Theus Goodwin

19 April 2020

Hi there,

This is my submission for the MDC Annual Plan 20-21.

This is the first time I've made a submission to MDC for the Annual Plan. I am disappointed to see
the way it has been designed. I will explain why below, before I have my say over the Annual Plan
20-21 proper.

Structure and Substance of the Survey

1) The submission webpage advises people not to email or post their submissions under the
pretext of saving time and processing costs.

2) Submitters are guided through the question sections with no opportunity to comment on
individual items, or if they disagree with either of the two options put forward (the preferred and
alternate options).

3) At the end of the survey, submitters are given the opportunity for "general comments". This
comment box is tiny. If one did have something to say, it is hard to type properly and write
coherently as it only ever shows the last 3 lines you've written, much like a “tweet”- that is what I
experienced on both mobile and desktop browsers. On that basis it is not user friendly and I
suspect it would turn a lot of people off saying what they really think- particularly older people
who often find online forms tedious at the best of times. If most of your submissions are limited to
the online format, and little else, I’d be inclined to disregard them as “prompted” replies.

4) Meanwhile, the traditional and "discouraged" .pdf submission form, gives two lined A4 sheets
to comment on. Users are put between a rock and hard place when they must choose between
filling out the survey online and not having a place to say anything much at all- or knowingly and
guiltily wasting the valuable time, effort and resources of MDC by emailing them the traditional
MDC submission .pdf which they had just been implored to not do by the dutiful reminder at the
beginning of the survey.

5) Before the survey begins, users are led through two webpages. On the first webpage is the
statement:       

" This year we’re calling the plan “Making it Happen”. We’ve got some big ideas, and we’ve
been preparing for some big projects. In the next 12 months we’re going to make them a
reality.”

A submitter could be forgiven for thinking they are the ones providing input to influence the
decision making process at MDC and might happen to not want these projects tgoing ahead.
Could be forgiven, if only they hadn’t missed the above quote that proudly states that "We've got
some big ideas...In the next 12 months we're going to make them a reality". I thought the whole
point of soliciting submissions was precisely because those projects are not yet a reality, and
certainly not guaranteed to be. Biased information at the onset will Influence the conclusion and
should be managed more professionally if you want to preserve the integrity of the process.

6) Just before the survey begins we see the statement:

"we know most of Masterton wants a new shared, multi-purpose facility where events and
concerts can be held" 

This I have a problem with, and I think a lot of people in Masterton would too.

The survey results for the Civic Centre proposal are inconclusive in terms of what the public
wants. Mr. Toby Mills, a much better statistician than I, critiqued this survey publicly and
highlighted some of the conclusions that the council took from the survey didn’t stand up to
statistical scrutiny. Doing nothing was an option yes- but it had very little explanation as to what
was possible- for example; a private development, or Trust run, or a mixed model. It was merely a
‘footnote’ option- an after thought- that wasn’t explained or given the respect the development
options had. Dave Borman might have further to add on that one.

Many Councillors read Mr. Mills’ opinion regarding the survey earlier this year on Masterton
Matters. I challenge them to reread it. If they agree with Mr. Mills, surely they would then find
it completely unacceptable for the council staff to be throwing unfounded and loaded statements
such as this around at the beginning of the annual plan submission web portal.

I also encourage council to be much more upfront with the cost to ratepayers for the civic centre
proposal(s). A figure of approx. $200 per year per ratepayer has been widely bandied about in
press releases from Council for the new build options. What council has not told people is that
this depends on the value of your property. A cheaper house might for instance pay $150 per
year, while a higher value house might pay $300 or $400. Commercial ratepayers may end up
paying more still. Council has never discussed this in public and I wager that responses to any
surveys you’ve done would change dramatically had it been explained like this. I am happy be
corrected on that one.

8) Because of the above points, I believe this submission process in this 20-21 AP and previous
town hall related surveys have been designed either by folly or intent to discourage comments
that are contrary to the options presented,  and vis-a-vis encourage affirmative feedback to the
two given options. This is not good. It has compromised the validity and rationale of the whole
submission process, a core mechanism of our local government democratic system.

9)  This  doesn't seem to fit well with the spirit of governance in which MDC should endeavour to
operate in and serve the public with at all times. How can it be called real consultation with the
community if what it really is an internal ‘engagement KPI’ box ticking exercise simply looking for
a predetermined outcome. Key information has not been put to the public.

Futher, Covid-19 has changed the equation massively. In normal times I would not be bothering to
write this submission, but for the gravity that the post-Covid decisions on the economy will
demand, I am. It might be unthinkable for Council staff but surely, the public should be surveyed
with a modicum of respect to the fact many ratepayers would like to see a rates freeze, or even
fall. It is not outside the bounds of reasonableness nor possibility to suggest that either;  Former
Mayor Of Wellington Kerry Prendergast puts it more eloquently than I in the weekend paper
(Weekend Dom, 18-April 2020 available on line):

“Rates should not be held lower just by pushing the cost into the future. Rates should be
held –  they could even be cut –  by removing all non-important spending...At an
unprecedented time like this we just need water to flow, sewage and rubbish to disappear,
and businesses and workers to get their lives back together...Councillors should look to
reduce costs: Do we need all of the parking wardens when there will be far fewer cars in
Wellington for some time; so many food inspectors when at least a third of restaurants have
already said they will not re-open; shouldn't councillors and managers take a 20 per
cent  salary cut as central government [And the private sector has- authors input]
has?...The baseline for every decision must be: Will this create jobs in the city; will this
allow businesses to survive; will this retain Wellington's advantages; will this hold, or even
reduce, the cost of rates?"

