Thursday is Timmsday

We meet on Thursday in the boardroom at ES (the public are welcome - please join us for what will be a fascinating look into how local politicians operate. Or you could find some wet paint and watch that dry :-) to thrash out the Timms affair. Already behind the scenes, there's been plenty of thrashing. Most of the action has been around the manner in which this meeting has been "shaped" by Acting Chairman Nicol Horrell and his supporters. Concern around the choice of "confidence" as the motion to be put has already been expressed in the media. Legal opinion said that the use of a motion of confidence is unprecedented in local body politics - they could find no previous case to base their opinion on. Votes of "no confidence" were the usual practice. Acting chairman Horrell said he chose a confidence motion because "it would be improper" for him to move a vote of no confidence in Ali Timms. I'm unsure how that could be, given that it's normal practice in other councils.
The agenda for the meeting provided another surprising aspect to the affair. It paints a rosy picture of our chairman and her attainments, but doesn't mention her fall from grace, described as "unacceptable" and given the council's stamp of "extreme disapproval", at all. In it, we read that Ms Timms has "been a hardworking and effective chairman" and that the meeting  "gives the council the opportunity to consider Ali's performance as chair since the last election", which all sounds very positive, doesn't it.
Latest in this series of "developments" is the news that Ms Timms will vote on the motion of "confidence"...in herself. At first hearing, this sounds ludicrous. Bias is something councillors are constantly challenged to avoid having and it's impossible to see how Ms Timms cannot be 100% biased when it comes to a vote to establish confidence in herself. Were she not intending to vote for herself, she'd have stood down by now, saving the council a good deal of money and time. It may be usual practice for someone in this position to vote I don't know, but it sure smells funny to me. I suspect there will be many Southland people, those interested in this democratic process anyway, who find that more than just a little curious. We'll see if there is any reaction following the drama of the day.
The individual councillors will each be presenting their view of Ms Timms "performance" and I'm certain there will be strong opinions expressed. It all comes down though, to the numbers. If Ms Timms can marshal 6 votes in her favour, then add her own, the motion of confidence will be passed.
I'm certain she will have been wearing out the leather on the bottom of her stylish shoes in the pursuit of support from many of the councillors, but I've not had her knocking at my door.
Perhaps she's taking my support for granted :-)
*Update - yes, legal opinion is that a person can indeed vote on a motion of confidence, even if it's in them selves, a matter of natural justice I've learned and I'm a supporter of that, that's for sure!
*Update on the update - not so, after looking more closely at the reply. The right to hear and be heard is covered by natural justice, but not the right to vote. That's the arguable aspect of this whole affair. You might think that it is unseemly to vote for yourself, if that vote was a deciding one. There are people watching this unfold with great interest.

Timms on agenda

Southland Times journalist Evan Harding rang me yesterday for comment about where the council was with their 'chairman' issue. I was happy to bring him up to speed with developments, believing that it's important that the public 'gets a look in' at what councillors are doing, and knowing that many of my fellow councillors are very reluctant to speak with 'the media'. In response, he wrote the following article for today's ST front page.

The fate of beleaguered Environment Southland chairwoman Ali Timms could be decided at an extraordinary meeting of the council on January 24.

Ms Timms was last month outed for making a hoax phone call to a Cue television talkback show.

Pretending to be a struggling mother of two called Ruby whose partner had been laid off at Tiwai, she repeatedly grilled Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt during the live television show about the city council's funding of the Auckland-to-Bluff yacht race.

When confronted about the hoax call, she told The Southland Times it was a practical joke.

Her actions were widely condemned by Environment Southland and Invercargill city councillors. Ms Timms subsequently took six weeks' paid leave until her future as chairwoman was decided.

Acting Environment Southland chairman Nicol Horrell yesterday said the January 24 meeting was to discuss the Environment Southland leadership.

He intended to move a motion of confidence in Ms Timms to enable councillors to express their views and take a vote.

If the majority of councillors voted for the motion, Ms Timms would remain as chairwoman; but if they voted against it another meeting would have to be held in 14 days' time and the vote would be put again, he said.

When asked why a motion of confidence in Ms Timms would be put and not one of no confidence, Mr Horrell said it would be improper for him as acting chairman to move a vote of no confidence.

A vote of confidence would have the same effect, he said.

Environment Southland councillor Robert Guyton said yesterday a vote of confidence was an inappropriate vehicle for the council to express its disapproval of Ms Timms' actions.

Legal advice suggested a vote of confidence had never been used in local body politics in New Zealand and the usual process was to move a vote of no confidence, he said.

Mr Guyton said he would listen to the views of the councillors around the table before deciding which way to vote, "but at this stage I feel there needs to be a change".

He believes Ms Timms should have taken the opportunity to stand down when she was "encouraged to do the honourable thing" by councillors at a meeting last month to discuss her actions.

She refused to stand down, Mr Guyton said, and it was her idea to take six weeks' leave.

"I don't think her position is tenable following her public dishonesty and I think she has jeopardised the relationship between the council and other [Southland] councils, particularly the Invercargill City Council."



Her dishonesty had also jeopardised the relationship between Environment Southland and the public, he said.

Mr Guyton said he would not be going for the chairmanship if Ms Timms was sacked, but he believed several councillors could fill the role very well, including Jan Riddell, "who enjoys excellent relationships with all of the agencies around Southland and is entirely trustworthy".

It was too early to say whether Ms Timms had the numbers to retain her position, Mr Guyton said.

Environment Southland councillor Ross Cockburn, who said last month that Ms Timms remained an excellent chairwoman, yesterday declined to say which way he would vote at the meeting.

The Southland Times ran an informal online poll last month asking readers whether Ms Timms should remain chairwoman of Environment Southland, with 59 voting yes and 237 voting no.

Ms Timms could not be contacted yesterday.

evan.harding@stl.co.nz

- © Fairfax NZ News

Confidence or no-confidence

Following Ms Timms unacceptable-to-the-council behaviour on Cue TV, where she impersonated a struggling young mum named 'Ruby' and denied the obvious deception when pressed by Invercargill mayor, Tim Shadbolt, the council has resolved to meet in January to deal with the question of her suitability as chairman of the council. It seemed obvious to me that any vote taken at that meeting would be one of no-confidence in the chairman, as a result of her behaviour, providing an opportunity for those who feel she should go to vote that way, and those who want her to stay to vote against the motion, but no, it turns out that the Acting Chairman, Nichol Horrell has proposed a vote of confidence in Ms Timms! I've always thought such a vote was taken when a council was looking to praise and reward its chair or mayor, for a job especially well done, a kind of official 'pat on the back'. Clearly that's not what should be happening here, if I am right in my interpretation. Still, we shall see. Legal advice has been sought and that should clarify the correctness or otherwise of Mr Horrell's move.

*Up-date:
The legal advice was returned this afternoon and they made this point:

" We have never come across a vote of confidence in the context of local government previously, so cannot comment on what it typically means in local government."

That tells me the proposal for a 'vote of confidence' is unprecedented, unusual and untested in local government. Why on earth would we use it then?