Touch wall cost should not have been secret
It is the saga that really never should have happened.
After five months of secrecy – of ignoring polite requests, of burying heads in sand over legal obligations – it seems the council only revealed the cost of the library’s new touchscreen wall after the issue was brought to the attention of the highest legal authority in the country.
Christchurch City Council has form for this. It tried to keep the lid on the Town Hall budget blowout until December 2019. Councillors were not told about the vulnerable drinking water supply for almost a month. Hours of council meetings are held behind closed doors.
While some of this is necessary, the grip of secrecy seems to be growing stronger.
In this case, the ombudsman’s recommendations were crystal clear – release the information. But somehow council officials ‘‘inadvertently misunderstood’’, with Mayor Lianne Dalziel putting the blame squarely at the door of chief executive Karleen Edwards.
Is this what we expect of our city governance?
While it is worrying that the council failed to heed the ombudsman’s May 31 advice, perhaps more alarming is its favouring the sensitivities of private enterprise over openness with the people of Christchurch.
Businesses should expect the possibility of financial information entering the public sphere when dealing with a public organisation.
The Taxpayers’ Union thinks $1.245 million for the touchscreen is too much to pay when rates are rising and other projects are crying out for funding.
Some will agree; others will feel Christchurch needs and deserves the best if it is to thrive once again.
And some will see the secrecy as a paltry issue. That is their right – but there is a very serious principle at stake.
The seven-metre-wide touchsensitive wall aims to offer visitors a chance to swipe through a digital representation of Christchurch’s history. It has been described as ‘‘immersive and exciting’’, and a ‘‘vital project for Christchurch’’.