Report to Council of the Strategy and Resources Committee 28 July 1997

27. 8. 97

STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

28 JULY 1997

A special meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee
was held on Monday 28 July 1997 at 9.00 am

PRESENT:	Councillor David Close (Chairman), Councillors Carole Evans, Gordon Freeman, Pat Harrow, Ian Howell, Alister James, Denis O'Rourke and Ron Wright.
APOLOGIES:	Apologies for absence were received and accepted from the Mayor, Councillors Oscar Alpers and Garry Moore.
ABSENT:	Councillor Margaret Murray.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1998 COUNCIL ELECTION REVIEW

RR 5667

INTRODUCTION

At its February 1997 meeting the Council resolved:

That the Strategy and Resources Committee consider the options for the election at a special meeting in June.
That the Community Boards be requested to review the number of elected members and advise the Council whether they wish to have any alteration in the number of elected members.
That suitable publicity be given to the review in order to seek public comment on the issues.

SUBMISSIONS ON REVIEW

Forty-three submissions on this issue were made by community groups and members of the public. Submissions were also made by each of the six Community Boards. The following persons appeared in person before the Committee in support of their submissions:

Chester Street Residents' Association (Mr Peter Dyhrberg)

Mr Dyhrberg stated that the Association favoured the retention of the status quo, although the Association would also like to see Community Boards granted greater delegated powers.

Merivale Precinct Society (Messrs David Lynch and Bill Hall)

Mr Lynch stated that in his opinion greater time should have been allowed for public submissions, and that an independent commissioner should be appointed to consider this issue and make recommendations to the Council.

Middleton/Matipo Community Association (Justine Mouat)

Ms Mouat stated that the Association was not in favour of the boundary change between the Riccarton Ward and the Wigram Ward recommended by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, in that it would result in an imbalance in the population of the two wards, which was likely to become greater in the future because of projected growth in the Wigram Ward. The Association also supported a change in the legislation to allow all ward Councillors to serve on Community Boards, to allow equal representation of both wards forming the community in question. The Association also favoured the granting of more extensive delegated powers to Community Boards.

Yaldhurst Residents' Group (Messrs Ron Franks and Norm Thomas)

The group favoured the retention of the ward system, although it was also of the opinion that there was inadequate representation of rural interests on rating and other issues of concern to the rural community.

Helen Broughton and David Buist

Ms Broughton and Mr Buist advised that they were opposed to the proposed boundary change between the Riccarton Ward and the Wigram Ward recommended by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board. They advised that the proposed alteration had originally been mooted as part of a wider review of boundaries including parts of the Fendalton/Waimairi community, but that as the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board had decided to recommend retention of the existing boundaries it was illogical to proceed with the rearrangement of the Riccarton/Wigram boundaries, which if approved would create an imbalance in the population between the two wards.

Mr Mark Kunnen

Mr Kunnen advised that he supported the election of Councillors by wards rather than at large, and a review of the legislation to allow all Councillors to serve on Community Boards. He was also of the opinion that an independent commissioner should be appointed to consider this issue and submit recommendations to the Council. He stated that he was also opposed to the proposed alteration in the boundaries between the Riccarton and Wigram Wards.

Mr Maurice McGregor

Mr McGregor advised that he supported the election of Councillors by wards rather than at large. He also expressed the opinion that a sufficient number of experienced community activities staff should be attached to each service centre, to ensure that each Board was properly advised in areas of community welfare and community facilities.

Mr B H Palmer

Mr Palmer advised that he supported the retention of the existing wards, but favoured a reduction to 18 in the number of Councillors.

Mr Ralph Ross (supported by Shirley Residents' Group)

Mr Ross advised that he supported the retention of the status quo in all respects, and was opposed to any change in the name of the Shirley Ward. He favoured changes in the legislation to allow all Councillors to serve on Community Boards, and the introduction of a new requirement that candidates for election should live in the ward in which they were standing.

Mr Paul Telfer

Mr Telfer made submissions suggesting (amongst other things) that there was undue emphasis on party politics within the Council.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

(a) Council

Section 101H of the Local Government Act 1974 provides that the Council, not later than 31 August 1997, by resolution, must determine:

Whether the Council (other than the Mayor) is proposed to be elected at large or by the electors of two or more wards;
If the election is at large, the proposed number of Councillors to be elected; or
If a ward system is proposed -

The proposed name and boundaries of each ward; and

The number of members proposed to be elected by the electors of each ward.

