Perhaps Gerrard Eckhoff was correct with the opening paragraph of his opinion piece (ODT 9.7.24) when he thinks he can retire with a good book.
My suggestions for those good books are: DCC delegations manual, good governance guides and a dictionary of definitions.
The reason I suggest these books is that I consider Mr Eckhoff’s piece to be a personal attack on my integrity.
My issues with his piece centre around a), the suggestion that I am using the authority of the committee to pre-empt deliberations of the committee and the public; b), implying predetermination as a sacking offence; and c), suggestions around a sanction approach.
Mr Eckhoff cannot be naive as to why politicians get elected, as he was an Act New Zealand MP and regional councillor.
Therefore he will be very aware that people stand on platforms, policies and values, and that people vote for them to represent their views around decision-making tables.
During council elections I have always said that I am a big supporter of treasuring Dunedin’s heritage, and the valuable reasons why. I know many Dunedinites share those values and views, as I was the top-polling councillor in 2022.
People know my family as heritage heroes, putting their hearts and souls into restoring Larnach Castle and creating a significant visitor attraction.
Given that background, firstly I’ll address the accusation of using committee authority as chairwoman "to pre-empt the deliberations of the committee and the public".
That is manifestly incorrect. All members of the committee have voices and votes and will give their opinions and reasoning to support the reasons they vote a certain way.
The chairperson facilitates those discussions, while taking the opportunity to contribute as well, but just has one vote — unless it’s a casting vote, which is only used in extreme circumstances, and I have never used it.
I think Mr Eckhoff might be confused as to the powers of the committee I chair. Hence my suggestion around reading the DCC’s delegations manual. I am entitled, if not absolutely expected, to carry the communities’ views with me as I debate any issues.
Perhaps the confusion lies around the difference between a council committee and a RMA hearing panel, where the separation of opinion and fact are very clearly defined.
As a certified RMA commissioner I know this and am very careful to manage any conflicts of interest and ensure the decision is not pre-emptive or pre-determined.
Very simplistically, RMA decisions are quasi-judicial as opposed to council committee policy decisions, which are most often political decisions.
Which brings me to pre-determination — another definition which needs some research before implying a sacking offence around policy making.
The general law on this is that council decision-makers should make decisions for a proper purpose, unaffected by personal interests. These personal interests are mostly defined about financial and quasi-judicial conflicts of interest.
Councillors swear to act in the best interests of their communities, a much bigger sphere of interest, which is why they are elected.
Elected members are absolutely free to express preliminary views or stances on policy making — as long as they are determined to have an open mind about decisions.
When we make decisions, we are given screeds of reports to read with advice as to the pros and cons of those decisions. I am well known for questioning and analysing these reports and certainly approach every decision we make with an open mind, plus bringing in views and opinions of communities I am honoured to represent.
While Mr Eckhoff would have been correct that I am determined to support heritage, as I have said, perhaps he might have looked at the year-long process (so far) by which we’ve worked to create a "heritage action plan", with our community, to support Dunedin’s aspirations to protect our heritage.
He might also look at the voting records of other DCC-elected members which show that the vast majority also support treasuring our heritage.
The council recognises the value of heritage to our city, not just culturally, but also the significant economic impact, with over 50% of tourists visiting Dunedin because of our heritage, attached to an over $300 million effect on our GDP — not to mention the students and residents who choose to live in our beautiful historic city.
Plus the many developers and businesses who support heritage re-use.
Finally, to the "DCC appears to believe that sanctions work better than incentives".
Patently untrue — the council has an annual Dunedin Heritage Fund, which I chair, of over $600,000 to support heritage work, plus a suite of other supportive measures. Some more reading material ...
To the comment "Try buying the development rights to the house and section Cr Barker. It really is not difficult". All I can say is my family has "been there and done that", albeit with another building — and heritage buildings are challenging.
Therefore, I salute our heritage heroes and suggest that perhaps they do get knighted as Mr Eckhoff suggests.
Finally I must say: "Mr Eckhoff, play the ball and not the person."
I agree there is a balance between public and private good, as for all decisions we make and I would have agreed that we work to find that balance around our heritage assets.
However, I am extremely disappointed that he took the opportunity to criticise my integrity along the way.
I think Dunedin people would share values of fair play and not want any nasty personal slurs and mud throwing in our city, thanks.
■Sophie Barker is a Dunedin city councillor.
