[ad_1]
Christchurch City Hall / Things
Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board, from left, Michelle Lomax, Sunita Gautam, Jake McLellan, Sara Templeton, Darrell Latham, Jackie Simons, Yani Johanson, Alexandra Davids and Tim Lindley, will now have to work hard to become a cohesive board .
Five politicians aligned with Labor have withdrawn their plans to overthrow a community board president after a strong public backlash.
The actions of the five People’s Choice members of the Waikura / Linwood-Central-Heathcote board – councilors Jake McLellan and Yani Johanson, Michelle Lomax, Sunita Gautam and Jackie Simons – to unseat Alexandra Davids have been widely criticized.
Community leaders accused them of playing “bad politics” and worrying only about “power and control.” Their behavior was described as “despicable” and on Wednesday they were warned of the consequences their actions would have in the next elections.
Two voters even wrote letters to the prime minister and Labor leader, Jacinda Ardern, and the local government minister, Nanaia Mahuta.
READ MORE:
* Board members warned that ‘there will be consequences’ if the president is removed
* ‘Trump-style’ policy allegations in coup to topple community board president
* Leadership change at the Christchurch Community Board
But in a statement issued Thursday, all five said they had decided, after careful consideration, to withdraw their request for a vote to choose a new president.
They did not say exactly what led them to make that decision.
The decision to oust Davids came less than a month after People’s Choice member Sunita Gautam was elected to the board in a by-election following the death of former member Sally Buck.
Gautam’s victory gave the People’s Choice a majority on the nine-person board. The Local Government Law says that a vote to remove a president can be requested if the majority of the members support him.
McLellan said he did not agree with the process that led to Davids’ appointment, but believed that the best way forward was now with a constructive and collaborative process.
He said he is confident that he can work with Davids as president and that he had no intention of making further motions to impeach her.
“We decided as a caucus to withdraw the letter because we agreed that it was not the best way forward. We are all members of the Labor Party, we were elected on a Labor ballot and we made our own decision to withdraw the letter. “
Lomax said they asked for the vote because they had “significant concerns” about the process. However, he said it was important for the community to have confidence that the board was operating in an open and democratic manner.
Johanson said they were committed to working with other board members to resolve differences and move forward by addressing issues of concern, including greater transparency, better community responsiveness, and united leadership.
RNZ
RNZ The Detail Podcast: Local Body Boredom – Why Every Council Pick Is A Fizzer. (First published August 2018)
Davids said he is pleased that all five have decided to withdraw the vote.
“It has obviously been a very stressful time.
“Now we can get back to business instead of wasting taxpayers’ money and everyone’s time and energy. It’s been pretty tough for a lot of people. “
She believed that the table could leave the stoush behind and work consistently.
The issue has also caused riots at the city council table, with Aaron Keown publicly criticizing Johanson on social media on Wednesday, before the decision to withdraw.
Keown, who has since left office, said he was disappointed in Johanson and that his actions were “a clear sign that he has lost his way and should seriously consider his future in politics as his moral compass has clearly changed.”
“Shame on Yani,” Keown wrote.
Richmond residents Hayley Guglietta and Greg Partridge emailed Ardern and Mahuta to make sure the couple were aware of the problem.
The actions of the five went against Ardern’s “be nice” mantra, they said.
Partridge said the way the board members had behaved was disgusting.
“They were chosen to represent the local population. They are not there to serve their own political achievements. “