Karolin is an educator in the Human Rights Commission, a JP and a current community board member. Concerns are gaps between those who have and do not and the environment.
A board member for three years, Linda has a Community Service Award and is on Keep Christchurch Beautiful and Civil Defence. The environment and safe, happy communities are concerns for her.
Islay lives in Linwood. She loves the area and wants to restore the community and environmental values that once had Christchurch residents proud to live here.
Judy is a current Community Board member for the Riccarton - Wigram ward. She is involved in a number of other organisations for youth, education and the wider community.
Tracey is a dynamic, energetic woman with several years of community involvement. She is willing to stand up for the underdog and speak for those who cannot speak up for themselves.
Julie is a Correspondence School liaison teacher and has served as a deputy and acting principal at a local school. She wants to represent an area she has been part of for 40 years.
Jasmin has strong experience working in the health sector. She is one of our youngest candidates and possesses a vibrant personality and a positive attitude.
The Ellerslie Flower Show attracted good numbers of people and mostly good to excellent reviews. Christchurch has a history of running good events and particularly good gardening events.
There was good marketing and public relations associated with the event. On the 30 minute flight from Wellington to Auckland on the day prior to the event Air New Zealand staff, from pilot to flight attendant, mentioned the show a good half a dozen times.
However, criticism of how the event was purchased and its secrecy remain strongly founded and hence, contrary to the Press editorial (March 14), this critic is un-confounded.
Remember this show was purchased using a budget surplus in Council accounts. The spending of our money was treated with scant rigour compared to if it had needed to advance through the Council's normal budget process. Our rates money was treated as if it were available for Council speculation rather than, say, rate reduction or shoring up the $44m budget blow out for the bus exchange.
We don't know how much of out money has been spent and are unlikely to discover this. Newspaper accounts at the time reported amounts between one and three million dollars for the purchase. However, the Council has declined all attempts to reveal the purchase price despite the involvement of the Ombudsman.
My suspicion is that Council staff or Show management made off the record statements to journalists of one to two million to get the public to focus on the up-front cost of the show.
This is because the purchase price is unlikely to be the main commitment that ratepayers have made to the event. Council documents reveal that a 10 year agreement was under contemplation. A long term agreement makes sense given the investment, but again the rate payers will remain none-the-wiser about how much they have spent.
There will be operational costs both directly attributed to the Show (the purchase of the half million inflatable pavilion perhaps) and expenses that are not attributed such as staff time and resources across the Council.
That a lot of people came to the show is no doubt better than if few people came. However, with no ability to discover how much ratepayers spent there is no ability to judge whether the event was a commercial success.
The Mayor has invested huge political capital into the event. He is a face of the Show. An email from Bob Parker to one of the Show's directors shows that the Mayor had completely committed to the event prior to the Council decision on November 19 2007.
There is nothing wrong with the Mayor expressing passion for an event prior to the Council's endorsement. At worst he risks some embarrassment. There is also nothing wrong with the Mayor being a face of the Show; we expect our Mayors to promote our City and its events.
The problem is that financial secrecy and political investment means there is a risk that its success was bought with an almost unlimited budget. And with the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement between the Council and the Show company ratepayers are unlikely to get good information to decide for themselves.
A question also remains about whether the ratepayer's investment is "significant" in terms of Council policy, and hence required public consultation. There is some history here. Council argued that its $17m bail out of Dave Henderson and its attempt to raise Council housing rents by 24% were not significant.
The second case was heard in the High Court by Justice Chisholm who begged to differ. The Council was forced back to the drawing board after incurring legal costs of a quarter of a million dollars.
Now Council proposes to water down the meager protections of the significance policy so that it doesn't have to endure public scrutiny if it proposes to spend more than $5m of our money.
I am not inclined to easily trust this Council with greater latitude to spend our money without public scrutiny. This Council, as they say, has form.
So, we have an apparently well-managed, well-marketed Flower Show. What we don't yet have is confidence in Council budget and expenditure processes and ability to make any sensible conclusions on whether the Flower Show was a commercial success.
Darel Hall is Deputy-Chair of Christchurch 2021
People's Choice sounds warning
For three years the current Mayor and Council ignored the public, made decisions in secret, spent $17m on the Henderson deal, and tried to raise Council housing rents by 24%.
Can they be relied on to care for the displaced? To listen to community views on rebuilding? To manage ratepayer funds prudently? To avoid both long-term 'bomb sites' and cheap-and-nasty building?
Darel Hall, Chair
The People's Choice 2021
---------------
11 Warden Street
Richmond
Christchurch 8013
---------------
Tel: 03 385 9299
Mob: 021 708 510
