Boot Motions » Council meeting 22 June 2011 - WorkBoot dig #11
Moved Larsen That Council formalise its discounting policy required by the Resource Management (Discount on administrative charges) regulations 2010; and That Council notify the policy in the resource consent fees and charges section of the Council’s website by 20 July 2011, and once formalized, to all applicants for resource consent on lodgement.
Council is required by law to comply with the Resource Management (Discount on administrative charges) regulations 2010. Informing applicants of Council’s obligations acts as an incentive for Council’s consultants to process applications in accordance with required statutory timeframes. Timely consent processing encourages activity and in turn economic growth. If discounting is available and is not transparent then applicants that are not aware of the discount provisions may not inquire or apply in a manner to take advantage of that regime. This could lead to unequal treatment of applicants and as a consequence the creating of an impression that Council has different rules for different applicants. This is a potential basis for corrupt practices within Council.
Reasons given by Mayor for refusing -
3.3.2 Chairperson to decide and 3.10.2 Refusal of notice of motion
This is a legislative change and is to be applied from 31-07-10. The CE has already indicated this will be on the July agenda for adoption.
My analysis
3.3.2 Chairperson to decide states -
“The chairperson is to decide all questions where these standing orders make no provision or insufficient information, and all points of order, and any member who refuses to obey an order or ruling of the chairperson shall be held guilty of contempt (see Standing Orders 3.1.1, 3.13.6 and Appendix C)”
This is irrelevant as the Standing Orders make clear provision for the rules of notices of motion at section 3.10.
3.10.2 Refusal of notice of motion states –
The chairperson may direct the chief executive to refuse to accept any notice of motion which:
(a) Is disrespectful or which contains offensive language or statements made with malice; or
(b) Is not related to the role or functions of the local authority; or
(c) Contains an ambiguity or a statement of fact or opinion which cannot properly form part of an effective resolution, and where the mover has declined to comply with such requirements as the chief executive may make; or
(d) Is concerned with matters which are already the subject of reports or recommendations from a committee to the meeting concerned.
Reasons for refusing a notice of motion should be provided to the proposer.”
The Mayor claims as his reasons for refusing the notice of motion as –
“This is a legislative change and is to be applied from 31-07-10. The CE has already indicated this will be on the July agenda for adoption.”
The reasons given do not accord with any of the reasons allowed under clause 3.10.2
(a) It is not disrespectful and does not contain offensive language or statements made with malice; and
(b) Is related to the role or functions of the local authority; and
(c) Does not contains an ambiguity or a statement of fact or opinion which cannot properly form part of an effective resolution, and where the mover has declined to comply with such requirements as the chief executive may make; and
(d) Is not concerned with matters which are already the subject of reports or recommendations from a committee to the meeting concerned.
Therefore no valid reason has been given for refusing notice of motion 11.
Furthermore it seems rather coincidental that if as stated the change is to be applied from almost a year ago, it just happens to be going to appear on the agenda the month following my notice of motion.