Friday, December 18, 2009
Money squandered to no effect
The large advertisement in the Press today (19 December 2009) asking people to view the model of the proposed Music School building at the Art Gallery, prompts me to ask just how much the University is spending on continuing to promote a cause which the overwhelming majority of Christchurch residents have proclaimed loudly and clearly that they do not want on this site. Today's advertisement is only one of several large advertisements which have appeared in the Press in recent days. Earlier in the campaign the university also ran a series of large scale advertisements. Added to this are the glossy brochures, the question and answer handouts and the large colour posters appearing in various locations around the city. The model itself can't have come cheaply The promotional bill for this project must be starting to reach a sizable sum by now. Nor should we forget the cost of all the staff time that has been diverted from productive teaching and research roles to writing submissions and sitting in at Council consultation hearings. On top of that, of course, are the fees for the architects, growing by the minute as plans are changed and designs resubmitted. Then there are the fees for all the other consultants including resource management planners, engineers, heritage consultants and lawyers. Expenses will grow dramatically when legal hearings begin. Many of these consultants would have been unnecessary for a building at Ilam and if resource consent is not granted a whole new set of expenses will be incurred to redesign on campus. Rumour has it that the University has already spent $1.25 million, with nothing to show for it. The tragedy is that the much needed new music building could already be well underway by now if the University had chosen the logical course of building at Ilam. The money frittered away in the attempt to impose a building where it is not wanted could have been spent on ensuring that a truly inspirational design was developed for a music school combined with a multi-use performing arts centre on campus, which would enrich the lives of all students and be of benefit to the whole of Christchurch.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Disharmony in the city.
Events relating to the proposed music school are heating up. First there was the announcement by the applicants that they were delaying the resource consent until February out of concern for the opposition, to give them adequate time to prepare their case. Not very convincing, considering that the filing of the resource consent application had been timed to maximise inconvenience to opponents. Submissions would have fallen due while the Council consultation hearing was still taking place, if they hadn't, in their haste, overlooked the fact that they were lodging the application in the name of a Joint Venture which did not at that stage legally exist. As a consequence it had to be resubmitted. Aside from the pressure placed upon opponents by this untimely application, the very fact that it was lodged well in advance of the Council's final decision on funding suggests that the applicants knew something that submitters opposed to the proposal did not know.
Just incidentally, it was stated that the applicants were using the delay to deal with some of the issues raised by opponents in regard to the design. The new-found concern for the opposition was quickly revealed as nothing more than spin because word soon got about that the Council's own heritage consultant had been less than impressed with the building. As a face saving tactic it might almost have worked except that there is clearly more than one leaky institution in this city.
The Council became distinctly tetchy over inquiries into the Vines report. Depending on which Council officer was spoken to, the report was described as incomplete, a draft only, or containing misleading information. Queries as to whether it had been passed to the applicants were vigorously denied, but I doubt that many observers believed this. Claims under the Offical Information Act have so far failed to extract a copy of the report.
However, if word of the Vines report caused a stir, it paled into insignificance compared with the reaction to the announcement on Saturday that SOAC has filed for an interim injunction to delay the resource consent hearings until the issue of the correct interpretation of the Trust deed could be decided by the High Court. At first the University tried to pass it off as a publicity stunt ( an expensive one, it would have to be said, if it involves lawyers fees!) However, once the documents were received cries of publicity stunt were quickly replaced by yells of foul play. The Arts Centre spoke darkly of betrayal and an attempt by SOAC to prevent all but a select few from having a say on the building.
We are asked to believe that a legitimate legal process intended to clarify for once and for all the true extent of the Board's powers is in some way an abuse of process. It is not this action which is denying others their right to be heard. The reality is that the groundswell of people opposed to the developments are the ones who have been denied a real right to be heard. A resource consent hearing is no substitute for a public consultation around the long term plans and policy directions for the Arts Centre. From the outset, opponents of the scheme have argued that a full and wide-ranging public discussion about the future of the arts centre should take place before any sort of development is approved. Our requests have been thwarted at every turn. The consultation was limited to the issue of finance, because, we were told, other issues would be dealt with in the resource consent process. That is simply not true. Resource consent hearings are defined by the nature of the applicants proposal and are restricted to a limited range of issues around the city plan.
