This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
6 MAY 1996
A meeting of the Community Services Committee
was held on Monday 6 May 1996 at 4.00 p.m.
PRESENT: Councillor Garry Moore (Chairperson),
The Mayor,
Councillors Carole Anderton, Graham Condon,
David Cox (in the absence of the Chairperson,
Councillor Cox assumed the Chair for part of
clause 5), Anna Crighton, Ishwar Ganda,
Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast, Gail Sheriff
and Barbara Stewart.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor David Close arrived at 4.15 p.m. and
was absent for part of clause 4. APOLOGIES: Apologies were received and accepted for lateness
from Councillors Garry Moore, Lesley Keast
and Carole Anderton. Councillor Moore arrived at 4.17 p.m. and was
absent for part of clause 4. Councillor Carole Anderton arrived at 4.18 p.m.
and was absent for part of clause 4. Councillor Keast arrived at 4.18 p.m. and was
absent for part of clause 4. The Mayor arrived at 4.40 p.m. and retired at
6.45 p.m. and was absent for part of clause 4
and clauses 13, 14 and 15. Councillor Cox retired at 6.45 p.m. and was
absent for clauses 13, 14 and 15. Councillor Crighton retired at 4.45 p.m. and
was absent for clause 13, 14 and 15. Councillor Stewart retired at 7.00 p.m., returned
at 7.15 p.m. and was absent for part of clause 14.
The Committee reports that: PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. LOCAL EMPLOYMENT CO-ORDINATION RR 2779 COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES GROUP
Officer responsible Author Employment Services Manager Jan Francis Corporate Plan Output: 7.6 text 41 Cont'd The purpose of this report is to provide information as requested at the April meeting of the Committee on community groups involved in the employment field. (Members will recall that Mr Graham Mitchell and Ms Barbara Arnold of the Community Employment Initiatives Group spoke about their concerns at this meeting.) BACKGROUND
Over the last four years, community groups involved in employment projects have been meeting to network and explore joint projects. Begun originally to promote part-time temporary, employment through the use of community labour pools, the Group has expanded considerably over the last two years, to include any community groups who run employment projects. Currently the membership of the Group is: Step Ahead
A group dealing with people with psychiatric disabilities Te Whare Roimata
An inner city cottage Project Employment and Environmental Enhancement Project (PEEEP)
An environmental project in Burwood Wai Ora Trust
An agriculture based trust in Bishopdale Youth and Cultural Development Centre (YCD)
A centre working with at risk Youth The New Way Trust
The group working with skinheads Waltham Community Cottage
Runs an employment project Manuka Cottage
Runs an employment project Just Dollars
A loan fund for small business start ups Otautahi Women's Labour Pool (OWL)
Runs employment programmes for women Mature Employment Service
Covering the over 40 age group 1 Cont'd Wahine Tu Kaha
Maori women's employment and business organisation
Nga Maata Waka
A group working with Maori Kingdom Resources Trust
An employment project running in Spreydon Salvation Army Volunteer Programme
Attempts to staircase people into work through a volunteer programme Job Placement Co-ordinator at Aranui High School
Works with students and families to assist with work and work experience Comcare
A group involved with people with psychiatric disabilities Richmond Fellowship
Psychiatric disabilities Paparua Community Activities Centre
Runs a number of projects for people in the Hornby area Schizophrenia Fellowship
Seeking flexible work Anglican Care
Overall view of a number of projects run by its organisation DUPLICATION The Group covers a wide variety of activities based on either geographical areas, specific activities or particular groups or people. Members of the group complement each others activities and seek to co-operate and co-ordinate programmes. GROUP ACTIVITIES
Over the time that the Group have been meeting a number of initiatives have been undertaken. 1. Sharing Information and Resources The Group has been able to assist each other in a number of ways for example, one group was able to use the grass clippings from another groups lawn mowing contract, for compost on their horticulture project. Groups have provided each other with expertise in accounting, planning and evaluation, and technical information such as landscaping and vehicle purchase. 1 Cont'd 2. Information Gathering
The Group has invited speakers to the monthly meetings from organisations such as Inland Revenue, New Zealand Income Support Service, New Zealand Employment Service, and Community Employment Group to inform them of new policies or to answer questions on policy direction which need clarification. Such meetings have been useful for the feedback of ideas from the Government Departments and from the community organisations. 3. Joint Submissions
The group made a joint submission to the Prime Ministerial Task Force on Employment in 1994. They have made submissions to Government Departments on specific policies which affect their operation and to Cabinet Ministers. 4. Joint Projects The Group has also explored ways of attempting co-operative and joint projects. One example of this is a contract with an apple packhouse where each member of the initiatives group is offered a position on a team of workers working in the apple packhouse. This is a joint project with the private sector (the apple packhouse), the public sector, government and council. Funding has been secured for the operational costs and the community sector provide the labour co-ordination, payment of wages, and transport for the project. 5. Representation on Other Liaison Groups
The Community Employment Initiatives Groups has a representative on the Employment and Training Liaison Group and the Refugee and Migrant Co-ordination Group. This ensures that these groups do not become too cumbersome but that the Initiatives Group has an ability to feed information into these groups.
