She responded: “We’ll see. I shall be as frugal as I can be.”
So has she been as frugal as she can be?
It seems her office, and indeed Baxendale herself, want to keep that secret from the public.
In light of recent events regarding the city council and secrecy, some might say there is no surprises in that.
Her office has refused to answer how, and how much of the $30,000 was spent – if indeed all of it has.
The Press revealed this damning situation on Wednesday.
Given the Chief Ombudsman’s damning recent report into what he said was a culture of secrecy at the city council, this latest lack of transparency is simply appalling.
As an organisation, the city council’s hands may be tied from an employer’s point of view and confidentiality. And I stress, may be.
But Baxendale’s hands aren’t. So as the city council’s new chief executive who has been talking transparency and even cost cutting, why isn’t she being transparent.
So how did she and her family fly from the United Kingdom to Christchurch? Business or first-class? Where did they stop over on the way and what hotels did they stay in and what class were those hotels?
Was food and beverage included in the $30,000 ratepayer relocation cost and if that was the case how much was spent?
Ratepayers have a right to know, in my view.
Baxendale could easily have cleared up what will be ongoing conjecture and probing by news media organisations.
And given Baxendale’s first media interview a week after she started in the position, which included a statement on cost cutting, how and what she has spent $30,000 of ratepayers’ money on is very much in the public interest.
Our reporter also asked Mayor Lianne Dalziel some questions on the matter. She is the mayor and a very hands-on one at that. She is not a figurehead.
So we asked her: Does the mayor support the chief executive office's decision to withhold how the chief executive chose to spend her $30,000 relocation fee? Especially following the Chief Ombudsman’s report where the city council was criticised for lacking transparency.
Has the mayor seen how the expenses were spent? If so, what were her thoughts?
Dalziel responded: “A relocation fee of up to $30,000 was negotiated as part of the chief executive’s employment package and that is all that can be said on the matter.”
On Friday Baxendale will meet with the Chief Ombudsman to discuss his recent damning report, and maybe reveal what reports some senior council staff kept secret.
There will be another test for Baxendale – and indeed Dalziel – as to whether that information is released to the public.
It will be imperative that it is, so the council can show it is transparent.
Until this happens, the city council has a very much exposed Achilles heel as to the details of Baxendale’s $30,000 relocation expenses.