While previously there was a legal requirement that territorial authorities with a population of 20,000 or more had to be divided into wards, that requirement was removed in 1991. A ward system is now optional for any territorial authority.

With regard to membership of the Council, the Act provides that there must be at least six Councillors and no more than 30, including the Mayor.

In determining whether the Council is to be elected at large or by wards and in determining the number and boundaries of wards the Council must ensure:

"(a) That the election of members of the Council by the electors of the district as a whole or by the electors of the two or more wards whose number and boundaries are determined will provide effective representation of communities of interest within the district; and

(b) That ward boundaries coincide with the boundaries of current statistical meshblock areas determined by the Department of Statistics and used for Parliamentary electoral purposes; and

(c) That, so far as is practicable, ward boundaries coincide with community boundaries."

The Act provides that in determining the number of Councillors to be elected by the electors of any ward, the Council shall ensure that the electors of the ward "... receive fair representation having regard to the population of every ... ward within the ... district and, if the circumstances so require, the rateable values, areas, or other relevant characteristics of the various ... wards".

The former legal requirement that the population of each ward be not more or less than 10% of any other ward has been abolished.

The Council's resolution to be made by 31 August 1997 relating to its membership and the basis of the election of 1998 is publicly notified within 14 days of making the resolution and in that public notice the Council must specify:

The communities of interest considered by the Council;
The ratio of population to proposed members for each proposed ward (if any) and the reasons for those proposals;
That any person can lodge an objection within one month of the public notice.

The Council must consider all objections and can amend its proposals. The Council must then give a further public notice incorporating any amendments, the reasons for the amendments and for the rejection of any objections, and specifying the right of appeal.

Where the proposals have been amended there is a right of counter-objection. Any appeals or counter-objections must be lodged within one month of the second public notice.

The Council's proposals and any appeals and counter-objections are then forwarded to the Local Government Commission no later than 15 January 1998. The Commission is directed, before 29 March 1998, to make a decision on the Council's proposal, and on any appeals or counter-objections. The Commission's decision is final subject only to any appeal on a point of law.

If there are no objections to the Council's original proposal, or there are no appeals or counter-objections to any amended proposal, then the publicly notified proposal or amended proposal becomes the basis for the 1998 election.

(b) Community Boards

In addition to reviewing its own membership and basis for election, the Local Government Act requires the Council, not later than 31 August 1997, to review the number of elected members of the Community Boards and the Council may, with the consent of, or at the request of, a Community Board, by resolution, alter the number of elected members of a Community Board. Therefore there must be agreement between the Council and the Community Board if there is to be any alteration in the number of elected members.

This review of the number of elected Community Board members has no direct link at the present time to the number of appointed Councillor members. The number of appointed Councillor members will be a decision for the new Council after the 1998 election.

The legal requirements for elected members of Community Boards is no less than four and no more than 12. Councillors will recall that the number of appointed Councillor members of Community Boards cannot be more than half the number of elected members.

POPULATION AND NUMBER OF ELECTOR IN EACH EXISTING WARD

Schedule A (attached) gives the following information for each of the 12 existing wards:

Usually resident population as at the date of the 1996 census.
Number and percentage of residents over the age of 18 as at the date of the 1996 census.
Number of residential electors at the 1995 elections.
Number and percentage of residential electors who voted at the 1995 elections.

Community Boards

Each Community Board was asked to review the number of its elected members and advise the Council whether they wished to have any alteration in the number of elected members. Some Community Boards addressed additional issues, and a summary of the responses received from the six Community Boards is attached as Schedule B.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL

The Committee addressed the following issues in relation to the membership of the Council:

(a) Election at Large or by Wards

Most submitters consider that the ward system provides the most effective form of representation and that reverting to a system of electing the Council at large would result in less effective representation of the wide range of communities within the city. For this reason the Committee concluded that the Council should continue to be elected by wards.

