Presentation I gave to Council meeting last week

Councillors, I want to make the point that Zinneker’s House is an important issue not only because of the Heritage considerations, but also because of the way the recent decision to demolish it came about.

This circumstances of this decision raise questions about the conduct of this Council and the advice it gets from officers.

What is at stake here is whether the citizens and ratepayers of this community can have confidence in this Council’s decisions and its decision making processes.

People are entitled to ask the simple question of how you, their representatives, went from a decision to retain the building and spend money fixing it up in December 2010, to voting unanimously that it should be demolished just 16 months later.

You cannot tell me that this represents good governance.

The CEO told Council in December 2010 that the issue had been coming before Council for nine years and it was time to make a final decision. I was on Council that night and I remember we had a long and robust debate, and in the end we rejected the CEO’s recommendation to get rid of the building and we resolved to retain it. 
 

So does give cause to wonder why the issue was brought back to Council at all.

And central to the question of how Council came to reverse its position in April is the issue of whether the existing resolution to retain the building should have been rescinded, or revoked, prior to considering the officer’s recommendation to demolish the building.

Let me try to explain why I think this rescission issue is so important. Lets think about why a special process for revoking decisions exists, why it is outlined in the Local Government Act and its regulations.

It is there essentially to prevent Councils from doing backflips, from contradicting themselves and from flip-flopping on issues.

It requires that a motion to change an existing position must be signed by at least a third of councillors before it can be moved and that such a motion must be passed by an absolute majority.

These special processes around rescinding or revoking an existing decision are going to ring an alarm bell, to flash an amber light, and ensure councillors realise they may be about to throw out what might have been a very carefully considered decision taken at a previous Council meeting.

I submit that if this had happened in April this year, there may have been some further investigation and consideration by councillors, perhaps some public consultation, and perhaps some debate about whether to reverse the previous decision and demolish Zinnecker’s House… and the outcome may have been different.

The CEO told you there was no need to rescind the motion in this case, and he says his view was endorsed by someone, who must remain nameless, in the Department.

But councillors I respectfully submit, that you should make up your own minds, based on the facts and your own judgement, whether a Council resolution to retain a building should be rescinded prior to considering one which says to demolish it.

The relevant Regulation under Local Government Act Section 5.25 (e) says rescission should apply where; “the effect of the change would be that the decision would be revoked or would become substantially different.”

I think its clear what happened between December 2010 and April this year falls squarely into that category.

And while I’m on the subject, it seems to me there is another fundamental reason why exising decisions should be rescinded or revoked before they are reversed.

The Local Government Act states that it is the role of the CEO to carry out and implement, all decisions of Council.

Obviously, it would put a CEO in a difficult and perhaps untenable position if he or she was required to carry out two contradictory instructions.

As it stands our CEO should currently be arranging repairs to Zinnecker’s House and arranging for its demotion at the same time.

The CEO, and someone in the Department, say there was no need to rescind the Decemeber 2010 resolution because it has been carried out by retaining the building until now. But item 2 of that resolution commits to spending $30,000 to repair the  building over three years. We are only just into the second year of that maintenance program, which has not commenced.

If the CEO does not arrange to spend $30,000 on fixing Zinnecker’s House, he, in my view, has failed to carry out his duty as specified in the Local Government Act.

In essence, I believe it is nonsense to say that the resolution to retain and fix the building need not be rescinded before you can pass one to demolish the building.

The author Aldous Huxley once said: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored…

No matter how many times the CEO says it was not necessary to rescind the existing motion and no matter how many times he quotes an anonymous person in the Department endorsing his view, I will not accept it, no reasonable person would accept it and nor should you.

Over here in the real world, where the people who put you into those chairs live, a change from retaining a building to demolishing it, is a reversal. It is the opposite, it is a backflip.

And in the real world, when someone takes a shortcut like that, when proper processes are not followed that is wrong.

I have sat in one of those chairs. I know it is difficult to make decisions when opinion is divided. The question of what to do with Zinnecker’s House is a tough one. No matter which way you go, people will disagree and be unhappy.

But if you follow a proper and open processes, if you observe the rules as they are plainly meant to be read, if you take into account community opinion and have a robust debate, nobody can question your right to vote as you see fit. 

To sum up…. In April, the decision-making process in relation to Zinnecker’s was flawed. But you councillors have the power to set things right. My humble suggestion, is that you simply revoke the decision to deconstruct Zinneckers House, allowing the Council resolution made in December 2010 to stand.

Thank You.