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT
The wide variety of groups involved enables a broad range of responses to Government Policy, both local and central, and information on what is being experienced by those people most disadvantaged in our society. The Council Employment Services Unit has provided a co-ordination, facilitation, and support role for this Group. EMPLOYMENT TASK FORCE
This Group fulfils the role outlined in the Prime Ministerial Task Force on Employment Proposals For Action (November 1994). These proposals suggested that local action groups be formed which would take the lead in ensuring that the national goals specified in the Task Force Report were met locally, that effective co-ordination took place, and that local employment opportunities were identified and promoted.
1 Cont'd The Task Force proposals included the provision for a local Employment Commissioner who would co-ordinate and resource the local action group to obtain this information. To date no appointment of local Commissioners has been made. However two national co-ordinators have been appointed and consultation has been carried out throughout the country as to the composition of local action groups and appointment of Commissioners in a variety of regions. The Employment Initiatives Group would form a part of a local action group and already fulfils the role as set down by the Proposals For Action and the Governments response to the report. Whilst the community organisations have formed this network and are working closely together to provide the best service to unemployed people in Christchurch this has not been the case with all Government Departments. Although some attend the Employment and Training Liaison Group a co-ordinated approach at senior level does not appear to occur. In its discussions with the Community Services Committee at the last meeting, the Community Employment Initiatives Group suggested that the Council could become an advocate on their behalf to call Government Departments together to discuss ways of linking and networking more closely and being aware of the needs within the Community. Of particular concern was the issue of funding for Government Services now being provided by community groups. Recently in Christchurch a meeting was held by Lianne Dalziel, at which over 50 groups were represented, to discuss the problems associated with contracting across multi-agencies and the funding of community groups. One of the recommendations from that group was to establish a Community Development Project Team to: Investigate the overall level of funding for communities and any funding formulae that apply, as well as confirming the need for funders to give equal weight to the prevention and early intervention of work community groups.
While local Employment Commissioners and local action groups may fulfil this role in the future, currently there is no indication of when this might occur. It may therefore, be timely for the Council to initiate such discussions. A further request from the Group was that the Council consider providing contracts to community groups to enable those groups to provide work for their members and also provide an income for their organisation. While this suggestion has a number of problems, particularly concerning competition with the private sector contractors there are some elements of the proposal which may be explored further.
Employment Services Unit has had a preliminary discussion with the Parks Unit in terms of the amount of work which may be available within its Unit. The Parks Unit assures us that there is sufficient work to keep a large number of people employed, if the resources for such work could be found. Given that a number of projects are now contracted out it would appear that what is required is work that would not be otherwise carried out because of its cost or which has been deferred for the future. 1 Cont'd Such work may be able to be undertaken by Community Groups and this would not put any pressure on either the Parks Unit's own staff or private sector contractors. The proposal would in effect call for a local community work scheme. Such schemes were proposed by the Prime Ministerial Task Force on Employment but were not, however, part of the Governments response to the Task Force recommendations. Such a scheme would entail using the highest wage subsidy possible to be negotiated, either through the Taskforce Green scheme or JobPlus which would then be topped up by funds from the Council. It may also be possible to use this type of scheme to seek work in community organisations as is currently the case with the Adult Community Employment Scheme. Recommendation: 1. That the Christchurch City Council call a meeting with the Heads of New Zealand Employment Service, New Zealand Income Support Service, Children and Young Persons Service, Inland Revenue Department, and Education and Training Support Agency in Christchurch and representatives of the Christchurch Employment Initiatives Group, to discuss co-ordination, liaison and the issue of funding for government services. 2. That the Manager of Employment Services Unit, in conjunction with community organisations, relevant Government Departments and Council units, investigate the possibility of a Local Work Scheme and report to the June Committee meeting.
