Motion of Censure to Go Ahead

 

It has been learned (via Bernard Orsman) that a Censure Motion against the Mayor as a consequence from the EY report (Friday 13, December) will be put at the Governing Body this Thursday.

From NZ Herald:

Auckland councillors to censure Mayor Len Brown

By Bernard Orsman Updated4:03 PM Monday Dec 16, 2013

Auckland councillors have agreed to censure Mayor Len Brown after a five-hour meeting today to decide how to punish him over fallout from his sex scandal and other embarrassing behaviour.

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said a censure motion against the mayor would go to a public meeting of the governing body on Thursday.

The council also wants to discuss the issue of costs – the Ernst & Young report into the mayor’s behaviour has cost more than $100,000 – and work with the chief executive and Audit Office to strengthen oversight of the mayor’s office.

Mr Brown attended the first 90 minutes of today’s meeting where he offered a full and unconditional apology to councillors.

Ms Hulse said councillors expressed to Mr Brown their profound disappointment and disapproval of the mayor’s actions with regard to his conduct and undeclared conflicts of interest and the damage to Auckland’s reputation.

Ahead of the meeting councillor Linda Cooper said she really hoped the mayor would get how the councillors and Aucklanders were feeling about his behavior.

Councillor Mike Lee said he had been in local government for 21 years “but this is a new experience for me and I will have to take it as it comes”.

“It is not in Auckland’s interest that the mayor resigns but clearly the mayor has a lot of work to do to rebuild trust.”

Mr Brown issued a statement this morning after he left the meeting, which continued without him.

“We had a full, frank and robust discussion and I have offered a full and unconditional apology to Councillors.

“I understand the frustration and disappointment that Councillors feel. I realise that I have a good deal of work to regain their trust and rebuild our working relationships in the interests of Auckland. This is my focus, starting today.”

…

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11173003

A Censure Motion being: A censure /ˈsɛnʃər/ is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.^[1] Among the forms that it can take are a stern rebuke by a legislature, a spiritual penalty imposed by a church, or a negative judgment pronounced on a theological proposition.

 

So as I predicted on Friday and reiterated yesterday (Media Statement on the Len Brown Saga) the Council is moving swiftly to move (and pass) a Motion of Censure against the Mayor as a consequence from the outcomes of the EY Report. For me this satisfies one of four requirements I have stated in order to bring the Council back on track and prevent crap like this happening again.

The other three requirements (or conclusions) being:

1. The “rules” set by the Council Code of Conduct,  that by the Remuneration Authority, and the Local Government (Auckland Amendment) Act 2009 are too loose with little measures provided if something does go wrong/breached

2. Government must tighten up the regulations set about by the Remuneration Authority for issuing rules around use of ratepayers resources – e.g the mayoral car and when it can be used or not. In the same regard the Local Government Act needs tightening up so the Governing Body have available a wide range of measures to deal with errant elected members. This can range from a Censure motion to something more punitive (whatever one decides that might be short of sacking a mayor)

3. Owing to this error in regards to several matters pointed out in the EY report (cell phone, mayoral car, and not declaring the hotels on the register)(and rather than the actual affair) my confidence in the mayor is shaken with support moving from positive to negative. That said I still have confidence and positive support in the wider main Council (although a particular CCO is an exception at the moment) and the rest of the elected members (regardless of whether I agree with them or not (Dick Quax and Cameron Brewer)). In being honest it has weighed on my mind on what else has the mayor not declared outside of the “affair” and could have this affected any other mayoral decision-making

 

If I was to take back of the napkin numbers on the Censure motion (and any other resulting motions) if the Council is not unanimous it would be a 11-9-1 split (the one is because I am not sure which way the particular councillor would swing) on a division. In all this I have noted from the NBR the following:

Len Brown censured; Brewer wants to take things further

…

Source: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/brown-no-show-report-reveals-39k-undeclared-hotel-stays-sf-150052

 

I have seen rather spastic subjective reasons for Len’s sacking but also valid objective reasons why Len should go. I believe under legislation this can not be done except by the Minister for Local Government – and only then is the Minister sacking the entire Council to replace it with Commissioners until fresh elections can be held. Right now I see no indication of the Minister about to sack the Council and replace it with Commissioners. The best Councillors can do is Censure and if so inclined bring about a criminal prosecution case if a crime was actually committed (re: John Banks).