(b) Number and Boundaries of Wards

The Committee noted that although two minor boundary adjustments involving the Wigram, Spreydon and Riccarton Wards had been unanimously agreed to by all members of both the Spreydon/Heathcote and Riccarton/Wigram Community Boards, there had been substantial disagreement between members of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board regarding the more major boundary alteration proposed in respect of the boundary between the Riccarton and Wigram Wards. The three alterations proposed are:

Area 1 -Transfer from Wigram to Spreydon Ward

Small tongue of land incorporating Worsleys Road (meshblock no 2485409). There are nine residents in this area.

Area 2 -Transfer from Spreydon to Riccarton Ward

Area bounded by the main south railway, Deans Avenue, Blenheim Road and Annex Road (meshblocks 2538800, 2539001, 247700, 2475800, 2475600, 2475500, 2475400, 2475300). There are 15 residents in this area.

Area 3 -Proposed Transfer from Riccarton Ward to Wigram Ward

This would involve a redrawing of the boundary between these two wards to follow the centre line along Epsom Road (Main South Road to the intersection with Racecourse Road) and the centre line of Racecourse Road (Yaldhurst Road to the intersection with Epsom Road). This involves meshblocks 2489102, 2495402, 2495403, 2495404, 2479301, 2479302, 2479400, 2479500, 2479601, 2479602, 2479700. There are 1,200 residents in these meshblocks.

The Committee concluded that it was unable to recommend approval of the proposed alteration set out in Area 3, for the following reasons:

It would create an imbalance in the population between the Riccarton Ward and the Wigram Ward, which is likely to become more pronounced as a result of projected growth in the Wigram Ward.
There is substantial disagreement amongst members of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board as to the justification for the alteration proposed.
Should the Local Government Commission decide to incorporate all or part of the present Banks Peninsula District Council area within greater Christchurch, a major review of all existing ward boundaries will be undertaken by the Local Government Commission prior to the release of the resulting reorganisation scheme.

Some submitters sought a reduction in the number of Councillors. However, the Committee was of the opinion that the number of Councillors should remain at 24 (two per ward), bearing in mind the heavy workload experienced by the present Councillors, and the additional workload which would result from a reduction to 18 or less.

While a reduction to 18 Councillors would allow all Councillors to be appointed to Community Boards under the present legislation, this would lead to less effective representation of residents, in that a reduction from 24 to 18 Councillors would increase the average number of residents represented by each Councillor from 12,876 to 17,168.

MEMBERS OF COMMUNITY BOARDS

There is also a need to review the number of elected members of Community Boards.

The Committee agreed that the existing Community Board structure functioned effectively, and concluded that there did not appear to be any need for a change in the number of elected Community Board members.

The Council has previously expressed dissatisfaction with the present provisions of the Local Government Act in relation to appointed members of Community Boards, which effectively deny one Councillor in each Community Board area the opportunity to become directly involved in local issues as a member of the relevant Community Board. Despite previous representations on this issue, the Government has refused to alter the legislation, on the grounds that it is simply not necessary for all Councillors to serve on Community Boards.

Although the present situation could be overcome by increasing the number of elected Board members from three to four members per ward, such an increase would be both costly and unjustified.

LEGAL SERVICES MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The Legal Services Manager reported:

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to comment on some of the public submissions on the 1998 Election Review which raised the need for legal commentary.

The four matters are:

(a) That Councillors legally reside in the ward in which they are elected - submissions 3,19 and 26;

(b) That the Council use a proportional voting system such as STV or MMP - submissions, 9, 17, 25 and 38;

(c) That persons not be permitted to stand for both the Council and community boards - submission 26;

(d) That persons elected as both a councillor and a community board member be given the option to decline one or the other position and that that position could then go to the next highest polling candidate - Shirley/Papanui Community Board.

2. Councillors Reside in the Ward in Which They Are Elected

At the present time a person who is a Parliamentary elector is qualified to be elected:

(i) as a member of one or more regional councils;

(ii) as a member of one or more territorial authorities;

(iii) as a member of one or more community boards.

The Local Government Act 1974 goes on to provide that a person cannot be a candidate for a regional council and a territorial authority or community board.

Outside this prohibition, the Act makes it clear that a person can stand for any number of territorial authorities or community boards and there is no legal requirement for residents in a ward or a district to be elected in that particular ward or district.

The sole qualification is that the person is registered as a Parliamentary elector in some district.

