A purported gentleman's agreement and allegations of scaremongering have set the amalgamation debate raging at the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.
The argument started when a Talking Point opinion piece penned by council chairman Fenton Wilson was published in Hawke's Bay Today Weekend.
He said that if amalgamation went ahead, it could lead to the loss of not only the council (HBRC) but the environmental specialists it employed.
Tom Belford
He believed a unitary council would be less effective than a regional council, with the current regional council focusing on the balance between production and environment, which it did "without fear or favour".
However, that view has drawn the ire of four of his colleagues, who then penned a letter to the editor.
"So there are two things, two really important things," councillor Rex Graham said in an interview yesterday.
Rex Graham
"Firstly he broke the gentleman's agreement. Secondly he is scaremongering about loss of jobs and loss of services. So a whole lot of people out there are thinking, 'Oh crikey, if I vote for amalgamation a whole lot of services will be lost'. That is just not true."
Mr Graham said the alleged gentleman's agreement was discussed at a council meeting as there were four councillors who wanted amalgamation. He did not know where the rest sat, bar Mr Wilson.
"It was not a formal motion or any such thing. It was a gentleman's agreement that we would not involve the council in this debate," he said. "We felt since it was such a controversial issue we wouldn't involve the council; none of us would talk in terms of representing the council ... We feel betrayed because he has breached the agreement."
However, not all regional councillors share that view - in fact, some have called the supposed agreement into question.
"What gentleman's agreement?" Councillor Christine Scott asked. "I would like to know who thinks there is one because it is quite funny that some of the councillors have attacked the regional council."
Mr Wilson agreed, saying a gentleman's agreement was between gentlemen.
"I haven't heard from any of those guys," he said. "They have broken every gentleman's agreement that has ever been devised seriously.
"A gentleman's agreement is between gentlemen, not between people who call themselves gentlemen and the media.
"There was no such thing as a gentleman's agreement."
He added that on the basis of the reaction it looked like his comments were a little bit overdue - "because they are obviously accurate and have engendered quite a strong response from a particular group of councillors ..."
Councillor Peter Beaven was adamant that for his chairman to take a stance on the amalgamation issue, he should have made it clear he was speaking as an individual. "Because the moment the chairman of the regional council takes a public position on something like this, he will be seen to be speaking on behalf of the council ..."
However, even that has been disputed by Ms Scott, who argued Mr Wilson was voicing the long-held stance of the council on the amalgamation issue. "He has taken the stance that the HBRC officially took to the Local Government Commission (LGC)," she said. "Those were the issues that we raised at the LGC. The stance has always been from the regional council, the official stance, that there is a functional need for the regional council to exist in this area."
However, Councillor Tom Belford said it was "bullshit" that amalgamation would jeopardise specialists jobs.
"Nobody would ever suggest that the functions of the research staff are anything less than critical," he said.
"So I think it is disingenuous for our chairman to be claiming that somehow good science as the province of the regional council is going to be neglected or, even more ridiculous, eliminated if amalgamation occurs.
"There is more chance of amalgamation causing councils to stop tea breaks at their meetings than losing the science staff of the regional council. I think Fenton Wilson needs to hang on to his job - it is as simple as that. So it is scaremongering."
Mr Wilson paid no heed to the "scaremongering" jibes from his colleagues. "What an absolute joke. Am I not allowed a view?"
Not to be deterred, Mr Graham supported his pro-amalgamation colleague Mr Belford, saying what Mr Wilson was saying was that if you voted for amalgamation, those jobs would go. "They won't go - those jobs are solid. What will go is his job and the councillors' jobs - and perhaps some very senior admin staff will go. But no other jobs at the regional council will go."
Mr Beaven said everybody was scared of what amalgamation might bring. "So the fear factor is a powerful force in this whole debate, I reckon, and Fenton is playing that card because it will cause people to vote against amalgamation."
However, Ms Scott said it was time the chairman took the lead. "Staff have the right to see the official position taken by the regional council and taken to the commission is supported publicly," she said.
Mr Wilson said he was constantly worried about his job - that he was not guaranteed three-year terms like the mayors. "I wake up every day and pinch myself and say it's amazing to be the chairman of the regional council. But I am there every day at the whim of my colleagues.
"That is what this whole argument has been about. There has been no focus on how a unitary council will deliver the functions the regional council currently does ... no one has ever been able to answer me how it will work."
