Earned their money?
Panel verdict Accessibility: Very good Effectiveness: Very good Work ethic: Very good Responsiveness: Very good Active or reactive: Active Well respected by the panel, Mr Latham was regarded as a hard worker and a sensible voice among the councillors. ‘‘He understands what Porirua is and could be’’, ‘‘is relatable and works easily with residents over their concerns’’ and ‘‘ a good listener, with an open mind’’, said the panel. His sport and teaching background were seen as holding him in good stead. Active or reactive: Reactive
Mr Poutoa was seen as someone who could make plenty of noise around the council table, but had been largely quiet these past three years, possibly owing to factors outside the council.
Descriptions such as ‘‘means well’’, ‘‘polite, willing to listen’’ and ‘‘intelligent’’ from the panel were overshadowed by ‘‘ could do better’’, ‘‘scrapping with Litea [Ah Hoi] has consumed his potential’’ and ‘‘has been disappointing’’. Panel verdict Accessibility: Very good Effectiveness: Average Work ethic: Very good Responsiveness: Very good Active or reactive: Active
Mr Sheppard was described as a ‘‘bean counter, but that’s not a bad thing’’, and a good listener who is passionate about Porirua.
One panelist, however, thought he ‘‘could pull his socks up a bit’’ and might be in for a fight for his seat now that the Northern ward is to lose a councillor.
After a poor mid-term report card, Mr Seiuli was seen as being much more active in the second half of the triennium.
May be struggling still with the workload of being a councillor.
Three panelists did not know anything about him, but he was seen as being an advocate for Ascot Park and someone who was improving.
‘‘Has a good attitude,’’ said one of the panelists.