Someone once said something along the lines of it not being a good idea to confuse the size of one’s wallet with the size of one’s brain.
This came to mind again recently as the approach of local body elections generated comment and debate about the quality of candidates and the power of money to influence outcomes.
Some years ago, in a publication from the Local Government Commission, there was an exhortation to communities to seek out and encourage good quality candidates to stand for election. But this is not easy, with the best potential candidates often already fully engaged in fulltime work and other commitments.
Sir Bob Jones, property magnate and political and social commentator, once suggested that the main motivation for people standing for council was that they were in need of a job.
Humorously cynical (and ironic too, as he once considered standing for council himself), but there is a kernel of truth in his quip. Essentially, the pool of candidates available is narrow and those with the time to be councillors don’t necessarily correlate with those who have the appropriate skills.
Over the years in New Zealand, we have even seen semi-literate mayors and councillors elected to office. While this does not necessarily mean they are incapable of doing a good job, it does make it much harder to function at the level needed and it makes interaction with the employed, operational staff complicated.
In my own experience, I have seen ageing councillors nodding off in meetings and some whose memories were failing. This is not to say that all older councillors have done their dash.
Retirees often bring sharp minds and a wealth of experience and commitment to the work of governance, but there are also well-meaning people who keep on standing only out of a sense of duty. This, again, highlights the narrow pool of those available to stand.
We have seen the recent issue of a council chief executive openly showing verbal contempt for councillors. I don’t condone this. CEOs are paid to do their work to a high professional standard.
Nevertheless, I have sympathy for those on the operational end of council business getting frustrated with councillors who are off the pace.
Councils employ a range of people, many of whom are well qualified, having scientific, administrative, engineering, public health and planning skills. And, yes, they do need to be able to present things in layman’s terms — as best they can — but it’s a fair expectation that councillors should make an effort to do their own homework and get up to speed.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, some elected office holders are not able to get on the pace and effective democracy requires effective people to be elected.
What could be done about this? Precedents already exist in our society. We require people in a wide variety of occupations to demonstrate proficiency.
One cannot drive a bus, fly a plane, be a medical practitioner or practice many trades without demonstrating proficiency; yet one can be elected to office purely on the basis of how good one claims they will be at the job.
The problem is obvious, but the solution would require a pretty hard-nosed change to how we view democratic governance. After all, inclusiveness is regarded as fundamental to democracy.
To exclude people from standing for public office, on the basis of a proficiency qualification, would be a difficult cultural shift. Yet, although the idea of having to be qualified to stand for public office sounds elitist, even unfair, for the sake of effective governance, councillors should be able to hit the ground running.
At the very least, they need to have a good, working knowledge of the Local Government Act, the Resource Management Act, a council’s own provisional plan and the rules of order as they are applied to council meetings.
If they are assigned a particular area of responsibility, they also need to take steps to understand their area of responsibility.
True, in theory, if a councillor can’t get up to speed, this will be recognised and they will not be elected again. Nevertheless, one-issue candidates and populists regularly add ongoing colour and interest to our councils, not to mention those whose incumbency is renewed endlessly as a matter of habit.
This is not to say the problem of lack of knowledge and experience is not recognised. New councillors do have an induction process, but the knowledge imparted is not tested and is really to let them know what they need to know, if they are sufficiently motivated to do the necessary homework.
If we did require a qualification to stand for office, it would need to be able to show proficiency in the basic knowledge required and, regrettably, it would also need to assure a good level of reading and comprehension skills.
Councillors need to be able to read and understand a lot of written material that arrives in their hands not long before meetings.
Councillors who try to "wing it", without doing the homework necessary to understand issues and ask relevant questions, cannot do a good job of representing the interests of those who voted for them.
But the day-to-day business of councils must go on and exasperated operational staff, in the absence of clear direction, can feel that they have to trespass in the areas that, strictly speaking, belong to elected governance.
The bitter irony in this is that, if we were to introduce qualification barriers to standing for public office, the already depleted pool of candidates would shrink even further.
The answer could, indeed, be to introduce a qualification requirement, pay elected councillors a wage consistent with their responsibilities and insist that they give up their day jobs.
Yes, qualified, paid, professional governance might be needed, because amateurism is at the heart of the problem with local government representation, not the democratic process itself.
• Glen Morgan is a retired teacher and former short-term member of the Greymouth District Council.
