Piha Opinion

Governance confusion

6 Comments 28 March 2015

Local Board confused over governance terms

Seems to me that maybe the Waitakere Ranges Local Board’s Democracy Advisor and/or Relationship Manager should brief the Board prior to their meetings so that all understand exactly what is or isn’t happening ???

GregPreslandGreg Presland, member of Waitakere Ranges Local Board, was shocked and couldn’t understand why various groups and volunteers in Piha and surrounds are unhappy that the Piha Dunes Management Plan by Jim Dahm was only ‘received’ and not ‘endorsed’.

“What’s the difference” Greg asked “between receiving and endorsing?” when challenged about the Jim Dahm report not being endorsed by the Board.

Here is the answer Greg:

Notation at the bottom of all Local Board Meeting Agendas:

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

This is what the Local Board did with the report: (You seconded it Greg)

Resolution number WTK/2014/149  [Minutes WRLB Meeting 25th Sep ’14]
MOVED by Chairperson S Coney, seconded by Member GB Presland:
That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:
a) Receives the Dune Management at Piha – Review and Proposed Management
Plan, Version 2 – October 2013

When are you going to endorse or adopt it?

Your Comments

6 Comments so far

  1. Berend says:

    While Jim Dahm’s report is not endorsed those ill informed continue to rail against dune formation. Nothing the naysayers say is based on anything scientific. The Board has not draw a line in the sand and say enough of this nonsense we must do all we can to preserve our foreshore. Receiving the report was a totally gutless response and shows a total lack of leadership by the Board. It has left volunteers who have worked tirelessly at the council’s request to hang out to dry.
    Berend

  2. Hillsider says:

    Well said Berend. And then when the board asked for volunteers to help work on the back dunes only a couple of people turned up …oh and some council staff and they wonder why. Too bad! Of course the naysayers don’t volunteer. So what the volunteers don’t do is paid for and up go the rates and the cost of living in Piha.

  3. gregpresland says:

    Dear Bobby. You left out one word “practical”. I questioned what practical effect there was in the use of language. I made the offer to you that if you can show a concrete example where the wording meant that something anticipated in the report was not happening then I would seek to have the decision reviewed. The offer stands.

    Besides you rather naughtily left out the rest of the resolution. It says this:

    “b) Gives priority to implementing the following recommendations in the plan:
    i. 4.2.2a – a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Auckland Council and Piha Coastcare will be developed. This will require formal approval from the local board.
    ii. 4.3.2g – no further planting is to be undertaken on the seaward edge of the dune system. Any future proposals for planting on the dunes will need the prior approval of the local board.
    iii. 4.3.3b – a formal access way will be formed at the informal access way at the southern end of the surf club car park.
    iv. 4.4.3a – regular reviews of dune height will be undertaken and if there is significant change in average heights over time options will be considered.
    v. 4.5.2d – design options for the restoration of natural character and enhancement of amenity values in the vicinity of the Moana Stream will be investigated. This will be followed up with consultation with local residents and ratepayers to determine the best approach.”

  4. Village Voice Editor says:

    Greg,
    You asked “What was the difference between ‘receiving’ and ‘endorsing’ ?” That was your question. Nothing about ‘practical difference’. There were plenty there who heard it including Councilor Wayne Walker. I think it should be revisited.

    I don’t recall any conversation “I made the offer to you that if you can show a concrete example where the wording etc . . . “. Maybe someone else?

    I deliberately left out (b) of the motion as this topic is about whether the Board ‘adopted’ or ‘received’ the report rather than it’s content.

    • gregpresland says:

      I thought you were listening into a conversation that I was having. As for (b) don’t you think that it disproves your assertion that the Board was disinclined to accept the Dahm report?

      Honest attack me for stuff you disagree with but to attack me for not being sufficiently protective of the environment is rather annoying.

  5. Village Voice Editor says:

    Greg,
    (b) doesn’t disprove a thing. If the Board was inclined toward the Dahm report it would have ‘endorsed’ it.

    I am not “attacking you for not being sufficiently protective” of anything Greg. I am stating that you are confused over governance terms.

    ‘Receive’ or ‘endorse’ : two very different things Greg. The Board has received and not endorsed the report.


Have Your Say

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2017 Piha Village Voice.