What are the documents which have led to accusations of betrayal. It appears from the Press that they include minutes and financial details. Let us not forget we are dealing here with a charitable trust which administers the buildings for the people of Christchurch and New Zealand. You would expect many financial details to be open to public scrutiny in the annual reports of the Board. It is also difficult to see why the minutes of a charity administered in the public interest should be confidential. After all, they are highly unlikely to contain the sort of information which has a legitimate claim to confidentiality such as the lease agreements between the Arts Centre and any tenants. The role of the Board is in formulating policy and this should be open to public scrutiny.
The reaction of the Board suggests that they do indeed have something to hide. Rumours of bullying and muzzling Board members who disagree with the views of the inner cabal suggest that this is a Board which has problems. There is also a strong suggestion that huge sums of money have been squandered on various development projects that have never come to fruition (and probably should never have been contemplated). Rumour also surrounds the chairman of the board, John Simpson, whom it appears may have undeclared conflicts of interest on account of a continuing role on a subcommittee of the University Council.
The further unfolding of this saga will be awaited with interest.
Just incidentally, it was stated that the applicants were using the delay to deal with some of the issues raised by opponents in regard to the design. The new-found concern for the opposition was quickly revealed as nothing more than spin because word soon got about that the Council's own heritage consultant had been less than impressed with the building. As a face saving tactic it might almost have worked except that there is clearly more than one leaky institution in this city.
The Council became distinctly tetchy over inquiries into the Vines report. Depending on which Council officer was spoken to, the report was described as incomplete, a draft only, or containing misleading information. Queries as to whether it had been passed to the applicants were vigorously denied, but I doubt that many observers believed this. Claims under the Offical Information Act have so far failed to extract a copy of the report.
However, if word of the Vines report caused a stir, it paled into insignificance compared with the reaction to the announcement on Saturday that SOAC has filed for an interim injunction to delay the resource consent hearings until the issue of the correct interpretation of the Trust deed could be decided by the High Court. At first the University tried to pass it off as a publicity stunt ( an expensive one, it would have to be said, if it involves lawyers fees!) However, once the documents were received cries of publicity stunt were quickly replaced by yells of foul play. The Arts Centre spoke darkly of betrayal and an attempt by SOAC to prevent all but a select few from having a say on the building.
We are asked to believe that a legitimate legal process intended to clarify for once and for all the true extent of the Board's powers is in some way an abuse of process. It is not this action which is denying others their right to be heard. The reality is that the groundswell of people opposed to the developments are the ones who have been denied a real right to be heard. A resource consent hearing is no substitute for a public consultation around the long term plans and policy directions for the Arts Centre. From the outset, opponents of the scheme have argued that a full and wide-ranging public discussion about the future of the arts centre should take place before any sort of development is approved. Our requests have been thwarted at every turn. The consultation was limited to the issue of finance, because, we were told, other issues would be dealt with in the resource consent process. That is simply not true. Resource consent hearings are defined by the nature of the applicants proposal and are restricted to a limited range of issues around the city plan.
What are the documents which have led to accusations of betrayal. It appears from the Press that they include minutes and financial details. Let us not forget we are dealing here with a charitable trust which administers the buildings for the people of Christchurch and New Zealand. You would expect many financial details to be open to public scrutiny in the annual reports of the Board. It is also difficult to see why the minutes of a charity administered in the public interest should be confidential. After all, they are highly unlikely to contain the sort of information which has a legitimate claim to confidentiality such as the lease agreements between the Arts Centre and any tenants. The role of the Board is in formulating policy and this should be open to public scrutiny.
The reaction of the Board suggests that they do indeed have something to hide. Rumours of bullying and muzzling Board members who disagree with the views of the inner cabal suggest that this is a Board which has problems. There is also a strong suggestion that huge sums of money have been squandered on various development projects that have never come to fruition (and probably should never have been contemplated). Rumour also surrounds the chairman of the board, John Simpson, whom it appears may have undeclared conflicts of interest on account of a continuing role on a subcommittee of the University Council.
The further unfolding of this saga will be awaited with interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)