Records, perception of two past mayors differ hugely

Jay Kuten PHOTO/FILE

If the punditocracy is right, about 93 per cent of voters in this year's local election will, by now, have made up their minds.

Recognising also this newspaper's policy of neutrality on endorsements, I intend instead to address the issues of electoral claims and past performance.

Of the three mayoralty candidates, only Annette Main and Michael Laws have records in that role and behaviours that can be scrutinised.

As regards Michael Laws, I reject in advance any inference of animus based on the fact that I have often disagreed with his actions as mayor and, in his other roles, as talkback host or columnist. In fact, I have also commended his stance - insistence on risk assessment data - as DHB member considering maternity services proposals.

As regards bias, I assume the same privilege Laws, himself, asserts: a columnist offers an opinion. A columnist just cannot offer his own facts.

Michael Laws has shown little apparent interest in governance that might involve the usual compromises. His style is best described "my way or the highway". He ran his first council in parliamentary fashion, which effectively made him a Prime Minister. By his second term, Laws lost his Vision Party majority but nonetheless rode roughshod over any opposition and declared that all council information must come through him. As a result, councillors like Rob Vinsen had to file Official Information Act requests to learn about council's fiscal matters - like debt.

As a politician, Mr Laws has certain skills. Chief among these is a willing suspension of memory in the hope that others will do the same. He claims now that he inherited a $120 million wastewater project but delivered a $95 million debt. He conflates wastewater with stormwater separation, a project largely paid for when he took office. The residual debt in 2003 was $35 million. Mr Laws did run it up to $95 million, but with his evident lack of oversight of our wastewater plant, commissioned in 2007, he is actually responsible for leaving for others a total debt of $120 million. Debt did not decrease during his terms. It nearly tripled.

When Annette Main took the mayoral office, many citizens breathed easily for the first time in several years. The fear of Laws' retaliation for disagreement was gone. But this has not been an easy three years for Ms Main and her council. Though her operating style was much more inclusive and democratic, she was weighted down by the inheritance of debt.

She was also saddled with Mr Laws as a councillor who, when he cared to attend, was as obstructive as only he can be, using techniques possibly suitable for Parliament but not for council.

Despite these handicaps, Ms Main and the council she has led have grappled with the debt problem they inherited, selling off such assets as would not reduce essential infrastructure. Gas and forestry investments have cut the debt by millions.

And declaredly she has no plans, no unfunded distractions or expensive events, to increase debt. Instead, repairing damage done in the past, volunteer efforts are again being fostered, not demeaned - resulting, for example, in the successful vintage car rally.

However invested she is in governance, Ms Main is not that much of a politician. She has not attempted to place blame for the debt problem or the wastewater system failure on her predecessors (even though there would be facts to back up such accusations). She has not sought to demean her opponent or to enhance her status at the expense of others or of the city. If anything, she's not done enough to promote herself in the eyes of the citizens. And just doing the hard and necessary work of governance, the "showing up" to work is not as flamboyant as some may desire.

On balance, then, Mr Laws is more of the politician, Ms Main the better at governance.

Each has merit and flaws. You can't have a perfect candidate.