-
Christchurch mayor Bob Parker - Source: ONE News -
Related
Allegations of jobs for the boys and unauthorised staff spending have caused a bitter row that has split the Christchurch City Council.
A group of five city councillors, led by Cr Tim Carter, has revealed that council staff exceeded their legal spending authority of up to $500,000 in approving a consultant's contract for work on the post-earthquake central city plan.
Carter raised the issue at last Thursday afternoon's council meeting, saying he had "a suspicion" that the granting of an $878,936 contract to Impact Project Management without council approval "was being kept from us on purpose".
The figure in annual plan documents tabled at the meeting was the first he and other councillors had known about it after emailing questions for more than two months asking staff how they would allocate work to consultants, he said.
Carter's opposition and his questioning of council strategy and planning group general manager Mike Theelen sparked fiery scenes across the table.
Mayor Bob Parker said Carter's contentions were "pathetic" and he threatened to throw Carter out of the chamber after Carter raised a point of order against him.
"It's overruled and I'm talking," Parker said. "And if you don't stop talking I'll ask you to leave. It's your choice." Carter's questioning of Theelen had been more like "cross-examination", Parker said. "I feel embarrassed to call myself a member of this council at the moment."
Parker then refused to let Cr Jimmy Chen talk on the subject.
The mayor earlier told Carter to "be quiet and sit down".
Crs Carter, Chen, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson and Glenn Livingstone failed in their attempt to pass a resolution expressing "concern and dissatisfaction" at the breach of the spending cap and at the "lack of an open process" to determine who would get contracts for the central city plan.
Council chief executive Tony Marryatt said decisions that breached the $500,000 delegated authority cap had had to be made during the state of emergency after the February 22 earthquake.
"We had to get sprinting straight away. I have worked for many councils where you would split the [$878,936] contract into two of $440,000 and there's no delegation breach. If you want to play that game ... "
Marryatt said he would not normally have brought the report and figures to council.
"I [only] brought this because of questions around the management of consultants and because it was the annual plan."
Gough said "the real question" was getting the best plan and outcome for the people of Christchurch.
"I would have preferred to have had any opportunity to look at this process properly. I'm not happy to be a passenger with that [decision]."
Carter said standard commercial practice was to scope a project and put it out for tender.
"We have to ensure we get the best people for the job. I'm not convinced that has happened. I'm concerned we have shoulder-tapped individual consultants. I asked for those details in a series of emails in April and still don't have it. I have a suspicion that this was being kept from us on purpose," Carter said.
Johanson said papers clearly showed the Impact Project Management contract was signed on May 12, well after the state of emergency ended at midnight on April 30.
"You can't get away from democracy because of the size of the natural disaster. This is about councillors being in control of the city and being prudent with resources."
Marryatt said that in his four years at the city council it had not been common practice to seek competitive tenders.
"We have a pool of consultants that we work with and we tend to go with them. We look at who has the best skills."
Cr Sue Wells said the state of emergency had demanded a different approach. The complaints were "pedantic, nitpicking. And now we are getting the noose out? I'm really gutted by that. I want to distance myself as far as possible from this."
Parker apologised to Marryatt and Theelen for the accusations and said they had done an "outstanding job".
"This has been brought by people with no real council experience," he said.
"You have my support for making the decisions that you made because I know you needed to make it in the best interests of the people of this city."
