The reality is, the helicopter rescue trust is awash with cash, recording a $3.4 million surplus in the last financial year, and reportedly heading for a similarly healthy result this year. Despite this, Mr Brown persuaded councillors to throw another $900,000 to the trust "which will enable them to continue to build their fund for ... helicopter replacement".
Incredibly, the mayor made no demand for a prior business case. It took councillor Ross Clow to move an amendment requiring such a basic document. The trust will now have to satisfy the council's chief financial officer there is a case for handing over this money. I look forward to it being made public.
The special favouritism accorded to the helicopter bullies stands out when compared to the $1 million granted to the Auckland Arts Festival Trust at the same meeting, to help kick off its plans for an annual event. Not for the festival trust, the one-stop shop favouritism accorded the helicopter trust, and rightly so. The festival has been back and forth to the council for years with assorted reports and other documentation to back its application.
Normally, anyone seeking a grant from the council has to submit, among other things, a business case, a feasibility study and an operational budget.
They have to explain how their project aligns with the long-term plan, and how it helps deliver the council's strategic goals. And so on and on and on.
For the helicopter trust, the rules went out the door. A loud fulmination or three from PR lobbyists Matthew Hooton and Michelle Boag, and threats from trust chairman Murray Bolton to drag the council through the courts year after year, until he got his way, was all it took.
What is even worse is that the mayor now seems set on dismantling the whole arms-length funding structure set up by statute to allocate annual grants to the region's 10 top rescue and arts amenities.
Back in 2005, Auckland City Council - the only serious local government funder of arts and rescue organisations in the region - joined with assorted amenities to lobby for legislation to force Mr Brown's Manukau City, and the other outlying councils, to pay their fair share towards making the region more liveable. It took until August 2008 to become law and then only because Ms Boag persuaded the National opposition to support the bill as long as her baby, the rescue helicopter trust, was added to the list of beneficiary organisations.
It seemed a small price to pay to ensure security of funding for the beneficiary organisations.
Mr Brown is now signalling that now we're all playing happy families in one super city, the amenities funding board is surplus to requirements.
In his list of "weaknesses" of the current funding model, he highlights that "there is no clear political accountability for decision-making".
This is not true. Under the act the board can be instructed by the politicians to take note of specific council wishes.
The model is similar to the council-controlled organisation structure which puts the day-to-day control of everything from the port company to Watercare at arms' length from the politicians.
When Mr Brown bemoans the lack of political accountability, he is really making a strangled cry for the return of the bad old pork barrel days that preceded the passing of the amenities act, when the amenities had to go cap in hand to the politicians.
The way Mr Brown jumped high when Ms Boag and Mr Bolton went boo is a salutary warning of what will happen if amenities funding ends up back in political hands. For the past five years, the 10 amenities have known the rules, and have been able to plan long-term with certainty. This includes the helicopter trust - though for it, the signals weren't to its liking. A return to the bad old days would be disastrous.
