The Herald reports that Wellington City Council spokesman Richard Maclean, a regular blogger on this site, said tonight counting the special votes was a “very complicated and extensive sort of process”.
“We are not expecting to make an announcement until Wednesday afternoon at the earliest,” he told NZPA.
The council had to make sure special voters were eligible or that people hadn’t voted twice. Some 960 special voting papers were issued, but many may not be filled in, he said.
“Due to various things like people actually applying for special votes but actually not bothering to make a vote…It looks like we could easily be slicing 200 votes off the list,” he said.
I heard it was about 100. But Richard seems to like the current mayor. The waiting goes on. By the way who has any finger nails left.
WCC Watch 
3News tonite had Ross Bly saying result will be out on Tuesday. He said 100 specials had been excluded.
Of course Richard McLean *seems* to see his job as promoting the interests of Kerry Prendergast.
So he wants as many votes excluded as possible.
Ofcourse you can not believe a word that McLean says. He is another one of those loyal to Kerry.
It’s almost comical.
I note from Celia’s website that: “In 2007 there were 978 special votes cast of which 800 were valid. At the final iteration Kerry received 265 more votes than the preliminary results and there were 409 specials for the other candidates at the final iteration.”
This looks hopeful for Wade-Brown supporters – if the pattern holds this year.
By the way, last time around 178 out of 980-odd papers were deemed invalid, so I’d say Richard MacLean is fairly on the money in saying 200-ish rather than 100-ish of the papers this year are likely to be deemed invalid.
Should still be enough to put Celia over the top however…
What would Ross Bly know? He’s only the Electoral Officer. Much better to rely on Kerry’s man, Richard McLean. No reason for him to gild the lilly.
I merely wished to point out that if 200-ish, rather than 100-ish votes are ruled out, this is consistent with 2007 and is thereby rather unlikely to be a scandal of Florida-2000-esque proportions.
Even if 200 votes are ruled out, Celia is still very likely to win (and personally I certainly hope she does) – based on previous distributions of special votes.
got my fingers crossed for Celia tomorrow.
PS – BTW it’s the job of WCC staff to articulate/implement the current position of the democratically elected council, whether run by Kerry or Celia. – no point in attacking people’s integrity for simply doing their job, especially when it’s difficult for staff members to defend themselves in a public forum like this.
Totally agree with your ‘PS’. In a city full of safety-first spin doctors, Richard McLean does a terrific job in communicating council (not Kerry) policy. He should be applauded for his willingness to engage on behalf of the Council, not vilified because some people don’t agree with the messages.
government officials are required to maintain the confidence of current AND future governments — which means that they need to refrain from making comments that could be interpreted as politically biased in tone or content PARTICULARLY during the election period.
it is difficult to see why a different rule should apply to council officials. McLean criticised one of the candidates and made pro-incumbent releases during an election. he entered political debate and made his position a political. he should therefore do the honourable thing and leave office if the council leadership changes.
The problem with WCC staff (and McLean is probably just the most visible example) is that rather than “articulat[ing]/implement[ing] the current position of the democratically elected council” they seem to think their job is to promote the current Mayor.
When there are different statements from Ross Bly and Richard McLean and the statements of the latter appear to support the incumbent, I think people a right to prefer Bly’s statements.
Count me among those opposed to KP who cannot understand why Richard Maclean should be slimed in this way. He has a job, he does it well, and if Celia makes it, I expect he’ll continue to do it well.
Stephen – we need council staff to understand they work for the Council not the incumbent Mayor. This is certainly not the case with Mr Maclean. Were he a public servant he would be in breach of the code of conduct. The same principles should apply to council staff.
Could you please quote some specific examples Matt?
I’m not carrying water for the Council, but it seems unfair to whack their staff members for doing their job – from what I’ve seen Richard was just articulating the Council’s viewpoint. And I’m sure he’ll continue to articulate it just as effectively under Celia’s mayorship. That’s the role of a decent civil servant.
Matt just to help you get your head around this issue, Ross Bly spoke to 3 News yesterday morning. I spoke to NZPA (they rang but Ross was flat-out) just before 6pm last night. By that time the information on the special votes had clearly changed. Thanks again for your lectures on how Council staff should behave but, as I told you last week, I think we’ll take a rain-check on the advice since you clearly don’t understand how the Council or the media works. I work for the Council, not for the Mayor. As I said last week, if you’ve got any examples of obvious bias then feel free to offer them up.
cheers
Richard MacLean – WCC Communications
you work for ‘the council’, but the question is whether you have confused ‘the council’ with ‘the current councillors and the mayor’.
