We have noted over time many occasions where the old ways of doing things might not be so bad after all.
Certainly in the field of local politics, the ideas of the older generation at times seemed backward and insular, but upon reflection they were often wise and well intentioned moves.
The question of practicality raises its head now and again and it is only natural that governance models be reviewed with an eye to progress. One such idea discussed at the last county council meeting is if the warden – the county’s highest public office – should be appointed from within county council for a two-year term after the 2010 elections, or be directly elected by all the people of Wellington.
The benefits of appointment from within are that the job and its enormity are shared, and the experience of chairing county council is familiar to many members.
Plus, several wardens on council sitting on all the committees gives a better understanding to more people, which has proved very educational. Politicians appointed by council get to experience a larger appreciation for Wellington as a whole, negating many of the parochial attitudes that proud people can easily bring to the table.
Plus, the format of appointment from within for a single year made it very difficult for the system to run off the rails. If a warden were too autocratic, any frustrations or misgivings were easily assuaged by the fact that the term was only a few months long.
At the last meeting, the essence of the job came under fire again with an official recommendation that the position be expanded to a two-year term. The year passes quickly and most who have experienced the job will agree, it is quite a whirlwind.
The thinking must be that a two-year cycle will avoid any disruption associated with the annual election and its trappings. A notice of motion was also filed suggesting the debate of a warden elected at large be held.
The Kitchen and Armstrong report’s conclusion many years ago on the subject was that the warden should be elected at large, by the people. That recommendation was scuttled, or at least set to the side pending a time in the future when the folks who kept the faith on self appointment were no longer office holders.
That time has not quite yet come, as evidenced by a poor vote count about even talking about a warden elected at large anytime soon.
We believe the election of a warden with a mandate from the people will need to come in time. There are great benefits to a full-time representative lobbying on behalf of the county. After all, the ability to get things done is a result of focus and building relationships with people who can expedite the work.
But the timing of the issue could not be worse. Correctly, the present Warden, Chief Administrative Officer and clerk have stated that from a logistical viewpoint a significant move such as allowing the people to elect their warden in the fall of 2010 is virtually impossible.
We tend to agree – and can’t help lamenting that councillors interested in such changes at this time have had over 30 months to suggest revamping the electoral system.
We are also not convinced that direct election has enough backing amongst citizens to become a firebrand issue in need of an answer now.
Certainly, as debate ensues and a course of action is chosen by proponents of a change in the present system, councillors will get a sense whether this issue is all but dead on arrival. We suspect it is.
