Council plans to axe Ōtaki Community Board

October 2021

By Frank Neill

Kāpiti Coast District Council is planning to abolish the district’s four community boards,

including the Ōtaki Community Board.

This proposal is included in the representation review that the council has released to the

public, seeking input on the changes it proposes.

Key elements of the proposal are:

•  moving from having four wards – Ōtaki, Waikanae, Paraparaumu and Raumati/Paekākāriki – to three wards – Northern Ward (one councillor), Central Ward (combining Paraparaumu and Waikanae, three councillors) and Southern Ward (one councillor);

• and abolishing community boards.

KCDC is calling for submissions on its proposal. Submissions close on 4 October and can be

made online at www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/haveyoursay.

In the document KCDC has released on the representation review, it gives two reasons for

abolishing community boards.

The first is that research commissioned by the council “indicated community boards added a

confusing layer of bureaucracy”. The second reason was that community boards cost

$250,000 a year to run.

The research was conducted by Empathy, and Empathy’s report is available at

https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/media/40208/community-voice-for-representation-review-

2021.pdf.

Nowhere in the report, however, is there any mention of community boards adding a

“confusing layer of bureaucracy”.

Empathy’s report indicates that the researchers spoke to 168 people. Of these a “small

minority” could speak to direct experience of community boards, with some in favour of

them and some not in favour.

The Ōtaki Mail has asked KCDC how many people in the Empathy research could speak to

direct experience of community boards, how many of them were in favour and how many

were against.

The council is saying that it is unable to provide those figures.

“We did qualitative research and it is not good practice to treat qualitative data in a

quantitative way, as your questions ask us to do,” says Janice McDougall, KCDC’s Group

Manager People and Partnerships.

“We have not analysed the feedback in that way and are unable to provide the figures you ask for.”

There is widespread opposition to the plan to abolish community boards from Ōtaki

community leaders and from the town’s residents generally.

The Ōtaki Community Board provides a “really important” function and all the school

principals in Ōtaki and Te Horo are “quite appalled” at the proposal to abolish the town’s

community board, says Ōtaki College Principal Andy Fraser.

“When you are a marginalised area and the one voice you have goes, it is not on,” he says.

“How can you replace democratically elected people to be a voice for the community?”

The community board carries out two important functions, Mr Fraser points out. It lobbies for

Ōtaki and it distributes funding to needy organisations in our town.

Mr Fraser is a member of the Ōtaki education collective, Kahu Tokotoko o Ōtaki, which

involves all the primary and secondary schools in Ōtaki and also Te Horo School.

All the principals in the collective were “horrified” that the council was considering

abolishing community boards.

“They are pretty upset that KCDC is going ahead with this so-called consultation,” Mr Fraser

says.

He had heard about the proposal from the Ōtaki Community Board chair, Christine Papps,

some time after the council announced that it was conducting a review of representation.

He then contacted the other principals. They had not heard about the plan and they were all

opposed to it. As a result, Kahu Tokotoko o Ōtaki will be making a submission to the council

on its representation review.

Mr Fraser is also critical of KCDC’s process of engaging with the community before coming

up with its regional representation plan.

“The process has been incredible. There’s been no real community engagement on whether or not we wanted to retain our community board,” he says.

As well as all the school principals, all four of the Ōtaki elected representatives on the

community board are totally opposed to the plan.

“I have talked to a lot of people and everyone I have spoken to said that community boards

should stay,” says Christine Papps, who chairs the Ōtaki Community Board.

“I am totally opposed to it.”

KCDC has a meeting scheduled for 19 October, where it will hear submissions on its

representation review, and Ms Papps would like to see Ōtaki people “fill the council chamber

with people opposing the proposal to do away with our community boards”.

“The community board does a lot for the community. We all pull our weight."

“It provides a conduit between the community and the council and councillors."

“We [the elected representatives on the community board] also attend a lot of meetings. I

cannot see ward councillors going to all those meetings if they abolish the community

board.”

Many of the constitutions of community organisations require the service of the community

board in some way, such as having a requirement that a community board member is on their committee.

Neither of these two reasons the council has given for abolishing community boards stand up

to scrutiny, Ms Papps says.

In abolishing community boards, they “won’t be taking away a layer of bureaucracy. They

will be adding a layer of bureaucracy.”

That is because the proposal provides for council staff, along with councillors, taking over the

role of fostering community-led development currently carried out by the community board.

Also, the community boards are not a “layer of bureaucracy” anyway. They are elected

representatives.

In terms of saving money, community board members do not get paid much. “If they employ

people [to carry out the functions currently carried out by community board members] how

much will that cost?’

Ms Papps said she was “absolutely appalled” at the so-called consultation on the proposal.

“Consultation has been non-existent as far as I am concerned.”

She pointed to a series of events the council had on the issue, beginning on 6 April and

running until 5 August when they presented the final option.

Community board representatives were not included in any of the events leading up to the

presentation of the final option.

“That is not consulting,” Ms Papps says.

“Without a community board there is a lot of support to local community groups that won’t

be there any more,” says the board’s deputy Chair, Marilyn Stevens.

