One thing that can be said in Mr Brown's defence is that he is not the most devious of people in high places. Indeed, it is unlikely that he has a devious bone in his body. What he does, he does openly. It is likely that his mayoral predecessors did much more behind closed doors than he ever will. It should also be noted, with some gratitude, that he has never been one to tolerate bureaucracy. That was one of the attributes that attracted such strong support for him when he won the mayoralty in 2007. Wayne Brown is a doer, not a talker, and has a pathological dislike for processes that slow progress for no valid reason.
There have been times in the past when his unbridled enthusiasm has hurt him, however. The 2010 election result made it clear that much of the support he had attracted three years before had been lost, and the ebb seems to have continued over the last two years. He might well lose more support over this issue, and that is unfortunate given the fact that while the prospect of mining the Far North is polarising, there is solid for support for it on the basis of its potential to attract investment and create jobs.
It is important to recognise that there is a significant degree of division in the Far North over mining, and that the council, while entitled to its own view, represents those on both sides of the fence. If those who oppose mining gain the view, as many might well have, that the council has already made its decision then they have will have every right to cry foul. It is unlikely in the extreme that those who, in the fullness of time, seek to persuade the council that mining, in toto or in relation to specific projects, is not in the district's best interests will believe they have received the fair hearing they are entitled to if the Mayor has mining company shares and a directorship to consider.
The perception that Mr Brown is taking advantage of his position to feather his nest will inevitably take root in some quarters. And if he is formally challenged, as he surely will be, he will have no real defence. Whatever his intentions, it is unconscionable that the district's most influential elected figure should be in a position to gain financially from an industry that to some degree or other he and his authority will preside over.
The printing of business cards identifying Mr Brown as Mayor and with the council logo but carrying his private contact details was also a lapse in judgement. Mr Brown avers that he is simply trying to bring investment to the district, and that making contact with him directly is preferable to going through the council. Many ratepayers might agree with the latter point, but again, as one or two councillors said last week, the look is not a good one.
The Far North District Council is not a company owned by Mr Brown and his role as Mayor does not give him the right to run it as if it is. It is acknowledged that he has done a great deal of work to encourage the investigations that might one day result in mining. It is acknowledged that he has some expertise; he knows what he's talking about, and is probably the natural choice to attend an international conference in Canada if the North is to be represented there. But there are limits to what is acceptable, and investing in a mining company, whether it be in the hope of making money one day in the future, however long the odds might be, or to give potential investors the confidence to front up with their money too, goes beyond those limits.
Meanwhile last week's council discussion of this issue gave rise to what must be one of the most extraordinary pieces of advice ever offered to anyone. The staff report, supposedly intended to inform the debate over Mr Brown's request for $3000 to help him get to Canada, noted that councillors would be aware that he had registered an interest in a minerals company, and had indicated an intention to take an active part in the industry "when the opportunity presents itself".
"However," it added, "it may be that this interest increases his incentive to encourage prospecting in Northland and will therefore work in the council's favour." No one who sees the Mayor's pecuniary interest, actual, potential or imagined, as good for ratepayers in that the chance to make money on his own behalf will spur him on to work harder, should be offering advice to anyone.
This was an appalling piece of advice, and the fact that it was offered does the council no credit. It demonstrates an alarming lack of understanding of the ethics and principles that should guide government in all its forms, and warrants a response that council advisers will understand, and never forget.
It is also worrying that the vote against contributing ratepayer funding was only rejected on a casting vote. Perhaps the principles conflicts of interest are not well understood. And that, unfortunately from the council's point of view, encourages scepticism over other issues it is addressing, not least the unitary authority proposal.
The people this council serves must be able to believe that there are no hidden agendas. Mr Brown has probably never hidden an agenda in his life, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the council is not quite on top of its game. At the end of the day, that might have a greater impact on the fortunes of us all than whether or not ratepayers help the Mayor get to Canada or the contact details on his business card, but perhaps it's not too late to make a New Year's resolution to become considerably more professional.