2. COUNCIL POLICY ON THE KEEPING OF PETS, RR 2785 SUPPLY OF GARDEN SHEDS AND LANDSCAPING
IN COUNCIL FLATS
Officer responsible Author
Property Manager Frances Wick, Stephen
Spencer, Bill Pollett
Corporate Plan Output: 8.7 Property - Housing
The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee on the existing
policies relating to such matters as pets, landscaping and sheds, following a
request for information at the recent Housing seminar.
PETS
The policy of the Christchurch City Council relating to pets is stated in
Clause 6(b) of the Elderly Persons' Housing Conditions of Tenancy and also in
Clause 3(f) of the Public Rental Lease Agreement, to be read in conjunction
with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and subsequent amendments, and
states:2 Cont'd "The tenant shall not ... keep on the premises or any part thereof any dogs, rabbits, fowls, pigeons or other livestock; but the keeping of one cat or caged birds will not be objected to provided no annoyance is caused to other tenants or the general public."
A report from the Director of Housing and Property, on this policy, which was presented to Council on 18 August 1983 states: "Contrary to belief, the number of dog-owning applicants for Elderly Persons' Housing is small, being less than 1% of the total number of applications received. While the present policy does deter some people from applying, those who are housed and who have to find alternative homes for their dogs accept the situation albeit with some reluctance. However, subsequent feedback from these people has shown that they agree with the policy and they recognise the problems that would arise if it was changed. Nearly all the applications received specify particular areas of the City in which the applicant wishes to be housed. Generally, those applying wish to remain close to friends and family are reluctant to accept accommodation that would separate them from these contracts. Even if the suggestion was implemented and two complexes were set aside for this purpose, I would doubt that the dog owners concerned would forego their preference for living in a particular area solely to retain their pets. In addition, it would prove difficult to maintain a high occupancy rate because of the limited number of dog owners applying for housing.
The accommodation provided by the Council comprises both bedsitter and single bedroom units and results in very close living conditions which is not a good environment for the keeping of dogs.
It has been suggested that the toy breed should be allowed. However, if the Council is to change its policy, it should be seen to be fair to all concerned and those owners of the larger breeds should not be excluded. The main objections to the proposal are ones of noise and nuisance not only to persons within the complex but to owners of neighbouring properties. To have a large population of dogs confined to a small area can only lead to complaint and friction from both the tenants concerned and the adjoining owners. While some owners do control their animals, many do not and this would inevitably lead to confrontation situations.
Currently, the practice of some tenants in feeding birds is the subject of complaint and numerous problems are encountered with cats around the complexes. To agree to the suggestion will only compound the present problems.
While sympathising with the request, because of the inherent problems that would be encountered if the present policy was changed, I could not support the proposal." It is considered that the policy is as relevant today as it was in 1983. The accommodation provided by the Council comprises a variety of units resulting in very close living conditions which are not a good environment for the keeping of dogs
2 Cont'd LANDSCAPING The grounds of the Christchurch City Council Elderly Persons' Housing and Public Rental Housing complexes are maintained in the following manner: The Maintenance Contract covers all defined common garden areas. This includes, weed control by either hand or herbicide, as appropriate. In some instances, bark or mulch may be approved by the Housing Officer. Shrubs, bushes, hedges and trees in common areas are pruned regularly to ensure that paved areas and windows are kept clear. Any complete removal of trees is requested separately by the Housing Officer and is not part of the contract. All garden areas are kept clear of rubbish ie plastic, paper, leaves, trees and garden material. At least three times per year, gravel and paved areas under clotheslines, kerbs and paths are sprayed for weeds. During seasonal leaf fall, paths and lawns are cleared of leaves. The total cost during the 1994/95 year for grounds maintenance was as follows: Total Cost Lawns Gardening General and Removal
Contract of Rubbish