“That is because one ward councillor cannot do what a community board can do.”

Not only is Ms Stevens deputy Chair of the Ōtaki Community Board, she also represents

Kāpiti, the Hutt and the Wairarapa on the National Community Board Executive Committee.

This committee represents all New Zealand’s community boards and is an advisory

committee to Local Government New Zealand’s National Council.

Ms Stevens says she would like to “focus on the positives we [the community board] are

providing."

“We are all very busy. We are all out there doing it in our community. The work load we

have is huge."

“We are all involved with organisations such as the Museum Trust, Foodbank, the

Community Network Forum, Friends of the Rotunda, Friends of the Ōtaki River, roading,

shared pathways, Health and Wellbeing, the Ōtaki Promotions Group and many more."

”That is the service the community is getting right now. How is our community going to live

without this service?”

The plan to abolish community boards “is eroding our democracy”, she says.

“Community boards are democratically elected. Committees are appointed.”

Like Ms Papps, Ms Stevens is also critical of the council’s co called consultation on its

proposal.

The whole process has been rubbish, and the council has lied, she says.

“It is a very turbulent period of time in our district now. There is a lot of unhappiness."

“I just encourage people to have their say and get their submission in to council.”

“The whole process of this review is flawed and undemocratic,” says community board

member Shelly Warwick.

 “Community board members were not officially informed of the proposal to remove them

until after the rest of the community had been informed,” she says.

Axing community boards “removes a layer of connection for the community to the council. 

“If we are to only have one layer of representation, and that was underperforming or

uninterested in particular community issues, it leaves no-one to pick up the slack or advocate

to council for the community from the inside of the democratic structure. 

“It is very disappointing that this proposal has been put forward with such a limited pool of

people interviewed, and without any transparency or consultation with the community board

members themselves. 

“If community board members had been part of the process they may have had valuable input into how they could strengthen their grass roots representation of the community.”

Ms Warwick also refers to the fact that the proposal to abolish community boards was not

addressed until near the end of its report on representation.

“We have to  move to page 10, second to last page, to get any explanation of the proposal [to

remove community boards] and then it is a pretty brief blurb on such an important issue. 

“In the explanation it refers to the research suggesting that community boards are a

‘confusing layer of bureaucracy’. But we are not bureaucracy. We are elected members and

therefore part of the district’s democracy.  

“Council talks about saving money by dissolving community boards, $250,000 per year. 

“The document also talks of what will replace the community boards” including a more full

time councillor. 

“If the councillors are to do more hours surely they will want more remuneration for

increased responsibility? Has there been any budget that includes this?  A secretary for each

councillor – that is 10 secretaries, at what cost?

“There are no figures in the document for these costs for us to ponder on. Nor has the cost of

setting up and administering the neighbourhood forums or community panels been disclosed. 

“And who will choose the members of these groups?  Will they be chosen for their

compliance, for surely council will not choose outspoken advocates in the community, those

that may want to keep council accountable. No, that is what an election does.  The

community elects those who they think will advocate for them the best,” Ms Warwick says.

New Ōtaki Community Board member Cameron Butler describes the council move to axe

community boards as “backtracking on local democracy”.

When he heard of the proposal, as a newly elected community board member “I was beside

myself,” he says.

“I have just got onto the board and now I have to fight for our own existence rather than

doing the community work.”

Currently, he notes, there was a 4-7 split among councillors on the proposed representation

plan.

“What we are hoping is that we can change some of the councillors’ minds.”

The Ōtaki Community Board was “not particularly happy about the research the council has

done. We are not confident in the slightest that the council has got an accurate picture of what people want.”

There are 41,000 voters in Kāpiti, yet the research undertaken by Empathy interviewed only

around 168 people, he notes.

“We think the current system is fine. Maybe there are some refinements that can be made, but the community boards should not be abolished,” he says.

“The Ōtaki Community Board is an asset to the community”.

There's been a lot of focus on the "proposal to abolish community boards” however the

representation review is more than just a discussion around community boards, Ōtaki’s Ward

Councillor Cr James Cootes says.

“As a council we are legally required to put out one option to get the conversation going. The

proposed option is not our personal views but based on feedback from the community via

research conducted by a reputable company alongside what legally fits the Local Government Commission requirements.

“People have criticised the sample size. However this was qualitative research not

quantitative and from a qualitative perspective as it’s now out for public consultation there's

ample opportunity for a larger sample size to provide feedback.

“I’m not telling people what they should support as my approach is to encourage people to

read the information and make informed submissions that will help council develop a final

model that best represents the views of the community and will deliver good governance,” Cr

Cootes says.

“Having come up through a community board I’m not opposed to community boards but

they need to be committed and constructive to be effective.

“If anyone wants to have a chat with me about the representation review I’d encourage them

to call me as I’m more than happy to engage with people,” Cr Cootes says. His contact

number is 027 457 2346.

The Ōtaki Mail also approached Mayor Gurunathan and asked his views on the proposal to

abolish community boards. As he would be one of the people on the council hearing

submissions and then making a decision, he did not want to comment, the Mayor said.