Tepania told members the discussion could not reference specific applicants, appointment decisions, interview outcomes or speculation about motives, relationships or personal connections, and the debate needed to focus on whether commissioning an external review was necessary.
“Legal advice was there were grounds to decline the motion because it could step into the realm of privacy breaches … however, in the spirit of transparency, it was considered important to allow the motions to be debated.”
The motion was brought forward by councillor Davina Smolders. Photo / Susan Botting Local Democracy Reporter
Smolders said the motion was about ensuring public confidence in the process used to create and fill the roles.
“This motion is about process integrity, it’s about transparency, and it’s about responsibility that council has to ensure decisions involving public money and governance structure stand up to independent scrutiny.”
She argued the situation raised governance questions because the roles were created to specifically support the mayor and deputy mayor.
“That distinction matters because when public money is used to create roles that exist solely to support particular elected office holders, the governance boundary is then engaged.”
She said that according to the briefing in the agenda, the chief of staff, mayor and deputy mayor were involved in shortlisting, interviewing and making the final appointment decisions.
“When the same elected office holders who will be supported by those roles are also involved in recruiting for them, governance oversight is no longer optional. It actually becomes obvious.”
She said the review would confirm that the process was robust or identify improvements needed.
Councillor Rachel Baucke seconded the motion and said she supported it in the interest of transparency.
“I campaigned on transparency and fiscal responsibility. I wanted to get ahead of it because I could see this would be something the public would be interested in.”
She said supporting the motion was not a criticism of the mayor.
“This is by no means questioning the mayor’s work ethic. I just believe we owe it to the people who voted us in to allow transparency.”
Council staff told the meeting the recruitment process had followed their policies and remained within the chief executive’s authority, and that staff were satisfied that the process was lawful, robust and within delegated authority.
The roles were funded through normal staffing underspend, rather than new ratepayer funding, staff explained.
Councillor Ann Court said she supported the motion and that the debate was not about the merits of any individual appointments.
“The debate is whether or not having an independent probity where elected members are directly responsible for appointments, one way or the other, is justified to satisfy transparency.”
Several councillors spoke against the motion.
Councillor Felicity Foy said having the office of the mayor was a common practice across the country and was necessary to support the workload of the role.
“The office of the mayor is for having a team for us. I don’t see it just for the mayor, I see it as support for all elected members.”
Councillor Hilda Halkyard-Harawira said she had witnessed the heavy workload placed on the mayor and deputy mayor and said they needed more support.
Councillor John Vujcich also opposed the motion and said the idea of a mayoral office had been discussed by councillors in the previous term.
Speaking against the motion, Tepania said it would undermine staff and council process.
“Not because I don’t think it could have merit, but because I think it’s a slap to the face of our staff and our council organisation and their processes, which are held up across the sector.”
He added that he has been involved in other recruitment processes where appropriate and, at times, has been approached for commentary around appointments for specific positions.
Despite the arguments for greater transparency, the motion failed to secure enough support from councillors to proceed with the review.