$379,816.00 $160,455.00 $93,750.00 $125,611.00 These costs are for the maintenance of existing landscaping and any additional landscaping, to that already provided, would have to be budgeted for. Tenants are responsible for the small garden plots immediately outside the front and back of their flats. The majority of tenants are happy to have a patch of garden that they can call their own. If their health makes it difficult to manage personally, they arrange for family or employ a gardener to maintain (Income Support may assist with any cost involved). Many complexes have one or more very keen gardeners who voluntarily help maintain the gardens of those who are not able to. Some even attend to common garden areas and grow vegetables, for themselves and others, in the boundary fence garden areas. Tenants in the flats on the end of the blocks also maintain the strip of garden along the end wall. In some instances this area can be quite extensive and is too much for many of the elderly tenants. If possible, keen gardeners are put into these flats. Usually, these gardens are very visible when entering the complex and are responsible for creating the overall impression as to the attractiveness or otherwise of the complex. Perhaps, in future, these areas should be included in the Maintenance Contract but if the individual tenant chooses, he/she can maintain it. If this area becomes untidy or is not of an acceptable standard, the contactor can then bring it into line. 2 Cont'd GARDEN SHEDS/STORAGE AREAS
At present there are 49 Council Housing complexes with garden sheds and a total of 66 sheds of differing sizes and designs. There are also locker type cupboards attached to the recently built complexes, sited within the back porches of each unit. Other forms of storage areas are permanently built cupboards under staircases, where there are double storeyed units and purpose built garages. There is a demand by tenants in some areas for some form of extra storage outside their flats. This would be for the storage of gardening equipment, tools, bicycles etc. The Chairperson's comment: The question of whether tenants in Council owned flats should be permitted to keep dogs as pets is a vexed one. On the one hand Council housing often provides relatively high density neighbourhoods where the keeping of a dog, even a well behaved one, clearly has some impact on the immediate neighbours of the owner. On the other hand there are a number of situations where the keeping of a dog is of therapeutic value to the owner. This is clearly recognised in the situation of seeing eye dogs which are permitted in Council flats. A blanket ban as was confirmed in 1983, seems somewhat harsh and unreasonable. Equally unreasonable would be an unfettered right to keep a pet dog. The need is to strike a balance. I therefore propose that the 1983 policy be revised to provide the following: 1. That a dog not be kept in Council units without the express approval of the Council. 2. That applications be determined by a subcommittee comprising the Chair of the Community Services Committee, the Deputy Mayor, and the Housing Unit Manager. 3. That the assessment of applications be based on the following considerations: (i) The suitability of the specific unit for the keeping of a dog, including that the unit should have access to private fenced outside space. (ii) The contribution that the dog would make directly to the emotional and physical wellbeing of the tenant. (iii) The likelihood of significant nuisance being imposed on neighbours. (iv) Consideration of the size and type of dog and its suitability for being kept in the conditions proposed. 2 Cont'd Approval should only be granted for the keeping of a dog where the benefit to the tenant is seen to be greater than the benefit normally associated with keeping a dog. 4. That the Subcommittee have the absolute right to withdraw the approval for the keeping of a dog should it be satisfied that the keeping of the dog is imposing a significant nuisance on the neighbours of the tenant or other persons. Recommendation: 1. That the Council adhere to its present policy on the keeping of pets. 2. That the garden areas immediately outside the front and back of the flats remain the responsibility of the tenants. 3. That the large garden areas adjacent to the end flats on each block be included in the Maintenance Contract. 4. That the Council provide suitable garden sheds in complexes where no other storage facility exists for garden tools and where suitable space is available. (Note: Councillors Anna Crighton, Lesley Keast and Garry Moore requested that their vote against recommendation 1 be recorded.)
3. EMPIRES BEYOND THE GREAT WALL - RR 2792
ROBERT McDOUGALL ART GALLERY
The Committee received a report from the Art Gallery Director, Tony Preston, on the proposal that the gallery host the exhibition "Empires Beyond the Great Wall: The Heritage of Genghis Khan" during the period 24 October to 24 November 1996. (A copy of the report and budget are attached.) Recommendation: That the Council support the gallery mounting the exhibition and accept the underwriting responsibilities subject to a report from the Director of Finance being obtained for the consideration of Councillors. The Director of Finance comments: "I have examined the budget proposal for the "Genghis Khan" exhibition and consider that it is a well reasoned assessment of the expenses and revenues expected. The key to a break-even exhibition is the estimate of attendees. The attendance figures as quoted appear to be a reasonable estimation based on attendance figures of similar exhibitions in the past and current attendance figures for the Art Gallery. I believe that it is appropriate for the Council to support the exhibition as there is a high probability of achieving the projected budget."