And the answer to that is no.
cheers
Richard MacLean – WCC Communications
well this would be unacceptable coming from a public servant during a general election: “I’ve just cut and pasted the following text from Scoop – where we had to leap to the defence of our wardens after John Bishop repeated the myth back in August…“Mr Bishop appears not to have read the heavy coverage that these allegations received in the media earlier this year – or appears to have ignored the Council’s clarifications at the time.””
it appears to be a comment criticising a candidate or his position.
Actually, what I find unacceptable is this continued personal denigration of a highly respected spokesman for doing his job particularly well. I do not support KP in any shape or form but I have never seen any communication from Richard that deviated from his duty as an impartial Council spokesman. If any candidate repeats inaccuracies that malign Council staff or policies I would expect the Council to correct them.
When I wrote the comment on Scoop in August, nominations for the Council hadn’t opened. When WCC Watch decided to repeat the falsehood about iPods and free holidays for parking wardens last week, it was worth pointing out again that they were getting it wrong. As far as I know there is nothing to stop the Council from reasonably trying to set the record straight on such touchy subjects as parking enforcement.
cheers
Richard MacLean – WCC Communications
i would expect council staff to refrain from getting involved in debates between candidates and members of the public.
in particular i found it surprising that Richard MacLean dredged up an old quote from a candidate in order to drag that candidate into an online debate in which he hadn’t yet participated. that was a display of very poor judgement and, like i say, would have resulted in dismissal if it had occurred in the public service. i don’t see why different standards should apply to council staff.
I presume you refer to the employment practises of the Azerbaijan public service, with which I’m unfamiliar. However, I can assure you that the New Zealand public service encourages the correction of misinformation in any public forum. If the candidate in question had resiled from his previous comments then he was at liberty (nay, duty-bound!) to do so publicly. In any case, how could Maclean’s correction of a right-wing candidate’s statement in any way be construed as interference on behalf of the right-wing Mayor? And where’s your evidence for the “pro-incumbent releases” you hold MacLean personally responsible for?
actually, here’s the relevant guidance for public servants: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=6694
by dragging a candidate into the debate, MacLean turned a debate about operations into a political debate. he did the one thing that he was precisely not supposed to do. a serious error of judgement, in my view.
And I’ll ask again: in what way was the Council spokesman’s action “party political” (which is the test of the SSC guidance you quote?) I would have thought Her Worship would have been only too glad to get an right-wing candidate on Council for Lambton, in place of the two lefties he was targetting. His only motive – as with all the other statements he makes – would appear to be a desire to correct incorrect information being circulated. This should be applauded. by anyone interested in manking informed choices about Wellington’s future.
you have clearly misinterpreted the SSC guidance.
it doesn’t matter what party the candidates come from, or indeed whether they belong to a party. what matters is that (1) MacLeod undermined his ability to work openly and honestly with a future council by attacking a candidate for the council — if he was a state servant this would be a fundamental breach of his code of conduct; and (2) he has engaged in political debate by dragging a candidate into what could have been just a debate about operations.
if he had made comments like this in relation to a candidate in the general election, he would have been walking the plank. i don’t see why similar standards shouldn’t apply to council staff.
Yes, let’s get rid of MacLeod. The fellow’s obviously a bounder!
As Richard’s boss I feel the need to respond to some of the comments on this chain. Richard, as far as I am concerned, won’t be walking a plank anytime soon. He, as pointed out by several commentators, was simply doing his job by correcting misinformation. Any organisation would prefer that the correct information was out there. Another point, Richard works incredibly hard and is held in high regard by the media. That doesn’t happen by accident or ‘spin’ it happens by providing the correct information on time.
Trina Saffioti – WCC Communications
Does that mean that everything he says on here is the Council viewpoint?
there is a difference between providing correct information and dragging an electoral candidate into a debate as Richard did. at the very least, he politicised the debate. that was unprofessional and inexcusable.
it is surprising that you don’t acknowledge this.
Look at the picture and then tell me what the statement underneath the picture means.
“Wellington Mayor, Ms Kerry Prendergast, granted Cyberport CEO, Mr Nicholas Yang, honorary Wellington citizenship”.
What exactly is “honorary Wellington citizenship”?
Maybe Trina could tell us.
As far as I can tell, some commenters think that council officials shouldn’t contradict candidates on matters of fact. That’s just bullshit. If Candidate X says the council buildings are bright pink, I find it perfectly ok for Richard, or anyone other council officer, to politely point out they are another colour.
If they went on to say “and it’s a great thing that they’re that colour” that might be crossing a line.
in this case, MacLean was perfectly right to contradict an anonymous blogger on a question of fact about parking fines. but he then went on to unnecessarily drag a candidate into the debate by hauling out an old press clipping that contradicted that candidate and referring to the candidate’s position as ‘myth’.
that was unacceptable and demonstrated very poor judgement on MacLean’s part. it would be absolutely unacceptable in the public service.
should there be different standards of conduct between council officials and public servants? i am interested in your points of view on this question.
