owes @$2750. Should council be held accountable or "blamed". Without facts, how can citizens judge fairly or vote properly?
So I am urging everyone to file a one sentence Official Information Act request for the settlement terms, addressed to kym.fell@whanganui.govt.nz
After rejection, you can ask for reconsideration by the ombudsman here: http://bit.ly/25TzkCX. The Ombudsman's website offers clear instructions permitting a request for reconsideration by email, snail mail, even telephone.
I am of the opinion that others are as distressed by the council secrecy and its patronising failure to acknowledge its fiduciary duty to the citizens as I am.
Feel free to describe your own reasons for your ombudsman request or borrow from mine. If you like, send me a copy to jayku@yahoo.com
I'm betting on democracy prevailing here.
-Jay Kuten is an American-trained forensic psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand for the fly fishing. He spent 40 years comforting the afflicted and intends to spend the rest afflicting the comfortable.
