The first campaign ads are starting to appear around town, and while Celia Wade-Brown’s are at least more modern than John Morrison’s, the choice of photo location is interesting.
While there is a slight blur to the Xero logo, it is clearly visible on the recognisable HQ over Celia’s shoulder with the ‘Smart Capital’ slogan obviously referencing companies like it.
You can assume it isn’t an actual endorsement by Xero or its founder, Rod Drury, due to the slight blur – if he really wanted to endorse her, Drury would be in the shot. But it does seem a bit cheeky to try and associate yourself with the success of others.
It follows with the other cheeky moves by Celia Wade-Brown that we have covered in the last week – such as her use of the @WellingtonMayor twitter for her campaign and the Mayors Office as her physical campaign address. So I do wonder if the Mayor had the decency to let Rod Drury know that she is painting the metaphorical picture that his iconic company is behind her…
PS. I would love for it to be a requirement that all mayoral candidates have to say ‘Rod Drury’ 10 times fast during the election debates… Just imagine how good would that be…
UPDATE: This just played out on Twitter – no endorsements but all are obviously welcome to promote Xero!
WCC Watch 
There are times when I really lament the fact that you bloggers have neither the work ethic nor the actual ethics of journalists. For starters, what makes you think that Wade-Brown didn’t have the permission of Rod Drury when she posed in front of Xero? Did you call Drury and check? Of course you didn’t, any more than you called the local returning officer to find out whether using the council offices on her authorisation statement was legal and approved. I guess that’s because its easier to just interview your prejudices rather than doing any research for your “stories”. Which is the reason people are still prepared to pay good money to buy a copy of the Dominion Post but won’t pay a cent to read this kind of third-rate dribble.
Happy to disappoint you. The Blog is called WCC Watch… as in we watch the WCC and we will continue to ask questions – but you know you don’t have to read the blog? You could just stick to your newspapers – although, do you know you don’t have to pay for them since you have the internets?
To your points as follows;
“For starters, what makes you think that Wade-Brown didn’t have the permission of Rod Drury when she posed in front of Xero?”
As I said in the article, she has cheekily posed in front of a blurry sign, if she had an endorsement it would be more explicit.
“Did you call Drury and check?”
No – great idea, do you have his number?
“Of course you didn’t, any more than you called the local returning officer to find out whether using the council offices on her authorisation statement was legal and approved.”
Never said it was illegal – I just think it’s inappropriate for any elected person to use their office during the campaign – whether it is Helen Clark in 2005 or Boris Johnson in the UK and his twitter, or Celia Wade-Brown.
So you don’t know Rod Drury’s phone number or email address or Twitter account despite the fact that Xero is a publicly listed company – how come? Does Google not work at your house? Or are you simply too lazy and biased to pick up the phone or the keyboard and do some actual research like a proper journalist would?
And I love the fact that you think it’s “inappropriate” for any elected person to use their office, as if an anonymous blogger who seems to specialise in fact-free attacks holds the moral high ground. Somehow I didn’t notice someone with the handle “northernwccwatch” making any comments about Boris Johnson or Helen Clark, so I guess this is just another example of you dressing up your prejudices as reportage. Good luck with that.
So while I’m happy to pay the Dominion Post for coverage of the election, I’m also happy to be one of the 3 people in Wellington who bothers reading your blog – which lets face it, is about 2 more people than that strathmore park guy gets.
Reblogged this on strathmorepark.
CPH you need to calm down. These blogs are doing a service. People are sick of the green arrogance, so it’s good this site is asking the questions. Why should the Mayor be able to utilize the baubles of office? And why shouldn’t a blog ask the questions?
This got posted on a re-blog on my site, thought you might be interested…
Useful guidance from the OAG
Appendix 4 – Communications guidance
in the local government pre-election
period
Extract from Part 4 of Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Good Practice for
Managing Public Communications by Local Authorities, April 2004, ISBN 0-478-18117-5.
Communications in a pre-election period*
Principle 12 –
A local authority must not promote, nor be perceived to promote, the re-election
prospects of a sitting member. Therefore, the use of Council resources for reelection
purposes is unacceptable and possibly unlawful.
4.45 Promoting the re-election prospects of a sitting Member, directly or indirectly,
wittingly or unwittingly, is not part of the proper role of a local authority.
4.46 Council would be directly promoting a Member’s re-election prospects if it
allowed the member to use Council communications facilities (such as
stationery, postage, internet, e-mail, or telephones) explicitly for campaign
purposes.
4.47 Other uses of Council communications facilities during a pre-election period
may also be unacceptable. For example, allowing Members access to Council
resources to communicate with constituents, even in their official capacities as
members, could create a perception that the Council is helping sitting Members
to promote their re-election prospects over other candidates.
4.48 For this reason, we recommend that mass communications facilities such as –
• Council-funded newsletters to constituents; and
• Mayoral or Members’ columns in Council publications –
be suspended during a pre-election period.
4.49 Promoting the re-election prospects of a sitting Member could also raise issues
under the Local Electoral Act 2001. For example:
• Local elections must be conducted in accordance with the principles set
out in section 4 of the Local Electoral Act – see Appendix 1 on page 27.
The principles apply to any decision made by a Council under that Act or
any other Act, subject only to the limits of practicality. A breach of the
principles can give rise to an “irregularity” which could result in an
election result being overturned.**
65
• The publication, issue, or distribution of information, and the use of
electronic communications (including web site and e-mail communication),
by a candidate are “electoral activities” to which the rules concerning
disclosure of electoral expenses apply.
4.50 “Electoral expenses”*** include:
• the reasonable market value of any materials applied in respect of any
electoral activity that are given to the candidate or that are provided to the
candidate free of charge or below reasonable market value; and
• the cost of any printing or postage in respect of any electoral activity.
4.51 A Member’s use of Council resources for electoral purposes could therefore be
an “electoral expense” which the Member would have to declare – unless it
could be shown that the communication also related to Council business and
was made in the candidate’s capacity as a Member.
Principle 13 –
A Council’s communications policy should also recognise the risk that
communications by or about Members, in their capacities as spokespersons for
Council, during a pre- election period could result in the Member achieving
electoral advantage at ratepayers’ expense. The chief executive officer (or his or
her delegate) should actively manage the risk in accordance with the relevant
electoral law.
4.52 Curtailing all Council communications during a pre-election period is neither
practicable nor (as far as mandatory communications, such as those required
under the LGA, are concerned) possible. Routine Council business must
continue. In particular:
• Some Councils publish their annual reports during the months leading up to
an October election, which would include information (including
photographs) about sitting Members.
• Council leaders and spokespersons need to continue to communicate matters
of Council business to the public.
4.53 However, care must be taken to avoid the perception, and the consequent risk
of electoral irregularity, referred to in the commentary to principle 12. Two
examples are:
• journalistic use of photographic material or information (see paragraph 4.42
on page 21) that may raise the profile of a Member in the electorate should
be discontinued during the pre-election period; and
66
• access to Council resources for Members to issue media releases, in their
capacities as official spokespersons, should be limited to what is strictly
necessary to communicate Council business.
4.54 Even if the Council’s Communications Policy does not vest the power to
authorise Council communications solely in management at normal times, it
should do so exclusively during the pre-election period.
* By “pre-election period” we mean the three months before the close of polling day for the purposes
of calculating “electoral expenses”: see Local Electoral Act 2001, section 104. However, a Council
may decide to apply restrictions over a longer period.
** See Aukuso v Hutt City Council (District Court, Lower Hutt, MA 88/03, 17 December 2003).
*** Also defined in section 104.