Er, the “candidate’s position” was a myth: Richard did readers a service by exposing it. The candidate in question had repeated his lies in a number of forums, so it was perfectly legitimate to discredit those lies at the same time as correcting your “anonymous blogger”. Or do you believe that candidates have an exemption from telling the truth?
Some of you people are deluded. Sadly you translate all comments through your own prejudices and see things that just aren’t there.
Personally I hope Celia gets in (hope isn’t actually a strong enough word) but I saw nothing in Richard MacLean’s posts that deserve the bagging he is getting here. I admit I know him and respect him and you saddos imagining he has maligned someone need to get someone to teach you about the English language because your comprehension skills are whack.
i’m not sure what this has to do with Celia. this is a case of a council employee engaging in public debate and attacking a council candidate. and i don’t know why you’re resorting to ad hominems.
Try to keep up Thomas. The very first comment on here was someone saying Richard was promoting Kerry. Given that, stating I am not in her camp hardly seems ad hominem.
As for “attacking a council candidate”, you seem to be resorting to distorting the truth. Either that or your grasp on reality is tenuous.
I’m a big fan of councillors and officers engaging in social media. Foster on Eye of the Fish is a good example. But I have watched with some amusement as WCC’s comms dept seems to be winding things up rather than just shutting them down with short statements of facts. If it gets people more engaged though, let it continue.
yes, they do tend to adopt a provocative and confrontational stance. there’s nothing that gets the public going more than sanctimonious and sarcastic tone in media releases from public offices.
Thomas I’ve been away a few hours and have just caught up with all this stuff. Notwithstanding the discussion about iPods and holidays and my alleged attempt to have a go at an individual candidate, I think your complaint that the Council’s communications people take a provocative and confrontational stance is quite hilarious. Let’s be clear here – and correct me if I’ve got this really, really wrong – but this is a blogsite apparently expressly dedicated to scrutinising, unpicking and criticising the Council – we have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever and in fact welcome the attention.
However you and some of your mates go out of your way on this (and presumably other blogs) to be aggressive, sarcastic, to make baseless claims and to state opinion as fact. You also, however, seem to believe that the objects of your attention are not allowed to respond, correct or clarify. As soon as we respond we turn into bullies who should be fired.
If this blogsite becomes established then I think you’ll have to get used to the Council disagreeing with you when necessary.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the forum.
cheers
Richard MacLean – WCC Communications
Might there not be better uses of ratepayer resources than spending time trying to have the last word when you consider someone is wrong on the internet?
As a ratepayer, I’m very happy my council employees are spending their time battling ignorance and correcting lies on the internet. I would hope it’s in their job description.
the council is welcome to disagree with me, because i am not a candidate standing in an election. if i am a candidate standing in an election and i make a statement that is incorrect, the council is welcome to correct it dispassionately. what you did, however, was drag John Bishop into debate unnecessarily, thereby politicising what did not need to be a political debate.
you know as well as anyone that that would be unacceptable in a general election and that you have overstepped the mark.
as for your tone — i am speaking from my observations of your tone in response to other people’s comments (not mine) on this and other sites. if you think your job as a public official is to make sarcastic, patronising and sanctimonious comments to members of the public on blogsites, then it is no wonder that this council has a reputation for failing to listen to the public. you are their spokesperson and you have to take some of the responsibility for the way the council is perceived.
hang on, Rex — i thought you said there was something wrong with MY comprehension. how did you go in the election, by the way? did you get on well with people when you were door-knocking?
Maybe there is something wrong with my comprehension as I really don’t get the point of your first sentence. As for the second part, yes, I enjoyed door-knocking and seemed to get on well with the people I met.
Rex beat all the people who didn’t really campaign.
Richard. I put my hand up. I did it because I thought I had something to contribute. I still think I could be a good councillor however I have learnt I am a crap politician.
Carry on sniping anonymously from the sides but pardon me if I think I contributed more to this election than you did.
Personally I think I’ll give up on this because it’s getting nowhere and, Thomas, I just disagree with you. Regarding your comment about the Council’s reputation for allegedly failing to listen to the public, I’ve always personally found that the people who complain the most about this are the ones who disagree with the Councillors’ decisons. These Councillors have invariably listened to the views of some or many members of the public and then made up thir minds – having balanced and considered all the facts. Sometimes they’ll agree with your point of view, sometimes they won’t. That’s life. I’ve also personally found that most local authorities around the country are accused of ‘failing to listen to the public’. It depends on what side of the argument you’re on as to whether we ‘listen’ (ie do what you want) or not. I am happy to take some of the responsibility for the way the Council is perceived. If my bosses agree that I’m wrecking the Council’s reputation then this kind of tedious debate will likely quickly stop. I also take the point of the correspondent who questions whether it is good use of ratepayers’ money for Council staff to be butting heads with anonymous bloggers. Put it this way, it’d be great if we didn’t have to do this but quite a few people now read WCC Watch and feel compelled to point out some of the dumb things that are written about the Council and demand that we correct/comment or whatever. I guess we’re all going to have to get used to each other.
