Council slated for flood wall
A West Coast mayor and councillor could be held personally liable for a $1.3 million stopbank in Franz Josef built without proper plans, engineering input or approval of the full council, the Auditor-General has warned.
A member of the public laid a complaint with the AuditorGeneral’s office after a $1.3 million, 700-metre-long stop bank was built on the bank of the Waiho River, which flooded in March 2016, inundated a major hotel and holiday park and forced the evacuation of 200 people.
In July 2017, Westland District Mayor Bruce Smith and councillor Durham Havill decided to build the stopbank, without the backing of the full council or consulting experts or conducting a proper procurement process.
Controller and Auditor-General John Ryan released a report yesterday, which said he had serious concerns about the decision. He acknowledged the serious nature of the flood risk and that Smith and Havill, who were driving the decision, acted in the community’s best interests. However, the Auditor-General said he was concerned about ‘‘the apparent confusion or disagreement among the elected members about what had been agreed, and about the way the decision was subsequently carried out’’.
‘‘We also have serious concerns about the extent to which some of the elected members lost sight of the fact that their role is to govern, not manage, and that their drive to get things done needed to be balanced by an understanding of the importance of doing things right,’’ it said.
The report outlines several ‘‘serious legal consequences’’ for the council, including civil or criminal proceedings. It said Smith and Havill could be held personally liable and the council’s insurance could be invalid.
Smith and Havill have both defended the decision as essential emergency work. Smith said he would defend himself against any legal consequences because he believed the work was justifiable.
The Auditor-General said there were numerous examples of poor decision-making and poor procurement practice. ‘‘They include the lack of any proper risk analysis or consideration of alternative options, the failure to seek expert advice on either the immediacy of the flood risk or whether building a stopbank was the right response, an inadequate planning and procurement process for a project of this type and scope, an apparent disregard for legislated decision-making requirements, and a failure to consult those affected by the work until the work was already under way.’’
The report says councillors agreed to carry out maintenance work on an existing flood embankment, not to construct a new stopbank. ‘‘The decision that urgent work was needed was based on an assessment by two of the elected members that the wastewater treatment plant was in imminent danger of flooding. That assessment was effectively endorsed by the council as a whole without confirmation from anyone with relevant expertise.’’
Potential contractors were identified by Havill using his connections, rather than by following a procurement process suitable for a project of this size and significance to the community, the report found. However, it found he had declared the conflict of interest and did not benefit financially.
Also, the council did not properly involve its own staff until work was already under way.
The first stage of the work was carried out without any clear contracting arrangements in place, and without any certainty about who was responsible for managing the work or for matters such as health and safety, compliance with the Resource Management Act 1991, or quality control.
When some of the elected members tried to raise concerns they were dismissed.
All of this was unacceptable, Auditor-General found. He did not accept the council’s justification that the work was urgent and elected members had to step in because council staff were not available.
‘‘A council that is contemplating spending $1.3 million of public money . . . needs to be able to show that the decision to spend the community’s money was based on something more than an assessment of risk by two of the elected members.’’
The council welcomed the final report because it gave the public confidence that a thorough review had been conducted.