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
GATT WATCHDOG Mr Aziz Choudry and Ms Leigh Cookson spoke concerning the proposal that the Council co-host a "Welcome to Christchurch" function on 14 July 1996 in connection with the APEC meeting. Mr Choudry and Ms Cookson expressed concern that by hosting such a function the Council was providing support to, and endorsing, the policies of APEC which they considered were not in the best interests of the Christchurch community, were not democratic and not necessarily supported by Christchurch residents. They suggested APEC had social and political dimensions in addition to trade and economic issues and indicated in their view it provided an aggressive market driven initiative which supported free trade without Government intervention. For the reasons provided in their presentation they requested that the Council: 1. Endorse the non-Government organisation statement from the November 1995 Osaka APEC meeting. 2. Rescind the agreement to host a civic reception. 3. Provide energy and resources into researching the real impact of GATT and APEC on the Christchurch community. The representations from the group were discussed and the Committee resolved that the information be received and that the representatives from GATT Watchdog be thanked for their presentation. CHRISTCHURCH COMMUNITY ARTS COUNCIL Mr Raoul Neave and Ruth Leversedge of the Christchurch Community Arts Council spoke to members concerning the functions, current activities and future aspirations of the Community Arts Council. The attendance at the meeting arose from an invitation following the April meeting of the Committee when the six monthly report of the Community Arts Council was presented. Mr Neave outlined the current projects being undertaken by the Community Arts Council with the help of funding from Trustbank Community Trust, Creative Communities and from their own resources. He indicated the Community Arts Council would like to be involved in the setting up of any new Community Arts Councils based on Community Boards and in the event of this proposal coming to fruition they would like to see a Christchurch-wide Community Arts Council to represent the interests of individual CACs. He saw the role of the Community Arts Council as changing from involvement in the distribution of funding to that of advocacy leadership and education and indicated their appreciation of the support received from the Christchurch City Council and the value of representation at the Arts Centre for the Community Arts Worker.
4 Cont'd Mr Neave indicated the Christchurch Community Arts Council would shortly be holding a special session to prepare a strategic plan for the next few years and it was agreed that once this had been prepared and discussed with staff a further report could be brought forward to the Committee.
5. 4YP ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT RR 2780 The Committee considered a report from the Community Adviser Youth, Julie Macdonald, on the 4YP youth entertainment project. The report provided details of the background, establishment and monitoring of the 4YP programme together with details of the programme planned for 1996. Support for the programme has been provided by Trustbank Canterbury Community Trust and the Christchurch City Council and it is monitored by a group co-ordinated through the Leisure and Community Services Unit. Members of the Committee indicated their support for the programme and the hope that this could be extended and continued in the future. In particular concern was expressed at the absence of functions similar to those formerly provided at the "Firehouse" and "Sammy's" in Dunedin, especially for those in the 18-20 year age group. Members noted the necessity for an application to be made to the Budget Review Subcommittee for any additional funding to allow this programme to be continued and expanded and asked that a report be provided on the outcome of a meeting to be arranged by the Community Adviser Youth with the Co-ordinating Committee to discuss further the suggestions outlined in the meeting. The Committee resolved: 1. That the information be received. 2. That the Community Adviser Youth arrange for a meeting with the Co- ordinating Committee to discuss means by which the programme could be continued and expanded and that this be reported back to the next meeting of the Committee.
6. POVERTY CONFERENCE RR 2781 Members considered a report from Julie Macdonald and Kath Jamieson, Leisure and Community Services Unit, on the conference held in Auckland in April 1996 entitled "The Multiple Effects of Poverty on Children and Young People: Issues and Answers". The conference had been organised by the Children's Coalition Committee and was attended a wide range of people concerned with issues surrounding the wellbeing of children and young people. The conference provided a valuable opportunity for Council officers to obtain accurate and current information about the state of poverty research in New Zealand. 6 Cont'd The Committee resolved: 1. That the information be received. 2. That copies of conference papers be made available to Councillors and that subsequent reports bringing issues to the attention of the Committee be submitted as appropriate.