cheers
Richard MacLean – WCC Communications
you’re staying on message and wisely avoiding the issue of your unnecessary foray into political debate and your smear of a council candidate during a local government election.
anyone who reads this blog or searches google can now make up their own minds. for those who wish to see the background, the original discussion is here: https://wccwatch.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/bishop-and-ganley-relfects-residents-serious-concerns-about-city-parking/
Thomas. I saw it unfold and have just reread it and I have made up my own mind thanks. I stand by my comment that you and others here frothing at the mouth over this are filtering Richard MacLean’s comments through your own biases.
If Bishop campaigned to stop parking quotas he’s an idiot. If Johnny the anonymous is going to repeat the myth, the WCC Communications team needs to keep trying to correcy the misconception.
Perhaps I should campaign next time that I should be voted in because the rest of the Council is made up of Lizard People who eat babies and only answer to the New World Order.
No doubt you would defend me if someone from WCC tried to claim this wasn’t true.
Rex, it’s Johnny time. Bishop was only restating what a whistleblower had told the Dompost. The DomPost did a number of stories. If WCC was so aggrieved, why didn’t they take the matter to the Press Council, that’s what it is for. Maclean agreed that an MP3 player and move tickets had been provided. But that’s all a side issue. The issue is that wardens are incentivised to issue more tickets.
Tenix, owners of Parkwise said in their charming case study on their Wellington success (8.8% increase in tickets and $1.1 million in revenue):
“Incentives were introduced to improve employee morale, increase motivation, encourage productivity and reduce errors. In addition to the rigorous new training programs, a Rewards and Recognition program was introduced, offering staff the opportunity to be recognised by their colleagues for the role they played in helping maintain a safer and fairer community in Wellington city.”
Click to access CS_Wellington.pdf
There are issues about consultation and the council listening to citizens. I’ll come back to this soon.
Lighten up Rex.
Fair call.
Bed time everyone.
Maclean agreed that an MP3 player and move tickets had been provided. But that’s all a side issue. The issue is that wardens are incentivised to issue more tickets.
No he didn’t. I’ve just re-read that thread too. The warden who won the holiday won it for going to the aid of an injured woman who tripped coming off a bus. The warden who won the MP3 player won it not giving out millions of tickets but, from the sound of things, being a great workmate always happy to cover for other’s shifts etc (he was nominated by his fellow workmates)
This is what Richard MacLean said:
One Wellington parking warden has won the trip. She was nominated for going to the aid of a woman who had tripped and hurt herself when getting off a bus. The warden rendered first aid and called for an ambulance, and waited with the woman for assistance to arrive. Two years ago a warden was given an MP3 player after being nominated by his peers in a ‘model warden’ contest. Rather than for issuing vast numbers of tickets, the award recognised the warden’s willingness to cover colleagues’ shifts and general helpfulness.
Nothing about incentives for issuing millions of tickets. And even in the Tenix report you quote, I note the criteria is “to be recognised by their colleagues for the role they played in helping maintain a safer and fairer community in Wellington city” – more in tune with applauding those who help unfortunates falling off a bus, or generally helpful workmates – nothing about incentivising for handing out loads of parking tickets.
It’s a great thing that the ratepayer-paid activities of the Council can be held to account on a blog like this. But ‘holding Council to account’ could be done much more effectively than these kind of silly posts attacking the integrity of parking wardens (and the Communications staff who defend the integrity of WCC’s wardens against the false impression that they’re somehow in the job to win iPhones or free holidays to Bali etc etc)
Johnny, of course you put more store on information from anonymous whistle blowers than I do. You are here anonymously and I am not. As for The DumbPost’s campaign against parking wardens that was disgraceful journalism aimed at the lowest common denominator. Shame on you for buying into it.
Here is why I don’t believe there is a quota system in place for the parking wardens… they don’t need one. Just walk around the city and fringes and see how many cars you could ticket. Also, how people park is not something wardens, WCC or Tenix can control. The only people who can control that are drivers.
Personally I liked Clarke’s comment on the original thread that tickets are a stupidity tax. Analyse any gripe about getting a ticket and the fact that the ticket was correctly given is normally acknowledged but the gripe is someone’s personal circumstances – “It was only for a minute”, “My meeting went overtime”, etc. etc. etc.
I like parking wardens because they keep my rates down.
I agree with ‘Clarke’ (sockpuppet of Kent Duston) on that one. I’d rather govt collects revenue from fines than taxing my salary.
Another “sock puppet” – how many are on here?