I interviewed Mayor Kirsten Wise on a wide range of issues recently, and here are some observations.

I interviewed the mayor just as NCC was completing its latest Annual Plan draft proposals. 

The formal consultation process is now underway (participate here). Many ratepayers – and not just those in Napier – are rather jaded in their view of councils’ consultations.

The Mayor and I talked about that, with me expressing the somewhat contrarian view that perhaps councils were doing too much consulting  … instead of more do-ing.

Wise’s view was pretty much … you can’t listen enough … that’s the job of an elected official. 

Fine, but are these stylised submission processes the most effective way to get ratepayer feedback? Most submissions – on whatever issue – come from a small dedicated band of super-engaged residents, who might actually be un-representative of where the broad public stands. And not all submissions are – how can I put it? – well-informed.

[I’ve attached here a quite detailed and caustic submission from a Napier businessman and former councillor. While I cannot attest to the accuracy of every assertion or agree with every recommendation, were I a Napier councillor, I would certainly pay attention. A dozen of these from differing perspectives would make the customary consultation process worthwhile! The council’s staff response should be interesting!]

And what kind of feedback are councils after anyway? If they’re after a head count – how many for and against shutting down the aquarium? – a more accurate read of sentiment would come from a well-constructed survey. But on what occasions might it be preferable to substitute councillors’ (arguably) better informed judgments for ‘the will of the people’ so expressed?

If it’s actually substantive advice councils are looking for, then serving up some pre-cooked options to choose from probably isn’t going to yield any innovative insight, or reveal alternatives that staff haven’t considered or were afraid to put forward. Better to appoint a representative, informed ‘stakeholder’ panel to ponder the matter against a reasonable deadline.

For something especially thorny, but not needing to be decided right away, maybe a ‘citizens assembly’ process would be fruitful. This takes the idea of a ‘stakeholder’ group to a different, more inclusive level. So it includes not just representatives of interest groups most directly affected by the matter at hand, but additional voters/ratepayers selected randomly to reflect the broad composition of the affected community. Such assemblies are fueled by information provided in the first instance by the governing body, but are encouraged to reach beyond that to whatever sources they deem useful. 

Such assemblies seek to identify fresh thinking while also forming actionable consensus. They have a successful track record overseas, so workable models are available.

My read of the conversation with Mayor Wise is that she is interested in exploring and devising more effective ‘listening’.

So, getting back to Mayor Wise and her council’s Annual Plan.

Technically only two matters actually required consultation – shutting down the library operation earlier at MTG (because this would be deemed a significant reduction in previously agreed service levels) and a more esoteric matter of treating NCC’s new Council-controlled Trading Company as holding a Strategic Group of Assets (basically curbing the council’s ability to play ‘fast and loose’ with the underlying assets without community approval).

All the rest of the consultation document simply fishes for sentiment about how NCC might alter ownership and current subsidization of various ‘iconic’ facilities – from the Aquarium to Par2 MiniGolf. The Council has obviously considered the commercial versus public good options on these, and weighed the ratepayer costs involved against other Council priorities. IMHO, they should get on with it in each case – just do it.

Because the Mayor and Council have bigger fish to fry.

The biggest of those being a decision about how to manage future delivery of Napier’s water services – either going it alone (as presently) or joining a regional water entity. I would hope all Napier ratepayers might see this a bigger issue than who operates the MiniGolf attraction.

If NCC is actually going to want informed public input into this decision, it will need (like all the other HB councils making the same decision) to mount a major public education exercise. And if it does that, councillors will still – one by one – need to vote their individual best considered judgements!

There are other big issues on the Mayor’s plate. 

Māori wards. Mayor Wise could just shut her mouth and ‘let the people’ decide, as they will by law. That’s the timid approach of Napier’s MP. But instead, Mayor Wise has strongly voiced her support for Māori wards – and intends to continue to do so, quite aware that there is significant public opposition. Good on her for that.

Health services for Napier. Mayor Wise has fronted up advocating for better resourcing of her community’s health services. As I’ve said elsewhere, no one elected her to get in the face of HB Hospital and Government health bureaucrats. Her ‘day job’ is making sure Napier has reliable water services, widely-enjoyed amenities, efficient consenting and other council operations, and lowest possible rates to pay for it all. That said, community grievances do arise regarding central government mal-performance where elected local leaders should step up to galvanise an effective response. So good on her for that as well … and I know there’s more to come.

Don’t take these comments as an endorsement of Kirsten Wise for re-election. We all need to examine and interrogate carefully whomever surfaces to oppose her before making that call.

But I do see the current mayor as setting a formidable bar. 

If an opponent claims they can guarantee your expected level of council service with still lower rates, they must be precise on how … really precise.

And if they do not see the role of mayor as providing visible community leadership on contentious public issues where emotions can run high – like Māori seats or calling the question on equitable health resources – suggest they seek a different job.