Council giving out ‘crumbs’ of info - MP

Tauranga’s marine precinct.

Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell is taking the city’s council to the Ombudsman after he said they failed to give satisfactory answers to an information request over the contentious sale of the city’s marine precinct.

Uffindell is also urging other residents unhappy with the council’s transparency to do the same.

The council has received 20 requests for information under the Local Government Official Information And Meetings Act (LGOIMA) since April, asking for information about how the decision to sell the land came about.

Only one of these has been provided an answer in full.

Eleven had information partially or completely withheld while another five were told to find the information online from what had already been made public. The council was still working on three requests.

Uffindell was one of the 20 who asked for information and he said these figures were proof of his own concerns about the process.

The council at first directed Uffindell to the information already made public through other LGOIMA requests. Uffindell replied that he did not feel it answered his questions and then waited to hear back.

After 20 working days from his request, RNZ approached Tauranga City Council to ask if they were planning to respond to Uffindell. He received a response from the council two days later, refusing part of his request and pointing him to already public information for the remainder.

He said he was not happy with this response.

“I feel that it is pretty light touch, that they have put up a bunch of somewhat generic information... but to the substantive request I don’t think it’s been adequately addressed.”

Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell is taking the city’s council to the Ombudsman over the contentious sale of the city’s marine precinct.

He said it felt like the council was giving out crumbs and hoping people will go away. He has had several voters come to him also complaining about the way their LGOIMA requests have been responded to.

As an example, he pointed to one resident’s request for correspondence between key staff at the council and the developers who bought the land.

“[TCC] are refusing the request to provide this information [on the grounds] it is substantial. I find that really concerning. In fact, I find, with all the public criticism about the questions being asked, their unwillingness to be transparent about communication between senior council staff, including the chief executive, and the key developers, absolutely appalling,” Uffindell said.

He said he was going to seek an investigation by the Ombudsman into the council’s response to his request and he was telling constituents who complain to him to also approach the Ombudsman.

Uffindell has called for the mayor and councillors to demand the chief executive address the situation and he will be meeting mayor Mahe Drysdale today to directly raise this as a concern with him.

“TCC is doing itself a huge disservice, in my opinion, by not being more transparent and open with the public.”

In a statement, the council’s democracy services team leader Kath Norris said the council was happy with the way marine precinct LGOIMA requests were being responded to.

“Council is satisfied that all official information requests about the Marine Precinct have been responded to in accordance with LGOIMA and within the prescribed timeframes set in the legislation,” she said.

Norris suggested that the problem was often with the request, not the way it was responded to.

“We note that when very broad requests are received, it is appropriate to ask for the request to be refined. Once the requester refines the original request, it is then treated as a new request, replacing the original one. This restarts the statutory time limit for LGOIMA.”

Uffindell said it was really important that the public had a high level of trust in the council.

“My strong recommendation is for the mayor and councillors to call in the [chief executive] and made it very clear to him that he and his staff need to be absolutely upfront with the people of Tauranga,” he said.

11 comments

Hmmm

Posted on 19-12-2024 10:39 | By Let's get real

What are the chances of shedding light into the dark corners of our PUBLIC SERVANTS empire..? These are the faceless few behind, what might turn out to be, a sleazy black hole in council offices.
What sort of example does this set for the other council employees and contractors, when their senior managers hide behind legal claptrap when asked for answers.
Let's have some honesty and respect for legitimate questioning about the expenditure and reasoning behind the decision making.
Are we seeing outside influences brought to bare, with threats of legal action from certain peoples. Are we seeing financial impropriety, sleaze or outright corruption...? Because, if it were all ABOVE BOARD where is the problem with giving the information to those making official legal requests. It is starting to stink, and we all know who will carry the financial burden of poor management and empire building.


Not accountable

Posted on 19-12-2024 10:41 | By Angels

The council don’t run the city employees . They , us etc are not allowed to give names or point in a direction to find a solution .
People seem scared of who may get exposed.
She might further implicated that there are not nice business people in Nz


The Master

Posted on 19-12-2024 12:39 | By Ian Stevenson

TCC LGOIMA requests...

These requests are usually worded so as generally they are wide and so attempting to avoid TCC having the desired purpose of mincing words and so avoiding full and proper disclosure.

