Kapiti’s Mayor promises to safeguard public speaking rights
By Ross Church, Kapiti Coast Mayor
Discussion about the effectiveness of public speaking at Council meetings prompted me to float the idea of ‘tidying up’ public speaking.
People had suggested many things to me: that a lot of time is wasted listening to speakers who have a personal issue that is not relevant to the rest of the meeting: that there are other ways for people to engage with Council: that other Councils limit speaking time to items on the agenda: that we should be much more strict on the 3 minute time limit: that Council should be more focussed on doing the business and not be side-tracked by items that can be handled in other ways.
So I floated the idea to prompt discussion amongst the community about how ratepayers can best engage with council.
27 formal responses
I have had 27 ‘formal’ responses, as well as lots of anecdotal discussion and feedback. Of the 27, 18 felt that some ‘tidying up’ would be useful, 5 (if I include this article) have said ‘leave things as they are’, and 4 suggest we should be careful to preserve the status quo, if we make any changes at all.
I appreciate the balanced and considered nature of this article, as I appreciate all the feedback. No decisions have been made yet.
I have 3 meetings this coming week, with concerned citizens and ratepayers, anxious to ensure that they will always have a voice at public speaking if they so desire.
‘Something I can promise’
That is something I can promise. People have a right to speak to council at public speaking time, and that right will always be maintained.
Last Thursday, we had about 14 speakers at public speaking, and it took 2 and a half hours.
In November we had a meeting that had 21 speakers and took, I think, nearly 3 hours. Some if the issues raised could have been more effectively dealt with in other ways.
So what I’m trying to achieve is a more effective use of time, and a better way of responding to ratepayer concerns.
Your article offers some positive ways forward. You’re right, Adrian Webster was a superb chair and I wish I had his skills. The Chair does have the same controls and options – hopefully I’m learning.
Taking criticism
Yes we do sometimes need to take criticism. I do spend some time in the foyer, I do meet as many people as I can, and we are looking at maybe councillor workshops as an option.
Your article also raises legitimate concerns, some of which have been expressed to me by others already.
As a result of all this feedback, and from the feedback I believe I will hear at the meetings I have this week, it is very likely that the status quo will be maintained. That is, that we will not (as other councils do) restrict public speaking time to just the agenda items.
One thing for sure Alan: you’re right when you say that free public speaking is one of the great traditions on the Kapiti Coast.
I have no intention of changing that. We (Council) need to find better and easier ways to work with people. All of your suggestions and comments will be fed into the mix, and I’m sure that we as a council will find ways to improve our service to ratepayers.
I encourage your readers to forward any helpful suggestions they may have.
Very well for the Mayor to continue to talk the talk, but so far he has failed to walk the walk. Will be interesting to see how long he is allowed to interact before the propaganda machine reigns him in.
Below are two direct Quotations taken from his election campaign, ( Observer 18/9/2013) and then there’s the water meters u-turn, the so far non published 6 Million dollar loss on speculative derivatives last year ( no wonder Mr Reed has disappeared), and the closed shop over the Clean-Tech debacle.
1/ ‘‘I will make times to sit in the foyer of the council building, so people can come and chat to the mayor. No appointments necessary.’’
( The current system seems to be that you would have to hang out in the foyer on the off chance that the Mayor may appear)
2/ “We need a change, a new style, an openness and transparency that’s sadly lacking at the moment. Current leadership is perceived as dogmatic, even bullying, and doesn’t listen.’’ He said the council seems happy to sort any problems out in ‘‘court’’.
‘‘We need to put people before process, so we don’t ever need to go to court.’’
As the very first challenge to that promise has now been presented to the new Church lead Council, ( Re the ‘Collmog bridge’) what have they done? Made the meeting ‘Publicly Excluded’, including me as a directly effected party, Is forcing me to take my own, ratepayer funded, Council to court, and has refused to meet with me to discuss the matter. So much for openness and transparency!YEAH RIGHT!
And had it not been for me being able to attend the public speaking time and address the Council on a matter not put on the agenda for the previous 2 years, then the staff & executive management would have never advised the Councilors that there was an extremely Dangerous Bridge, approved by previous corrupt council officials, ready to collapse.
For many years staff have given me the run around, Allegedly lost documents, Deliberately held others back, and still today I am in possession of a more comprehensive file than they have.
We initially went to the CE with a very conciliatory approach to get assistance to jointly peruse the offender, and even prepared to overlook the involvement of the council officials, in order to get the only access to our property restored.
Then had to take a complaint ( support to do so was refused by the CE) about the dodgey Engineer to IPENZ , (where he was fined a NZ record amount for his failings), we still today, 3 years later, have no further progress at all.
As an engineer himself, the CE, seems more interested in protecting the reputation of his fellow engineer , than reviewing the 3500 applications put to Councils by this man, without correct inspection having ever taken place, ( His words). One would have hoped our CE was more concerned about the safety of the residents he is mandated to protect.
I unfortunately fear that the Councilors will continue to be ill advised by the staff in their behind the scenes meeting, as the last time the Councilors were briefed on this matter, publicly excluded, the staff deliberately changed the wording of the legislation, no less, so as to mislead the Council into making a wrong decision.
I can only hope that the councilors are savvy enough to challenge the alleged advice they are given this time, not that seemly I will ever know.
PS; Based on the consistently informative, comprehensive and accurate comment from John LeHarivel, you should offer him a column as KCDC reporter.
Good response, Ross, to the reactions you have had and to Alan’s excellent editorial. I do worry a bit about 2.5 to 3 hrs but think the right to speak on all topics and the loss of publicity/media reporting that would occur if alternatives means of giving views were adopted are decisive – as well as all present hearing the views directly. I wonder if one way of cutting the time a little would be to limit the NUMBER of speakers on any one topic at a particular meeting to the first x (not sure what x might be – 6? 10?) who indicate their desire to speak on it – would that help?