Jumping up and down like a spastic right now is going to do no one any favours. The Mayor can’t be sacked by Council and has no inclination in going. Pressure must be put to Central Government to amend legislation and allow an American styled “recall” method if the super-majority wants an Auckland Mayor gone (super-majority = 67% of ALL eligible voters in Auckland voted for the recall).

But a question also needs to be asked and answered with a very level head – something the  some of the commenters on Whale Oil are failing to do at the moment for the most part. Will sacking Len entirely and calling fresh elections destabilise the City even further rather than isolating the Mayor in Council and in effect the Deputy Mayor takes over fully (so the Mayor is just a figure-head). Or as a vice-versa situation will isolating the Mayor destabilise the City worse than fresh elections. This needs a serious think and answer (carefully).

Russell Brown from Public Address looks at this in part:

We need to talk about Len

…

Brown won’t resign and the only way he could be made to is if he was convicted of a criminal office, which has not even been alleged. Were he a Minister of the Crown, serving at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, he would probably by now have put his hand up for some temporary time in the ministerial sin-bin, if only to make the story go away. That happens frequently enough in Parliamentary politics, but it can’t happen in this instance.

Complicating the matter for his councillors is the fact that even if they were to shame the mayor into stepping down, that would not necessarily be in the city’s interests. Brown’s first term was notable for his ability to get disparate groups on the council working together. By contrast, the centre-right can’t even work with each other. The shambles that led to a hopeless (and, as we now know, deeply compromised) newbie like John Palino carrying their flag this year is an indication of that bloc’s coherence.

The Prime Minister, presumably similarly motivated, continues to declare his willingness to work with Brown and to emphasise that it is “an employment matter” for the elected councillors.

Auckland is facing both opportunities and challenges in the next few years, and – in three years from a standing start – Brown and his council have constructed plans to address both. The city is growing and changing in positive ways. But Brown has deeply harmed his own ability to continue to credibly fill that role. Can anybody look at him now and be confident there’s no more to come?

…

Russell makes a striking point and one I would echo entirely as well. So is “sacking the mayor” when Government is not moving against him and no criminal act alleged or being tried in Court the right thing for Auckland. Or do we really run the risk of destabilisation that would be too much for the City to take on.

 

There are no doubt more cogs turning in the bowls of Council that we can not simply see publicly at the moment. It would be daft to idly speculate what could come about from all this over the period of time.

 

I suppose this brings up the question on what I want from the Mayor of Auckland.

To be straight up there is no actual easy answer as it is not as easy to say “sack him” on a subjective whim. We have a situation as quoted above where the regulations are too weak and need to be fixed by Central Government soon. This in my opinion compounds the situation and makes an answer more complex than what I would like it to be.

The Motion of Censure is going to occur and should pass. Any other more punitive measures from what I am gathering (apart from an Oversight Committee) will fail and most likely spectacularly at that.

Do I want Len gone fully (thus resulting in elections) as a result from all this: sadly despite some of his public accomplishments in the first term of Council – yes I do. And Brewer spells it out why:

“Along with a few others, I also argued for councillors to instruct the mayor to fully and finally disclose anything else of a related nature that may bring the council into further disrepute down the track. However this request was not agreed,” Mr Brewer says.

Source: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/brown-no-show-report-reveals-39k-undeclared-hotel-stays-sf-150052

 

Twice this has happened now on similar occurrences and as I have also said:

In being honest it has weighed on my mind on what else has the mayor not declared outside of the “affair” and could have this affected any other mayoral decision-making

That weighs too much on my mind to give support and confidence behind the Mayor – the seeds of distrust have been sown and with big projects I will always be thinking – what was not declared. And being transparent with readers, I do have a pet project of interest with Council; that being the Manukau Super Metropolitan Project which is now slowly rolling after successes at the Auckland Development Committee last month.

 

 

So come Friday morning there is going to be one victor and one loser from this saga as it comes to a-head at the Governing Body on Thursday morning. Either way those loser will be heavily damaged from this affair.

 

Related articles

• Len Brown silent on hotel bills (nzherald.co.nz)
• Media Statement on the Len Brown Saga (voakl.net)
• Len Brown apologises to councillors (stuff.co.nz)