Putting It Right On The Line!
Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:53AM
Bill Barclay

One thing that you can count on is that when the occasion demands it, Geoffrey Robinson will spell out his  objections to any particular course of action that our Council proposes to undertake in a thoroughly practical manner.

Following my post on the matter on 19 February, Geoffrey has followed up with the specific reasons why he considers that Council should reject the proposed course of action in regard to the Coromandel Heritage Region.

Here is the text of an email that he has circulated to all councillors in this regard:

"To:       Crs Bartley, Brljevich, Connors, Fox, French, Goudie, McLean, Wells, and Mayor Leach
Re:       February 24 Meeting, Agenda Item 4.1 “Project Mandates”

"In respect of the above agenda item pertaining to a proposal to advance a “Coromandel Heritage Region Project”, this is to urge councillors NOT TO APPROVE the suggested resolution #2.

Reasons that Council should not advance the project, based on a review of the attached “Stage One Project Mandate” document, include:

  1. The Project Mandate is entirely unrealistic in its estimates of internal-hour and other costs to date.
  2. The Project Mandate grossly understates the costs and resources required to achieve the stated outcomes.
  3. The Project Mandate process and projected work flow is based on purely subjective considerations.
  4. The Project Mandate fails to demonstrate the necessity of the project for meeting Council’s mission and strategic objectives.
  5. The Project Mandate “Opportunities” can be otherwise achieved in the regular course of Council business.
  6. The Project Mandate continues to centre on an unspecified and undefined “tailored Coromandel Heritage Region”.
  7. The proposed project reflects no mandate from any public, Council, or staff.
  8. Any proposed project of this nature should, in the first instance, be based on independent and unbiased analysis of problems and opportunities carried out by an external professional entity, not by the “findings” of council staff who are influenced by political agendas and direction. The failed CHR “feasibility study” and promotional process of 2015 starkly illustrate this problem.  


Geoffrey Robinson"

I agree totally with Geoffrey's request for the reasons that he has provided, and suggest very strongly that each councillor consider his or her position on this matter before simply falling in with the Mayor, and Benjamin Day. Leach's term ends shortly, and it would be a great shame if they were saddled with a totally impractical motion on their books to carry into the next term.

Accordingly, the position of each councillor on the matter will certainly be examined very closely at the time of the election, and they will need to be able to justify their position on what is likely to be an extremely controversial, expensive, and in the end futile exercise.




Article originally appeared on BillBarcBlog (http://billbarclay.co.nz/).
See website for complete article licensing information.