If the Committee wished to pursue this issue of elected members residing in a ward, then it is a matter that would have to be addressed by a change in current legislation.

3. Persons Not Standing for Both Council and Community Boards

As will be apparent from the comments above, at the present time the law provides that a person can stand for one or more territorial authorities and one or more community boards. The only prohibition is in respect of standing for both the Regional Council and a territorial authority or community board. Again, if the Committee wished to pursue this matter, it would have to be by way of seeking an amendment to current legislation to expressly provide for such a prohibition against standing for both Council and community board.

4. A Proportional Voting System

A Local Election (Single Transferable Vote Option) Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1995. The Bill was referred to the Electoral Law Committee which has subsequently reported back to Parliament with its recommendations on the Bill.

However, Parliament has resolved to refer the Bill back to the Internal Affairs and Local Government Select Committee and consequently it will not apply to the 1998 elections.

It is understood that the Internal Affairs and Local Government Select Committee will be seeking further submissions on the Bill from selected groups, such as Local Government New Zealand. At the present time it is not a legal option for the Council to adopt any voting system other than the current `first past the post' system.

5. Elected Persons Having the Option to be a Councillor or Community Board Member

At the present time if a person was elected as both a councillor and community board member then that person could hold both positions or resign from one of those positions.

If the person was to resign as a councillor, then an extraordinary vacancy is created and the Council must resolve that an election be held to fill the vacancy or that the vacancy be filled by appointment of a person qualified to be elected to be a member of the Council.

There is no automatic provision that the extraordinary vacancy be filled by the next highest polling candidate.

If the person was to resign as a community board member, then the vacancy is filled by the community board appointing a person qualified to be elected as a member of the board. Again, there is no requirement that that person be the next highest polling candidate.

The only situation where the next highest polling candidate is appointed is where a person stands for both the mayoralty and as a councillor, and in that situation the Local Government Act does presently provide that if a person is elected as both mayor and councillor, then the person is deemed to have vacated the office as councillor and the Returning Officer shall then give an amended public declaration of the result of the election by declaring to be elected instead of that person, the unsuccessful candidate who received the highest number of votes in the ward in which the person elected as mayor was also elected as a councillor.

So that if the Committee wished to pursue the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's suggestion that a person elected as both a councillor and a community board member have a choice of resigning one position and that the next highest polling candidate be appointed to fill the vacant position, then that would require a change to existing legislation.

ALTERATION OF COMMUNITY BOARD BOUNDARIES

Section 101ZO of the Local Government Act empowers the Council, by resolution, to alter Community Board boundaries at the request of the Community Boards involved. The resolution fixes the date on which the alterations will take place. Before passing that resolution the Council must give 28 days public notice of the proposed alterations.

The Local Government Act also requires that, as far as practicable, ward boundaries coincide with community boundaries.

The only boundary adjustments proposed for 1998 are the two minor alterations between the boundaries of the Spreydon/Heathcote and Riccarton/Wigram communities which have the support of both Community Boards.

The alterations recommended by the Committee are as follows:

Transfer from the Wigram Ward to the Spreydon Ward

It is proposed that the small tongue of land (meshblock 2485409) incorporating Worsleys Road and at present in the Wigram Ward be adjusted so that it is included within the boundary of the Spreydon Ward. There are nine residents in this meshblock.

Transfer from the Spreydon Ward to the Riccarton Ward

The Committee recommends that the block bounded by the Main South Railway, Deans Avenue, Blenheim Road and Annex Road, which is currently in the Spreydon Ward, be transferred to the Riccarton Ward. The population is 15. The proposed transfer includes meshblocks 2475300, 2475400, 2475500, 2475600, 2475700, 2475800, 2538800, 2539001.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER AND OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS

Some submitters and one member of the Committee expressed the opinion that an independent commissioner should be appointed to consider this issue and make a recommendation to the Council.

