Thread: The results are in

At the April meeting we again discussed it and voted unanimously to move to 8 councillors for the 2015 elections, but it wasn’t included in that meeting’s agenda. The Manager was instructed to include it as an agenda’d item in the next meeting in June.

so important and forward thinking and licence buyer friendly it wasnt even in the minutes niether was any mention of consultation which i doubt was given a 2nd thought
why is that the only proposal or vote not in the minutes something that ground breaking would at least be recorded as proposed seconded but a unanimous vote not even recorded.??
yet again not even recorded in the summary of resolutions this groundbreaking nzc inspired bit of public minded cost saving licencee minded altruism in action??
pull the other one it plays dixie.
why would it need to be on the june agenda what were you gonna do vote on it twice ????
i could understand it if you were gonna take time to consult your licence buyers but no you ''voted unanimously''tui,s anyone

KWB, when you're copying and pasting stuff from the FishnHunt forum just copy the whole lot rather than only the bits you can twist to suit your view. Greg Duleys posts tell quite a bit.

This would be the crappiest, most negative, most tin foil hat worthy thread that I've ever followed on a hunting forum.

Part information, misinformation, assumptions, accusations, denigration and constipation.

And it's pure politics, which I thought was discouraged here?

does it now mike is that before or after the attacks from bj and jd on anyone who dissents??.id a thought you would be most aggreived mike after southlands iniative was sent back for licence holder consultation but this flys with none??
does it explain why any disccussion, vote or mention of licencee consultation wasnt recorded in either the minutes or the resolutions??
or why it would need to be on the june agenda when they,d already voted''unanimously'
'

This would be the crappiest, most negative, most tin foil hat worthy thread that I've ever followed on a hunting forum.

you may think that tahr but check the hb minutes for yourself.
the last thing i want is this carryon going region to region.
i can back up everything i say it remains to be seen if hb can.

(the candidate you support despite his failure to follow correct procedure or the councils instructions, a bit of a double standard here don’t you think?)

thats funny i reckon he followed councill instructions to the t

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete McIntosh [mailto:pmcintosh@fishandgame.org.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 April 2015 9:37 a.m.
To: Robert Sowman
Cc: Bryce Johnson
Subject: Reducing council members


Hi guys our council last night decided to limit the councillor numbers to 8 for the up and coming election.

What is the formal process we need to follow?

Do I need to speak to Warwick?

Regards,

Pete Mac

Peter McIntosh

Regional Manager, Hawkes' Bay

Fish and Game New Zealand

P.O Box 7345, Taradale, Napier 4141

New Zealand

Tel: (06) 844 2460

Fax: (06) 8442461

Cell: (021 ) 274 6119

www.fishandgame.org.nz

KWB, when you're copying and pasting stuff from the FishnHunt forum just copy the whole lot rather than only the bits you can twist to suit your view. Greg Duleys posts tell quite a bit.

I see our old mate kwb has been looking on her too and copying and posting bits he wants to pick out on the other forum.

nice to see you both care enough to check in on me merritt and mike

KWB, you forget that we weren't dictated to from above. We willingly consulted off our own bat because of the feedback we got from licence holders. We then made our own mind up to not pursue our initial motion. We were entitled to carry on with it if we'd chosen to.

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. They can elect to do consultation where they see fit but aren't forced to on every decision. They have been elected to make decisions for the likes of you and Tony H who would never consider standing.

And don't think Merritt and I mention you cause we care about you. Its simply you can't be avoided when you're present on a forum.

Originally Posted by Mike H

KWB, you forget that we weren't dictated to from above. We willingly consulted off our own bat because of the feedback we got from licence holders. We then made our own mind up to not pursue our initial motion. We were entitled to carry on with it if we'd chosen to.

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. They can elect to do consultation where they see fit but aren't forced to on every decision. They have been elected to make decisions for the likes of you and Tony H who would never consider standing.

And don't think Merritt and I mention you cause we care about you. Its simply you can't be avoided when you're present on a forum.

rewriting history again mike ??
dont be a hater mike
hate the game not the player

now wheres that email from nzc of the time mmmmm

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. ]

certainly but if consultation is good for one regions over such important things isnt it right for everybody??
and why not put the discussion and decision for all to see like every other decision was yours included??

Originally Posted by Mike H

KWB, you forget that we weren't dictated to from above. We willingly consulted off our own bat because of the feedback we got from licence holders. We then made our own mind up to not pursue our initial motion. We were entitled to carry on with it if we'd chosen to.

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. They can elect to do consultation where they see fit but aren't forced to on every decision. They have been elected to make decisions for the likes of you and Tony H who would never consider standing.

And don't think Merritt and I mention you cause we care about you. Its simply you can't be avoided when you're present on a forum.

How would you have any idea if I was considering standing or not, is this just another fact you have plucked from the far reaches of your rear end. You may wish to actually speak to me before you make a post stating what my own intentions were. Or are you working on the same principle the HB council had been doing. "we thought we had done it, but in fact we never did".
How about you ask someone who was at the meeting last night where the council admitted they had stuffed up the vote to reduce numbers. so please stay away from the keyboard until you have some actual facts and not assumptions and unfounded accusations which seem to be how you operate.