TCC have on many years creatively found any way possible to avoid responding fully when issues are present. A very tightly worded LGOIMA, allows wriggle room to TCC to then respond to the exact words/limits as written, This is of course disingenuous but typical of TCC.

If TCC was open, transparent fully then it is likely the 90+% of LGOIMA requests would not be needed as already available publicly... because TCC hides all possible, hence issue/s arise for anyone seeking disclosure from TCC, as Sam Uffindell is now discovering.


Smiths Farm Sale

Posted on 19-12-2024 12:47 | By You Must be Joking !

There needs to be an urgent investigation into aspects of the Smith Farm Sale to Venture Developments. According to a City Councilor, as a condition of Sale, there is an access route planned for the Residential Block which traverses the new Northern Link that may require the construction of a Bridge or a Tunnel. Given that there is already a Paper Road shown on a Map of the area connecting to Westridge Drive, and Cambridge Road, there seems no reason to contemplate such an unneccessary $100 million alternative route, but hey knowing this lot nothing would surprise me !


Well Sam….

Posted on 19-12-2024 12:57 | By Shadow1

… you’ve found one of the reasons you were elected. There is a can of worms to be sorted which is different to how normal councils work. It started with the previous elected council who were totally disrespected by the Mayor and ratepayers. The Commission was a disaster with the then Minister of Local Government having her own expensive agenda.
The new council has to unravel all the past problems (each with it’s own legal constraints) and rescue what they can from them.
It’s easy to blame them for what has happened re the Marine Precinct sale but I’m sure they are doing their best. The sale should be stopped and the circumstances around the agreement investigated. It is obviously a terrible deal for ratepayers and for our fishing community.
I look forward to seeing your progress on this matter Sam.
Shadow1.


Hear! Hear! Sam

Posted on 19-12-2024 13:01 | By morepork

"Uffindell said it was really important that the public had a high level of trust in the council."
Amen to that! There is an opportunity here for the new Mayor and Council to set an indication of how they mean to continue. The copybook has already been blotted with race-based appointments; do they really want to add "non-transparency" and "secretiveness"?

As others have noted, if there is nothing illegal or unethical going on, then opening the books should not be a problem. In fact, the primary approach should be that Council communications are OPEN for public perusal, UNLESS there is a competitive privilege which needs to remain Company Private.

Hopefully, in their planned meeting, our Mayor and our MP can affirm their support for OPEN, ANSWERABLE, local government, and see that it is implemented. If there are skeletons in the closet, now is the time...


Long past time

Posted on 19-12-2024 13:06 | By nerak

this sordid mess that is council is brought to stand before the people who employ them and be answerable to us. I have long expressed concerns regarding staff made decisions, which affect us all and often don't benefit us, far from it. So thanks Sam, good to see you doing something worthy, you just need to stick with it. I have over many years raised concerns with staff, and see some red flags in this article. I would like Kath Norris to explain just how many ways a request can be put: 'problem was often with the request, not the way it was responded to.' Splitting hairs, much? Delay tactics? Frankly, I've dealt with not a few mealy mouthed staff, who have been incapable of telling the truth, some of whom have been found out. We employ them. End of.


TRUST ISSUES

Posted on 19-12-2024 14:26 | By glass1/2 full

Totally agree; this council does nothing to encourage public subsmissions or debate. They would much rather do as they personally please - then they have much more time to do nothing at ratepayer expense


Hmmm

Posted on 19-12-2024 16:48 | By Let's get real

We all know who should be held accountable and it would behoove them to offer their resignation to ratepayers.
We are seeing unrestrained spending of ratepayers funds without any clear indication of ratepayers assent to the projects.
Council is absolving itself of responsibility for the very basic business requirements of a council... Waste, water and infrastructure. Every one of these basic requirements comes at an additional cost to the rates demands... WHY.???
It appears that empire building is of greater value than public health, safety and wellbeing.

IT'S A CITY, NOT A THEME PARK.


Restructure

Posted on 20-12-2024 07:59 | By Kancho

I'm not convinced the council have come to grips with running the city until the council look at restructuring the bureaucracy build up and control costs that focuses on core business .
Of course staff control all information to council and the ratepayers for their own interest and bloated structures


Starts at the top Sam

Posted on 20-12-2024 09:54 | By Naysay

With all management and staff the directive comes from the top. Clean out that and we might have a more professionally run council . Stakeholders are also ratepayers and yes put your name to an email how unacceptable that ?


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.