Did council lose a swing for kids?
Somewhere in Hastings is a patch of grass that will never get a “lovely swing” for children to play on.
That’s the fault of Hastings District’s Council’s “unwise” decision to spend $25,000 of ratepayers’ money investigating how the controversial councilled Water Central proposal was leaked to the press, one councillor says.
In September, Hawke’s Bay Today revealed details of the council’s plans to erect an externally funded $8.6 million 10m-high building at its Eastbourne site on the corner of Southampton St East and Hastings St South. It would have told the “story of water”.
The leak, in the midst of a closefought Hastings District mayoral race, sparked furious backlash from the community and the concept was abandoned this year.
The independent investigation, agreed to by majority vote by councillors, could not pinpoint the source of the leak.
The final report, by investigator Alastair Hall, concluded there was “strong inference” one or more councillors, directly or indirectly, had improperly disclosed information from councillor-only meetings. Three councillors voted against the investigation: Simon Nixon, Malcolm Dixon and Damon Harvey, who was challenging Sandra Hazlehurst for the mayoralty at the time. Nixon said the result of the investigation was a “lesson for us all”.
“Do not use council funds to pursue personal agendas and be a transparent as possible. We are community representatives not rulers.”
Nixon initially expressed concerns about the investigation costing up to $100,000. He said even though it didn’t cost as much, it was still an “unwise” use of ratepayers’ money.
“There were many possible sources of leaks because councillors were out inspecting sites and other individuals and organisations clearly knew about it,” Nixon said.
“If no one was prepared to admit to wrongdoing then I think a warning or suggestion that confidentially should be respected by councillors rather than a $25,000 investigation would have achieved just as much. $25,000 would buy a lovely swing or other amenity.”
Dixon said the investigation was “democracy in action”.
“The majority of councillors wanted it to happen so that is democracy in action. Now the findings are out in the public domain that should be the end of it.
“I was disappointed that the investigator never interviewed everyone who attended the meetings concerned. Signing an affidavit should never be treated as a free pass.”
Harvey said the entire investigation, which Hazlehurst voted for, was for political gain.
“It was more to do with fact that it occurred during an election and using the investigation and trying to pin it on someone for political gain.”
Hazlehurst said most of last term’s council decided to go through with the investigation because it was of great concern to them.
“The investigation has allowed us to improve some of our systems and processes, which we’re always striving to do,” she said. “My focus for council is building a strong team based on trust and respect.”