7. KIDS IN CHRISTCHURCH RR 2641 This report provided information to Councillors on the publication "Kids in Christchurch" published in December 1995 and was presented by Julie Battersby, Communications and Promotions Unit. The book was the first of its kind in New Zealand and provided an activity guide for children aimed at the 13 years and under bracket. Funding for this was sourced from Trustbank Community Trust and the issue had been distributed free of charge. An initial run of 10,000 copies was distributed within six weeks and had received wide-spread publicity. It was the intention of the Communications and Promotions Unit to reprint the book prior to Christmas 1996 and to seek further funding via grants and advertising to allow this. The Committee resolved: 1. That the information be received. 2. That Belinda Carter be acknowledged for her concept of "Kids in Christchurch", an activity guide for children. 3. That a review be undertaken with the possibility of a small charge for each book to be investigated and/or sponsorship and reported back to the June meeting of the Committee.
8. LAND HELD FOR HOUSING RR 2783 The Committee considered a report from Errol Waller, Housing Manager, on land set aside and held for future housing purposes as requested at the Committee's Housing Seminar. The report provided details of areas of land currently available which could be utilised for Council housing purposes if so resolved. The Committee resolved: 1. That the information be received. 2. That the land holdings be retained for housing purposes until the housing survey, currently underway, identifies the areas of need. 3. That the information be referred to the Housing Review Working Party.
9. USE OF CURRENT ELDERLY PERSONS' RR 2784 HOUSING STOCK FOR MIXED HOUSING
This report, prepared by Housing Unit staff, advised members on existing policy relating to the use of Elderly Persons' Housing for mixed housing and arose from a suggestion made at the Committee's Housing Seminar that EPH housing could perhaps also be utilised for this purpose. The report provided information on the range of people presently being housed under the existing Elderly Persons' Housing policy, details of existing stock and a summary of the problems associated with mixing age groups. The report noted that during discussions in April 1995 with representatives of community organisations, and Healthlink South, the view was expressed that there would be significant difficulties in mixing different age groups in an existing building. The report noted that insufficient housing existing in both EPH and public rental housing for: Families requiring three or four bedroom accommodation
Low Income and Single Parent Families
Two Bedroom Elderly Persons' Housing
Accommodation for beneficiaries eg: Sickness, Training and Student Allowance The Committee resolved: 1. That the present status at Mabel Howard Place remain as is with new tenants being selected under the present Elderly Persons' Housing policy. 2. That no changes to the present Elderly Persons' Housing policy and public rental policy take place until the "Housing Review Report" is presented to the Committee at its July 1996 meeting. 3. That the information be referred to the Housing Review Working Party.
10. THE SUPPLY OF CARPETS AND DRAPES RR 2786 IN COUNCIL HOUSING
The Committee considered a report from Housing Unit staff on the existing policy relating to the supply of carpets and drapes in Council housing. This followed a request for information at the Committee's Housing Seminar on the Council's policy of not supplying carpets and drapes in its housing but charging uniform rents. The Committee resolved that there be no change to the present policy regarding the supply of carpets and drapes in the Council's rental housing units.
11. ITEMS RECEIVED The Committee received the following report: 11 Cont'd 11.1 Sister Cities Convention 1996 RR 2643 Members received a report from Julie Battersby, Communications and Promotions Unit, on the annual Sister Cities Conference held in Whakatane, 22- 24 March 1996. Christchurch City was represented by Councillor David Buist, Professor Bill Willmott, Mr Eric Livingstone and Julie Battersby. Key note speeches were provided on "Economic Outcomes of Sister City Relationships" and "Benefits of Sister City Relationships as Measured in Canada". The convention attracted 144 delegates including international delegates from seven countries. The conference provided an opportunity to develop new contacts and share ideas on ways to encourage sister city activities and in addition time was spent to have discussions with a delegation from Gansu Province, China on the planned centennial celebrations of the birth of Rewi Alley in 1998.
12. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC The Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public set out on page 25 of the agenda be adopted, with the addition that Ele Brunnell, Pat Payne and Janet Evans of the Housing for Women's Trust, and Sergeant Pat Creasey, New Zealand Police, be permitted to remain because of their knowledge of the items to be discussed.
CONSIDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1996
MAYOR