10) It is a slippery slope indeed if staff are engineering the public submission process to steer the
results. It is bad with or without Mayoral involvement. After all, Councillors can't do much with
poor information. A citizen’s job is to steer Council via the ballot booth and with regular
submission/consultations, and Council’s job is to steer staff- not the other way around. A
democracy is what, if not that? It is the opposite of course- a bureaucracy. Given enough time
and apathy, it can develop into something worse.

This should be looked at seriously, preferably by an independent 3rd party so it can be improved
upon. At the very least I hope councillors can be cognisant of this sort of creeping malaise that
public sector staff the world over and for time immemorial seem to be inclined toward. However, I
do concede that when faced with particularly dense elected members- that have hopefully not
infiltrated the current term of Council- I can totally understand why staff sometimes take it upon
themselves- and perhaps make it a habit- to steamroll their own designs through the process
when faced with the prospect- real or imagined- of herding rolly-eyed cats through all the hoops
of good governance.

I don’t believe my views are unusual.

Annual Plan Submission:

Town Hall:

Both options should be sidelined for now. Further efforts should be made to investigate the
feasibility of a private buyer “taking it off our hands”- so at least the option can be considered
properly. Private enterprise should - in generally accepted economic theory - do this more
efficiently than a council led project, which is why I believe it needs to be looked at again. I don’t
think that option got “a fair suck of the sav” in the past.

Lake Henley:

Just recently on social media the Town Crier and misinformation extraordinaire Mr. Gary Caffell
posted a photo of drain pipes being cleared of roots at Henley Lake. Apparently this has cleaned
up the water significantly. Notwithstanding Mr. Caffell’s terrible propensity towards publishing
utter nonsense, it should be given consideration that any money ear-marked to improve water
flow and apply for a new RC is put on hold while we wait and see if the water quality has
improved as claimed?

If cleaning a pipe hasn’t fixed the problem, I am very skeptical of spending $600k, or even just
$300k getting more water into the lake, unless it is going to deliver significantly more water than it
has ever received in the past and can bring the quality up to swimmable or better. If its not
possible to make it swimmable (like many lakes in Europe are), and quantify clearly how much it
will cost to get there, I don’t believe it’s worth it. I would fear it will just remain the murky lake
surrounded by goose droppings it has always been, but it would have cost us at half a million
dollars plus. For what benefit? If it’s not saveable, leave it to a charitable trust to plod along with,
and spend the budget improving river walk paths elsewhere.

I also encourage council to exterminate every single goose and at least 80% of the swans. I’m
just saying what we are all thinking with that bold statement. Kids could rent a slingshot for a
dollar, or something of that nature. Make a mass burial ground for the bodies on the JNL side of
the Waingawa bridge (Carterton).

Skate Park:

It’s adequate as it is- necessary repairs only. I’ve recently had some fun there myself.
Nevertheless, anyone with a favourite sport or a hobby shouldn’t expect council to pay for their
facilities, especially when it is as unpopular as skateboarding is and also when your facilities
involve very expensive concrete works.

Consider that the Bring it to Colombo Trust did a huge amount of fundraising for what is a far
more popular sport- Netball. How much fundraising have skatepark users done?

Other Comments:

I do understand the important role council plays during recessions in terms of stimulating the
economy. However I think my submission makes clear that I don’t think the above three projects
should be prioritised until we see strong signs of recovery.

I would support a council that borrows big money to accelerate ‘the 3 waters’ upgrades and
renewals, the irrigation scheme, and roading- now is a brilliant time to replace our abysmal and
neglected infrastructure. Contractors will be looking for more work, and money is very cheap. This
naturally builds environmental resilience, braces us well for population growth in better times, and
provides employment for the very people who will suffer most during the coming economic
recession- the semi skilled labour sector of our worker pool. I’d argue far more jobs than
construction of a new town hall and skatepark.

Big borrowing for critical infrastructure is something I could live with for the fact that I know it is
unavoidable long term- and absolutely necessary for maintaining the quality of the town into the
future, but in many other areas I think council should step up and get the loppers out. I am
worried council’s Covid recovery plan spend money on “Pre Covid” ideas. It needs a rethink. I
think serious analysis needs to happen and rank projects based on net benefit ‘jobs-wise’ short
term, and multifactorial benefits longer term.

I may be criticised for this but I do believe that people know best how to spend their money. Be
that on doing house improvements, spending it in retail or entertainment, or deciding to start or
invest in a local business. On that basis I believe the less council can take from the pockets of
ratepayers the better- key services being the exception.

Council should not believe that it can solve all woes. It can however make smart decisions that fit
within its purview. I do understand that rates may still rise but I want to make sure ratepayers are
getting the very best decisions made for them. Cut what we can and spend what we must.

I would be happy to support a council that fully reviews all staff costs, and fully reviews all
wellbeing costs. Central govt is pushing wellbeing more and more towards local govt. We must
push back against this. As Kerry Prendergast said in the previously quoted Dominion article:

“If councillors want to run a social welfare operation they should stand as MPs.”

Councillors that spoke of prudent financial decision making during the election should be
encouraged now more than ever that it’s not a crime to speak up and come up with other
suggestions. I hope all Councillor’s can remember it is not in their job description to be liked by
the staff, or the Mayor.

I’d like to see live streaming of council meetings. Even just audio would be sufficient.

One final thing, I’d like to see some budget for continuing on the My Masterton campaign (with
possibly some revision of Destination Wairarapa’s role?). But make it less targeted at tourists, and
more at encouraging people to move here. I think some city people without backyards will have
crystallised in their minds that they need some more space and a different sort of lifestyle. Their
employers may well have seen their staff are quite capable of working remotely from home. This is
a golden opportunity for Masterton to enjoy further good growth stats.

Best wishes to you all,

Theus Goodwin

Ratepayer MDC

Coromandel

0223251792