Thread: The results are in

Well done Mike and all those who were genuinely elected. Thanks also to those that stood but missed out. There is always next time, and hopefully there is a next time. It certainly seems to me that Head Office and the Tourism sector they serve are seeking conglomeration by hook or by crook. Less councils, less councillors, less hurdles. I see that tourism is nipping at the heals of Dairy for export earnings so perhaps less hurdles are required? One thing that irks me a little as a paid up member of my industry lobby group is that I pay for that lobby. With F&G I am taxed to support and expand a sector and in doing so placing more pressure on the very thing we are taxed to enjoy. Very ironic and clever.

Originally Posted by Mike H

Interesting to see the ex manager made it onto the HB Council. Don't know how effective he'll be considering it looks like the majority of the incumbents got back on.

Sorry I can barely see through the smoke screen. It was a pretty serious rift aye. As the new council will be privy to all relevant information on the confidentiality agreement etc etc this council is to some degree predictable- odd for an "election". And now we wait on the "audit" the HB chairman spoke of. This audit will show the same degree of value from Head Office as they placed on the election I suspect. Lets hold our breath together.

as long as the ''bullshit/audit tells me how the process to get to 8 was done and it was a council voted and consulted process,i,l be happy but so far no.ones saying and theres no ''paper trail''??
given what i,ve seen nz council technicly werent involved but they were informed of the intent and a lawyer consulted at the highest level.
so if the process was dodgy i get the feeling plausable deniability will rear its ugly head and hb councill ''doing as it sees fit in its own region''. will be the official line.
great leadership aint it?? drop to 8 ''do as you like'' shoot wild hen pheasant and ignore the party line on ''properties with special conditions /interests'' do as you like???personaly i think they should look at letting the next four highest vote candidates in before the excrement hits the proverbial

Originally Posted by gsp follower

as long as the ''bullshit/audit tells me how the process to get to 8 was done and it was a council voted and consulted process,i,l be happy but so far no.ones saying and theres no ''paper trail''??
given what i,ve seen nz council technicly werent involved but they were informed of the intent and a lawyer consulted at the highest level.

What are you talking about GSPF? I had an OIA request with NZF&G on the issue of the HB election- which has been answered and there is no mention of lawyers. Have you seen something that suggests lawyers have been involved in checking the process? Could you elaborate. I hardly think public officials would be deliberately misleading or lie.

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

What are you talking about GSPF? I had an OIA request with NZF&G on the issue of the HB election- which has been answered and there is no mention of lawyers. Have you seen something that suggests lawyers have been involved in checking the process? Could you elaborate. I hardly think public officials would be deliberately misleading or lie.

yes i can tim i have an email from one b johnson to one peter mac saying he,d consulted an office solicitor at doc head office who he names.
he goes onto say the HB COUNCILL can do this change themselves and notify warwick lampp of the decision.

problem is i can find no evidence or trail of the councill ever making that decision???

What is it that you are specifically wanting to achieve through your posts here? Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?
It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most

what i dont want is behind closed door decisions predicated on the thought that we dont know whats good for us?? after all we pay the bills and a countrywide licence gives us the right to expect every region to behave to the highest standard.
specificly i want to see that the decisions made are ,fair. consulted on,voted on or at least proposed and seconded and passed and there for all to see.if this flys who,s next more specificly i want to stalk up on the big rawhiti damn like i used to without having to hire a guide or pay an access fee or have them driven over me.
[the arguement i had over southland and subgauge lead, the lack of the consultation process
i was am prepared to live with either outcome there]

n regards to the reduction to 8, "good men are few, one is worth ten thousand if he is the best".

yes tahr but no man/councill is a island if it is used as a precedent to pass the shaft on down the line.look at easterns hen pheasant take and put and take ducks

It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most

certainly shouldnt the voters/licence buyers have had the same information and opportunity to be consulted on something as big as the first ever councill numbers drop ever??since voters dont know who each other is voting for.
what diff would returning the councill to the the 12[ out of respect to the next 4 highest polling candidates and thier voters] untill this is adequetly sorted?? would seem less complicated than having to stir up the minister to get another election and or bringing eastern councill in to take over by stealth. they do already know where the money is or is going tho..??

The council at no stage consulted its licence holders of their intentions to reduce councillor numbers and have bypassed all required processes
when they voted on an item that was in General business, and stated that it was a proposal to look at the possibility of reducing numbers, so no motion, no record of who moved it, no record of who seconded it., NOTHING AT ALL and that is the most telling fact that they have acted improperly.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

as long as the ''bullshit/audit tells me how the process to get to 8 was done and it was a council voted and consulted process,i,l be happy but so far no.ones saying and theres no ''paper trail''??
given what i,ve seen nz council technicly werent involved but they were informed of the intent and a lawyer consulted at the highest level.
so if the process was dodgy i get the feeling plausable deniability will rear its ugly head and hb councill ''doing as it sees fit in its own region''. will be the official line.
great leadership aint it?? drop to 8 ''do as you like'' shoot wild hen pheasant and ignore the party line on ''properties with special conditions /interests'' do as you like???personaly i think they should look at letting the next four highest vote candidates in before the excrement hits the proverbial

What is it that you are specifically wanting to achieve through your posts here? Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?
It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most. You seem to now want the the next 4, or those who the voters wanted the least.

If it is a constitutional issue that you are raising, once again, be specific about what the breech is and how you intend to go about having it remedied.

In regards to the reduction to 8, "good men are few, one is worth ten thousand if he is the best".