Originally Posted by HB Hunting

How would you have any idea if I was considering standing or not, is this just another fact you have plucked from the far reaches of your rear end. You may wish to actually speak to me before you make a post stating what my own intentions were. Or are you working on the same principle the HB council had been doing. "we thought we had done it, but in fact we never did".
How about you ask someone who was at the meeting last night where the council admitted they had stuffed up the vote to reduce numbers. so please stay away from the keyboard until you have some actual facts and not assumptions and unfounded accusations which seem to be how you operate.

Greg Duley had already admitted the fault lay with the council as they relied on the manager (who didn't do his job correctly and add the matter to the agenda) when they should've picked up on it. He's also explained how other matters (manager related also) got in the mix and distracted them from finalizing this issue the correct way. Understandable for a bunch of volunteers.

With your intimate knowledge of this where were you months out on this issue? Why didn't you raise it in time for them to resolve it before the election?

I've not heard what the outcome of the meeting was last night, can you fill us in? Will there be an other election? If so will you stand?

Greg Duley had already admitted the fault lay with the council as they relied on the manager (who didn't do his job correctly and add the matter to the agenda)

speak to the point mike why would they need to add a already voted on and presumembly passed unanimous vote??did the manager sign off on the minutes as a true record and not date them or the chairman??
when you guys voted on the subgauge issue the one thing i,l give you is you put it out for everyone to see.
how can you blame the manager for discussion and vote that basicly was had in secrecy and whether by accident or design went unrecorded.??

No need for us to drop the numbers, we were always going to have an election. Interesting to see the ex manager made it onto the HB Council. Don't know how effective he'll be considering it looks like the majority of the incumbents got back on.

you baited the thread mike then seem to have a awful lot of oars in the water for a disinterested party as did many of the usual suspects. i give you respect for not hiding behind a obscure username you know who i am and i know who you are.
the level of nastiness and personel attack in the closed threads made a nonsence of the reasons some were supposedly banned for..
please hb hunting or anyone else who was there give us who werent a rundown if you dont mind
as it seems the other threads have been shutdown not before the bullying electioneering character assination or attempted intimidation but certainly before we get a meeting report.did you meet sam

As the election had already was underway when the infraction to regulations was found out it was not possible to stop them, so the
new council will take effect as planned. The council is taking legal advice about a legitimate vote not haven taken place to reduce the number by the current council.
And that has been my point all the way along, that correct procedure had not happened.you cant blame the manager for the councillors mistake when they all saw the meetings minutes in draft and all said was true and correct, then they all saw the agenda for the next meeting beforehand and none of them saw the missing agenda item, (all this agreed and confirmed at the meeting by the council) so there it is. and yes I did meet Sam, he introduced himself to me at the end of the meeting a sum of about a dozen words were spoken.

excellent the lack of process and consultation has always been my bugbear to.
i still fail to see what diff putting it on the june agenda would have made other than to rubber stamp a already done deal.
its not like anyone could have changed the vote or the public could have made them consult.
keep us in the loop as to any developments especialy if they do the right thing and go back to thier licence buyers first.
thank god some common sence may prevail.

The council is taking legal advice about a legitimate vote not haven taken place to reduce the number by the current council.

the only thing to worry about now is if the process was illegal does that make the election so.

The technical fault is that you cannot vote on something that wasn't on the agenda. From what I can make out they agreed to it as a non agenda item but to formalize it needed to raise it and vote on it at the next meeting and have it on that meeting's agenda. I guess this rule is there so Council's don't try and sneak things through without the licence holders knowing. It gives those that read agendas the chance to see what might be coming up so they can attend if its a contentious issue.

Again from what I can gather the manager didn't carry it forward to the next meeting's agenda and it wasn't spotted by the councilor's, seemingly because they were having other issues which took their focus away. I can see how that could happen given the little tidbits of information we've been privy to. It was firstly the manager's mistake and secondly the Council's mistake for missing it.

interesting fact, the vote taken in April can only be called "informal" I believe the word was used by the council last night as that vote was done in General business so is not part of an agenda and was used by them to gauge "support" to move to a agenda item in June. But no such vote took place in June, then the problem was picked up by the Office Manager after election process had started. and was not picked up by others as the minutes were not on the web yet. and as it was clearly pointed out a person who cant make a meeting should by all reason be able to rely on the meeting minutes to be accurate and try.
decision made last night that they will not be consulting licence holders any further and new council to take over this month.

So where does it all stand now
1. no legitimate vote taken to reduce to 8 councillors
2. National office told vote took place on the 8th April to move to 8 councillors
3. Advise is being sought by the council to determine where they stand "legally"

Originally Posted by Mike H

Greg Duley had already admitted the fault lay with the council as they relied on the manager (who didn't do his job correctly and add the matter to the agenda) when they should've picked up on it. He's also explained how other matters (manager related also) got in the mix and distracted them from finalizing this issue the correct way. Understandable for a bunch of volunteers.

We are not talking about inexperienced hicks we are talking about multi term councillors with a number having NZCouncil experience and chairman experience.

Originally Posted by Mike H

With your intimate knowledge of this where were you months out on this issue? Why didn't you raise it in time for them to resolve it before the election?

The earliest the general public could have known was August 8th when the public notices were published, some four months after a "decision" occurred?