Opinion: 'There's no accountability for bad decisions'

Reader opinion piece

Wānaka resident Garth Hogan's been following the noise online regarding the performance of the Queenstown Lakes District Council, and it has motivated him to add to the discussion beyond a quickly-fired Facebook comment. A semi-retired businessman, Mr Hogan was the inaugural chair of the Warbirds Over Wānaka Community Trust and says he has a "background in governance".

To the Queenstown Lakes District Council ratepayers, especially those in Wānaka.

Over the last week or so I have read Grant Bisset’s opinion piece about the Queenstown Lakes District Council and followed the responses to it on Facebook. In view of Christopher Luxon’s recent speech on local body government and subsequent government ministers' statements I feel compelled to offer an opinion and perhaps provide some food for thought.

To put all the comments in context one needs to go to the root of the problem. The QLDC, like all such bodies both in central and local government, is elected.  That’s our democracy and there probably isn’t a better alternative, it’s the way it is. 

Let’s just consider local government for the purposes of the situation at present. Local bodies (QLDC included) are financially large organisations that need to be run on a sound financial basis...the council is the equivalent of a corporate board that sets out the strategic planning which it then passes to the chief executive to implement. The mayor is effectively the chairman of the board and, as such, should have a sound understanding of governance and its relationship to strategic planning as well as having the ability to bang a few heads together to clarify some members' thinking.

On a board in a company that operates in the real world, there is a cross section of individuals who are appointed (as opposed to elected) to bring with them expertise in something that the board requires...be this financial, legal, HR, marketing, etc. However, the members of the board that is called a council are elected, not necessarily based on their areas of expertise but more on their oratory skills and their profile, which convinces the constituents to vote for them. This generally means that skill sets around a council table do not include all those that would be desirable to have. The end result is that many decisions that come out of council are not based on sound rationale but often on whims, local loyalties, and ideology. Often these do not stack up financially and sadly it is the ratepayers that have to bear the burden of those poor decisions. Occasionally, councils are lucky and people with some of the skills required get elected, but sadly it would appear this is not often the case.

Yes, councils have to consider factors other than those solely financially based…such as the environment, traffic flows and provision of other services to the community, etc. The boards of other financially large organisations also have other sometimes complex and conflicting factors to consider such as brand protection and the myriad of legislated obligations, not all of which are financial. Having said that, finance is always in the mix somewhere as like it or not everything has a cost and has to be handled prudently.

So, irrespective of their justifiability, the councils' decisions are then handed to the chief executive to implement. The skill of the chief executive is crucial.  Around the world the chief executives of large organisations command, oft criticised, very large salaries, and that is because it is their guidance and skills that make an organisation not only function but flourish. And there are not a lot of people endowed with that ability, which is why they get paid what they do. That chief executive is the one who puts the team together, integrates them, then sets them their targets/KPIs to measure their effectiveness and whether they are reaching their goals. The chief executive does that by having an effective reporting system that allows them to monitor progress on objectives and includes where they stand against budgets.

This I feel is where Grant Bisset is coming from in his critical analysis of the QLDC’s performance, at least from a Wānaka perspective. We have all seen imprudent council planning and the consequent expenditure in our district. What makes it even worse is, it seems, unlike the real world, there is no accountability for bad decisions and those that make bad decisions are kept in place to presumably make more bad decisions. There is no place to blame a bad employee...bad decisions are the result of the wrong person being put in a job or a lack of training for that person and that goes back to their immediate superior and if that immediate superior can’t do their job that in turn goes back to their superior and continues until such time as it gets to the top…the chief executive. And if the chief executive is the problem, then the responsibility lies with whomever appointed him...in this case, the council.

So, as an overview, councils, because of their makeup, don’t necessarily have the skill sets available to make good decisions in big picture planning and, then, unless they have a strong and competent chief executive, they don’t function as they should, and with no accountability. The end result is the poor decision making and irresponsible spending that we have seen. So when you see some of these issues appear you need to take a look at where the problem lies. Is it a governance issue that lies at the feet of the council and those within the council who have either promulgated the idea or at least supported it, or is it incompetence in the implementation, which is a management issue and lies at the feet of the chief executive, or perhaps it’s a combination of both.

Irrespective of where the responsibility may lie, in view of what we have experienced, something needs to be done to rectify the situation. Sadly, reading some of the responses to Grant Bisset’s thoughts tends to indicate a degree of ultracrepiderianism. Perhaps more simply it could be said as having heads in the sand.

I suspect that many of those responsible are well intentioned and acting in good faith, but, unfortunately, they are out of their depth. Some advice and guidance from those qualified to give it is needed and those burdened by the aforementioned ultracrepidarian scenario, or perhaps the Dunning-Kruger effect, need to be tapped on the shoulder...There is an old adage in guidance to good governance and management and it is to learn to acknowledge and accept what you don’t know, and when you have done that go find someone who does.    

Start thinking, ultimately something needs to be done to stop the financial bleeding. With QLDC projected to have the highest debt per household in New Zealand by a substantial margin one would think the problem should be obvious to those in control...but apparently it’s not. Without some fiscal prudence being applied more double-digit rate increases are inevitable.

Having said all that, transparency has not been addressed and there are some serious concerns in the QLDC’s behaviour in this regard also.