Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
Search
« Early Call On Mayoral Election! | Main | Putting It Right On The Line! »
Wednesday
Feb242016

"CHR 5 : 4 Mandate" At Council Today!

Today's meeting was done and dusted by 10.30am - then into 'public excluded' - mainly about road budgets and legalisation on 309 and Balck Jack's - your guess is as good as mine!

What we did see was a display of naked power on the part of Leach in order to get his Coromandel Heritage Region "Mandate" through a very reluctant Council. He won 5 : 4 in the end - hardly a ringing endorsement, and certainly not a 'mandate,' but that is what it is, and he will use to get to the next stage, though happily that will be long after he has gone I suspect.

Those who voted for the motion were : McLean, French, Fox and Bartley, together with Leach.

Those who voted against were: Goudie, Connors, Wells and Brljevich.

Goudie led the charge and spoke eloquently of the total inadequacy of the content of the Day's paper - it lacked substance, costing and logic, and it demonstrated the writer's ignorance of what constituted a "feasibility study." It was piece of bureaucratic rhetoric in other words that was unworthy of the Council's time and effort. It totally confused the planning issues with the so-called Heritage Region, and failed to note the responses that it had received in Hamilton and Wellington. 

She was joined by the other three who made similar complaints regarding the content of the paper, and gave notice that they would oppose it.  

Leach was foolish enough to attack Goudie directly during his counter argument - specifically calling her out with a bad-tempered outburst when she attempted to correct him on what he claimed she had said. He asked for the exchange to be recorded.

Goudie later pointed out that she was entirely within her debating rights to correct him when he had directly quoted her - absolutely correct, but well above Leach's debating skill or knowledge of Standing Orders - he continued to berate her. Frankly, the sooner he is gone the better. He simply cannot tolerate opposing views of any kind, and Jack Wells was later also subjected to his ignorance of the rules when he attempted to prevent Jack's opposing reasons being recorded - Leach was over-ruled by someone else on the top table - beyond a joke.

All his other four loyal  wombles toed to party line and voted in favour, though McLean tried to slime his way out by stating that he only supported it for "initial consultation with stakeholder and community groups." 

So there you have it - a "mandate" granted to Day 5 : 4. If I was Day I would be considering resignation after that 'keel-haul.'

The only real expressed support came from the ever-loyal French and Bartley, and from the Community Board Chairs who all sounded like they were in election mode. The only passion was expressed by un-elected EDC Chair Brent Page, who appealed to all members to get in behind for the sake of the future of the District.

It is staggering just how often we heard the "visionary" mantra this morning - as if only this bunch of elderly 'has-beens' have the necessary ability to conjure up a vision of the glorious future involving every possible tourist attraction and facility.

But it is worse than that - the Coromandel Heritage Region has now evolved into a newer version of the Blueprint and District Plans - never mind the over-lap - it is 'planning' in all its bureaucratic glory, and pulling the wool over the eyes of all those 'stakeholders' is about to begin in earnest.

They have no idea just what Leach has in mind, but regardless - he has a 5 : 4 mandate - that is all that matters.

It is just a pity that no other media see fit to attend these meetings. The population of the District has no way of knowing what is going on other than through the blandly asinine jottings of the well-controlled Public Relations unit. I invite you to compare what they put out in this afternoon's release with what I observed.   

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>