Editorial: Three jobs on local boards is two too many

Warren Flaunty. Photo / Supplied

Opinion

Warren Flaunty, not exactly a household name in Auckland, scored a rare trifecta in the local body elections. The Westgate pharmacist stood for three local boards and won a seat on them all.

Whatever his various interests in Rodney, Upper Harbour and Henderson-Massey may be, he will be expected to give each his diligent and undivided attention.

Nobody seems quite sure whether this is a good thing. The president of Local Government NZ, Lawrence Yule, said, "I can make no judgment on whether he can do all that work."

The organisation has asked for legislation to correct an "anomaly" in the Electoral Act that permits this sort of thing, but in nine years nothing has happened, possibly because electoral officials cannot see a problem.

Mr Flaunty sees none, not even the clash of meeting dates that has occurred already. Two of Mr Flaunty's boards, Albany and Upper Harbour, have set their swearing-in ceremonies for the same night.

"Not a big issue," he says. He could be sworn in to one of them later, or he might even try to attend both. The venues are only 15 minutes apart.

Many people newly elected to local government are about to discover that the reality is somewhat less glamorous than the election. Mr Flaunty is not one of those.

He has been on the Waitakere City Council for six years, and on the Waitemata District Health Board and the Waitakere Licensing Trust. A local body colleague says he is "an extremely hard worker who knows his stuff".

He will need to be. He has been re-elected to the health board and the trust, too. It is not unusual for someone to serve simultaneously in different avenues of local government but to sit on two or three local boards at once raises an eyebrow.

Mr Flaunty is not alone in divided loyalty. On the Upper Harbour board he will join Lisa Whyte, who has also been elected to the Hibiscus and Bays board.

Their divided loyalties raise a question because it is not yet clear how local boards will operate. The boards will draw their revenue from the Auckland Council and quite likely it will be a contest. One board's case for a library against its neighbour's need of a community centre.

It may be that co-ordination is served by those with a seat on more than one board, but co-ordination is not everything. If it were, there would have been no call for local boards.

Co-ordination is the ultimate goal of bureaucrats, which is why community boards were given no place in the initial schemes for a single city.

Public opinion demanded better, and has been given 20 rather large suburban units. They might create the healthy tension between co-ordination and diverse aspirations that can produce satisfied communities.

But they might equally become mere agencies of the Auckland Council, which is their status in law. Much will depend on the people who have been elected to the boards and the roles they want.

The lowest tier of local government always attracts a certain number of tyros and attention-seekers whose dedication is liable to flag when confronted with the weight of reading, meetings, study and consultation required for even run-of-the-mill decisions.

If a certain number of diligent, experienced people are prepared to serve on multiple boards they may make up for the flaggers. But it must be wondered whether such service is itself entirely healthy.

To maintain a monthly round of work for one local body is enough to ask of anyone, to take on two and even three similar loads tests the bounds of good judgment.

The law probably should be changed and those elected to multiple boards should be required to choose one and relinquish the others to the next highest polling candidates. Residence should be a requirement, dedication the result.