The Committee concluded that it was unable to recommend adoption of this suggestion, for the following reasons:

Although some other Councils (including Dunedin City) have reportedly formed a review team to give preliminary consideration to this issue, such reviews were completed quite some time ago, well before the commencement of the statutory procedures.
The recently concluded public consultation process was undertaken voluntarily by this Council as an additional preliminary step not required by the legislation, for the purpose of testing public opinion prior to undertaking the formal consultation procedure required under the Local Government Act.
A fresh opportunity for submissions on this issue will be provided following the August Council meeting, when all persons and organisations (including the present submitters) will be given until 10 October 1997 to lodge objections or submissions on this issue.
After the closing of formal submissions on 10 October, the legislation requires that the Council at its October meeting considers the objections and makes a resolution to reject the objections or amend the proposals adopted at its August meeting.
Following the closing date for appeals or counter-objections in respect of the decision reached by the Council at its October meeting, details of any such appeals or counter-objections are required to be sent to the Local Government Commission, which is responsible for reaching a final decision.

CONCLUSIONS

The Committee therefore concluded that:

Councillors should be elected by wards, and not at large.
There should be no change in either the number of Councillors (24) or the number of Councillors (2) elected by each ward.
There should be no change in the number of elected members of Community Boards.

In reaching this conclusion, the Committee formed the opinion that the present basis of election provides effective representation of communities of interests within the city. The proposed ward boundaries have been accepted by the public since 1989 as providing an effective community of interest for their needs.

The proposed ward boundaries coincide with the proposed alteration to community boundaries. The ratio of usually resident population to proposed members of each proposed ward (assuming approval of the two minor boundary alterations proposed and the transfer of meshblock 2485409 from the Wigram Ward to the Spreydon Ward) is as follows:

WARD	USUALLY RESIDENT POPULATION AS AT 1996 CENSUS	RATIO OF USUALLY RESIDENT POPULATION TO PROPOSED MEMBERS
Burwood	26,130	1:13065
Fendalton	26,380	1:13190
Ferrymead	26,442	1:13221
Hagley	24,557	1:12279
Heathcote	26,267	1:13134
Papanui	27,246	1:13623
Pegasus	24,347	1:12174
Riccarton	26,730	1:13365
Shirley	24,815	1:12408
Spreydon	24,610	1:12305
Waimairi	25,378	1:12689
Wigram	26,126	1:13063

The Committee believes these ratios provide fair representation having regard to the population of each ward.

The Council should continue to be elected by electors of the 12 existing wards.
Apart from the two minor boundary adjustments proposed, that the existing ward boundaries and ward names should be confirmed.

Recommendation:	That the Council resolve as follows in respect of the triennial general elections to be held on Saturday 10 October 1998:
	"(a)That the Council is proposed to be elected by the electors of the 12 wards.
	(b)That the proposed names of the 12 wards are: Burwood Fendalton Ferrymead Hagley Heathcote Papanui Pegasus Riccarton Shirley Spreydon Waimairi Wigram
	(c)That the proposed boundaries of the wards be as shown on the maps attached.
	(d)That two members be elected by the electors of each ward.
	(e)That the reason for the alteration of the proposed ward boundaries from those ward boundaries which applied at the 1995 triennial elections is to ensure that the proposed ward boundaries will coincide with the two minor alterations to community boundaries recommended by the Committee."
	That there be no change in the number of elected members of Community Boards, and that in each case there continue to be six elected members of each Community Board, with three members being elected by electors of each of the two wards forming the community.
	That the following timetable be adopted:


27 August 1997	Council makes resolution regarding its membership and basis of election (section 101H).
30 August	Public notice of proposals given (section 101J[1]).
8 October 1997	Last date for objections (section 101J[2]).
22 October 1997	Council considers objections and makes resolution to reject or amend proposals (section 101J[3b]).
25 October 1997	Public notice of amended proposals or reasons for rejection given (section 101J[3b]).
28 November 1997	Last date for appeals or counter-objections (sections 101J[4] and [5]).
15 January 1998	Details of any appeals or counter-objections sent to Local Government Commission (section 101J[7]) for final determination or if no appeals or counter-objections received, give public notice of basis of election for 1995 (section 101M).
	That public notice be given of the proposed alterations to the Community Board boundaries as shown on the map attached.
	That the Minister of Local Government be requested to review the provisions of section 101ZQ[2] of the Local Government Act 1974 (which provides that appointed members of Community Boards may not exceed half the number of elected members) to allow a 6:4 ratio of elected members to appointed members, instead of a 6:3 ratio.

The meeting concluded at 12.15 pm

CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997

MAYOR

Top of Page ~ Council & Councillors Information