Thread: The results are in

Originally Posted by HB Hunting

How would you have any idea if I was considering standing or not, is this just another fact you have plucked from the far reaches of your rear end. You may wish to actually speak to me before you make a post stating what my own intentions were. Or are you working on the same principle the HB council had been doing. "we thought we had done it, but in fact we never did".
How about you ask someone who was at the meeting last night where the council admitted they had stuffed up the vote to reduce numbers. so please stay away from the keyboard until you have some actual facts and not assumptions and unfounded accusations which seem to be how you operate.

Greg Duley had already admitted the fault lay with the council as they relied on the manager (who didn't do his job correctly and add the matter to the agenda) when they should've picked up on it. He's also explained how other matters (manager related also) got in the mix and distracted them from finalizing this issue the correct way. Understandable for a bunch of volunteers.

With your intimate knowledge of this where were you months out on this issue? Why didn't you raise it in time for them to resolve it before the election?

I've not heard what the outcome of the meeting was last night, can you fill us in? Will there be an other election? If so will you stand?

Greg Duley had already admitted the fault lay with the council as they relied on the manager (who didn't do his job correctly and add the matter to the agenda)

speak to the point mike why would they need to add a already voted on and presumembly passed unanimous vote??did the manager sign off on the minutes as a true record and not date them or the chairman??
when you guys voted on the subgauge issue the one thing i,l give you is you put it out for everyone to see.
how can you blame the manager for discussion and vote that basicly was had in secrecy and whether by accident or design went unrecorded.??

No need for us to drop the numbers, we were always going to have an election. 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.

you baited the thread mike then seem to have a awful lot of oars in the water for a disinterested party as did many of the usual suspects. i give you respect for not hiding behind a obscure username you know who i am and i know who you are.
the level of nastiness and personel attack in the closed threads made a nonsence of the reasons some were supposedly banned for..
please hb hunting or anyone else who was there give us who werent a rundown if you dont mind
as it seems the other threads have been shutdown not before the bullying electioneering character assination or attempted intimidation but certainly before we get a meeting report.did you meet sam

As the election had already was underway when the infraction to regulations was found out it was not possible to stop them, so the
new council will take effect as planned. The council is taking legal advice about a legitimate vote not haven taken place to reduce the number by the current council.
And that has been my point all the way along, that correct procedure had not happened.you cant blame the manager for the councillors mistake when they all saw the meetings minutes in draft and all said was true and correct, then they all saw the agenda for the next meeting beforehand and none of them saw the missing agenda item, (all this agreed and confirmed at the meeting by the council) so there it is. and yes I did meet Sam, he introduced himself to me at the end of the meeting a sum of about a dozen words were spoken.

excellent the lack of process and consultation has always been my bugbear to.
i still fail to see what diff putting it on the june agenda would have made other than to rubber stamp a already done deal.
its not like anyone could have changed the vote or the public could have made them consult.
keep us in the loop as to any developments especialy if they do the right thing and go back to thier licence buyers first.
thank god some common sence may prevail.

The council is taking legal advice about a legitimate vote not haven taken place to reduce the number by the current council.

the only thing to worry about now is if the process was illegal does that make the election so.

interesting fact, the vote taken in April can only be called "informal" I believe the word was used by the council last night as that vote was done in General business so is not part of an agenda and was used by them to gauge "support" to move to a agenda item in June. But no such vote took place in June, then the problem was picked up by the Office Manager after election process had started. and was not picked up by others as the minutes were not on the web yet. and as it was clearly pointed out a person who cant make a meeting should by all reason be able to rely on the meeting minutes to be accurate and try.
decision made last night that they will not be consulting licence holders any further and new council to take over this month.

So where does it all stand now
1. no legitimate vote taken to reduce to 8 councillors
2. National office told vote took place on the 8th April to move to 8 councillors
3. Advise is being sought by the council to determine where they stand "legally"

interesting fact, the vote taken in April can only be called "informal" I believe the word was used by the council last night as that vote was done in General business so is not part of an agenda and was used by them to gauge "support" to move to a agenda item in June

so the requests for info to hq the very next day were off the managers own bat and him not doing his job??

From what I can make out they agreed to it as a non agenda item but to formalize it needed to raise it and vote on it at the next meeting and have it on that meeting's agenda.

is that normal practise mike?
but then to call it a unanimous vote in favour from the aprill meeting??

decision made last night that they will not be consulting licence holders any further and new council to take over this month.

what any further than none
so they did some consultation or no??

We are not talking about inexperienced hicks we are talking about multi term councillors with a number having NZCouncil experience and chairman experience.]

yea i found the poor country boy in the big city a bit hard to swallow given mr d in the next sentence says he was away filming for a month and is a noted ballistic expert.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

yea i found the poor country boy in the big city a bit hard to swallow given mr d in the next sentence says he was away filming for a month and is a noted ballistic expert.

Genuine mistakes can be made no less by anyone at anytime. I think F&G did what it had to but made some serious concessions to the integrity and fundamental purpose of elections. I am personally not surprised that process can be circumvented with such ease and such lack of regard for it's constituents- but many more people have had their eyes opened.

Just 550 people voted in HB (32%) of eligible voters. Imagine if everyone was automatically eligible to vote and region hoping wasn't allowed. Would any election give F&G a mandate to represent us?

Originally Posted by Mike H

Greg Duley had already admitted the fault lay with the council as they relied on the manager (who didn't do his job correctly and add the matter to the agenda) when they should've picked up on it. He's also explained how other matters (manager related also) got in the mix and distracted them from finalizing this issue the correct way. Understandable for a bunch of volunteers.

We are not talking about inexperienced hicks we are talking about multi term councillors with a number having NZCouncil experience and chairman experience.

Originally Posted by Mike H

With your intimate knowledge of this where were you months out on this issue? Why didn't you raise it in time for them to resolve it before the election?

The earliest the general public could have known was August 8th when the public notices were published, some four months after a "decision" occurred?