Christchurch's council's split into an A and B team has left political fissures running about as deep as the geological ones and left room for someone like Lianne Dalziel to put her hand in for the mayoralty.
She could use the years gained at the rock face of parliamentary debate to shepherd the councillors back into considered cohesion. It wouldn't be her first rodeo. The current model, of factions of representatives of well-financed lobby groups fighting over reconstruction decisions, has left many struggling with no one to voice their everyday concerns. This type of council is a feral beast for any mayor to ride.
I have heard local councillors talk of the A and B teams here. Christchurch council - like Wellington (and many small ones) have long faced structural difficulties. New Zealand is one big small town and council CEOs either stay for too long (Wellington; 15 years, Whangarei, 17 at the end of this term) or come from somewhere else where they've been too long. They know the major players in infrastructure but not necessarily in other areas of economic development, and there is the risk of decisions made on expedience and opportunism rather than careful consultation and understanding of the common good.
It's why private sector CEOs keep their jobs for a maximum of five years. You can't change your staff, but you can change who leads them and good organisations do. Show me a company with a real world bottom line that keeps their managing directors for more than five years. Not Air New Zealand. Not Fonterra. Not Fletcher. Kings College - bastion of educational excellence - only keeps its director for five years. Regardless of how brilliant they are.
Despite the fiction that those who manage our contributions for the common good - the CEOs and management teams of local bodies have the same skills and pressure as those who are constrained by an actual market and therefore should be paid similarly - they have none of the temporary stewardship.
