Part-time United Council

Press, 24 June 1983, Page 14

Part-time United Council

For the four years of its existence, the Canterbury United Council has been a part-time effort on the part of its members and of the administrative staff who service it. Inevitably, and in spite of the best intentions, the time and the industry that these people are able to devote to the affairs of the United Council are restricted by the demands of their other duties. A prior claim is made on the time of the council members by the territorial local bodies that appointed them; the council’s administrative staff, seconded from the Christchurch City Council, must squeeze the United Council’s work in between their obligations to the City Council as best they can.

The principal officer of the United Council, Mr J. H. Gray, is also the Christchurch City General Manager and Town Clerk. He is not alone in his concern that he does not have enough time to meet fully his responsibilities to the United Council. Ideally, the United Council — at best a compromise — would be replaced by a directly-elected regional council with the right to levy its own rates and with broader powers than the United Council. Such a change still seems a long way off. Nevertheless, the United Council is considering one step that could do much to improve the cohesion and effectiveness of its work: the appointment of a permanent full-time chief executive. Such a move would meet the desire of several of the 19 territorial local authorities represented on the United Council to reduce the council’s dependence on the City Council for administration. One source of friction in the existing arrangement would be removed. A permanent chief executive should be able to present the United Council and its activities in a more positive light to the public and to the organisations with which it must work. Much of

the council’s work is not eye-catching. Some of it is neither fully understood nor appreciated by all of the local authorities that fund it. A permanent chief executive would need to be much more than simply a public relations officer, but- improved public relations is something that the council sorely needs. As with all similar considerations, the cost of the proposal is a matter of concern, not least of all to the ratepayers who will have to meet it if the proposal is adopted. The appointment of a chief executive and a secretary, together with the necessary associated office expenses, is expected to add $60,000 a year to the council’s budget. This is a modest enough sum on top of the $1.15 million a year that the council already spends, $726,000 of which comes directly from ratepayers. Government grants and investment income provide most of the rest of the council’s funds. In essence, the proposal would amount to less than 18 cents a year for each person living in the region for which the council is responsible. The council will not be able to shake off its second-string image in local government while the present, part-time policy persists. The appointment of a chief executive to concentrate solely on the work of the council could do a lot to improve the council’s standing, as well as the community’s understanding of the council and its work. The appointment could also serve as a springboard to the eventual conversion of the council to an effective regional government. Canterbury needs a body of sufficient independence and authority to present a unified voice to the Government on regional issues, and to provide the direction needed to escape the inertia and economic doldrums that beset the region. The appointment of a full-time chief executive to the United Council could bring that goal a step closer.