Clash after discussion on CBD paid parking is delayed
Triple One Towing owner Billy Macfarlane
payers member Macpherson took to Facebook to label Chadwick’s motion as “procedural trickery”.
He said giving time for staff to prepare a report on parking was, in his opinion, “code for controlling the discussion”.
Chadwick said Bentley and Macpherson tried to use the issue as a “political stunt” and were “now angry it didn’t work”.
“It didn’t work because they were attempting to undermine good decision-making.”
She said she and the council wanted to do everything it could to support the CBD, as it worked towards the district’s recovery.
“We’re also very aware that parking is seen as an issue for people and we are willing to have that debate and to give the petitioner the fair treatment she deserves.
“Uninformed debate leads to uninformed, ad hoc decision-making, and that is not good governance.
“There is no ‘trickery’ in following due process that ensures informed and transparent debate, and ensures we take all relevant matters and implications into consideration, including whether consultation is needed before a decision can be made.”
She said “repeated criticism” of staff was “totally inappropriate and unacceptable”.
“It appears these councillors don’t want facts, legislative and procedural requirements or financial implications to get in the way of their politically driven decision-making.
“Council officers’ role is to provide expert information and advice that enables well-informed, wellconsidered decisions, and political interference or opinion has no place in that.
“I think people are tired of silly political posturing, especially right now.
“This is a time to focus on moving Rotorua forward in the right way, through good leadership and robust decision-making that has the best interests of all our residents at heart.”
Jory, as the petitioner, said she had no problem with the deferral of the discussion.
“I feel they acted quite reasonably,
I think there’s a due process that any petition needs to go through.”
She had not attended the council meeting on Tuesday.
“I have no complaints about the fact the council [is] being helpful to us in getting our petition heard.
“I think the issue is, it should have gone to committee, first of all, there was a mix up in whoever it was who took it to council.
“I’m not concerned, I’m happy and the longer it goes on, the more signatures there’ll be by the time we get to talk about it.”
She would submit the petition “four or five days” before the committee meeting to give the council time to table it for the agenda.
At the meeting on Tuesday, Raukawa-tait also expressed her support for moving the discussion to the Operations & Monitoring Committee.