Mayor rejects Butler's request

... a bit of a difference there, one is a drop in the water tank compared. 300 odd mill being the basic amount she tried to save the city from being beleaguered with. As Lee Vandervis ably pointed out, hardened habitual crims get legal aid and cost way more than that every day, so at least the noble lady who tried to save this city from the huge abyss of debt could have been granted a recount.

There would be court costs outside the cost of the recount, and case law indicated the requesting candidate should expect to contribute something towards the cost.
The Act isn't the only thing the Judge is required to consider, the Judge is also required to consider case law - generally set by cases in the High Court, or the Court of Appeal, and if the case law states that a candidate may be fully or partially culpable for the costs of failed recount (or even a successful one)...

You are right Mike StK. But Bev appealed to the mayor for clemency - presumably she is appealing for clemency over and above the judge's apportionment of costs. And the mayor (i.e. the citizens) are entitled to say yay or no on clemency. He is saying that the city would abide by the judge's ruling on costs - that is he is rejecting her appeal.

If you read the Local Electoral act the mayor and council have no more say than you or I - we can express our opinion but it is solely the judge who decides how costs are decided and to whom.

I believe $750 is the deposit (also mentioned in the Local Electoral act), I think that to get this far Bev has probably already put this money down - I don't think the judge is asked to make a decision on costs, he or she just decides.

The Local Electoral act basically says that the DCC gives the voting papers to the judge, the judge arranges to have them counted (perhaps he finds a cheaper way than the DCC has, hire some students on their summer break or some year 9/10 kids in the 'silly season' at the end of school), the judge may make a decision that the results were different and then, as you quote above, the judge decides if costs should be awarded - the judge could very well decide for example that $70,000 costs would not be in the interests of democracy (I certainly don't think they would be)

Another thought here. The cost of a recount in Dunedin is high, probably because of STV. But the type of election is not the candidates responsibility - it is ours, aka the council. In Waiheke, with its smaller population and a different voting method, a recount is just $750. Someone is thinking of doing it there.

In Hokitika they had two recounts because of close results and no mention is made of costs there. The judge can be asked to consider the matter of costs as MikeStk says -  it is laid down in the Act:
(4) The District Court Judge may make any order as to the costs of, and incidental to, the recount that the Judge considers just and, subject to any order, must direct the deposit made under section 90 to be returned to the person who made it.

by the candidate pursuing a recount is what stops frivalous or hurt-pride requests. Payment for the whole recount should not the candidates responsibility. That, combined with a judge hearing the application, is what ensures fairness

and everyone needed to ask for a recount we would have really serious election problems that would take more than money to fix

The judge isn't interested in what's cheapest. His remit is to ensure fairness. If that costs $70k, then why should it be his concern? If a candidate is in for a penny they're in for a pound, as they say.

The current system is very fair and ensures there's a lack of spurious demands on public servants in the bitter afterglow of post-electoral defeat.

So to follow your line of argument, every candidate who had grounds to ask for a recount, could have one at the ratepayers expense? Where would you draw the line exactly? Ten candidates? Thats $700,000 right there which could go towards making the city a better place to live.

Yes indeed, the same thoughts could be said for the ORFU couldn't it Guardalajara? Wouldn't it be nice if the ORFU put their hands around for cash from all the stadium supporters out there. Dreams are free.

The judge opined that Bev's request for a recount was not frivolous. The mayor had no comment on this matter. It was to her request for absolution from costs that he responded. On this matter he does have a say.

How interesting, MikeStk.
I was a little unhappy to see the slanging match having begun:
"The real Dave Cull has emerged after the election," she said.
"People can now judge his promise and performance, barely two weeks into his mayoralty.

What mumbo-jumbo.

I agree with MikeStk. The judges decision was that the applicant did have a reasonable gronds for beliveing a recount necessary. It is the council's election not the applicant's. In a democracy we must ensure the fairness of the voting procedure. In this case, until a recount is done we can not know this is so. The council - ie the ratepayers - should foot the cost for ensuring this. It is not the responsibility of the candidates to bear that cost

MikeStk has hit the nail on the head. This recounting votes issue does not involve personalities, it's all about fair process and equality for any candidate who feels a recount may be required.

Its naive to suggest that she wants it counted for just 40 votes. Celia Wade Brown won the Wellington election based on the same issue. She won because of those special votes and with a very narrow margin.

Bev has every right to get it counted. Isnt that democracy?
Why are people hell bent on shutting people up these days? So much for freedom of expression. What is NZ coming to?

Perhaps the strategic lobbiers of Bev could have a whip-round to help with the re-count costs?

I think there's a more general issue here - let's forget for a moment that it's Bev (or Dave or the issues in the election just done) involved here: election recounts exist to make sure that we have fair elections, they're often called when a result is so close that an election result is close, but are also there for situations where we think that there might have been other things going on - people voting twice, dead people voting or the voting process being done wrongly ('hanging chads' for example) - if only the very very rich can afford a fair election without the risk of bankruptcy then I think we're doing something wrong here.

Maybe we need to find a way that the election can be done more cheaply - for example online voting is scary, and should be approached carefully - but it's not impossible, and having the voter input the data themselves is a great way to save money.

For 40 odd votes and the risk of costs that a councillor's salary may not cover? Why bother Bev? You did well to get as many votes this time around.

[Abridged]

First 'tick' to David Cull as major. If Bev wants a future in the council, she get her self better prepared for the next election.

That's a big tick for Dave.

...is there a heavy irony that a "long-time critic of the city council debt" is now expecting the rate payer to cover the costs of determing her political future? Dave Cull is 100% correct in refusing the request.

I'm not sure the mayor has a say in this - the Local Electoral Act is pretty straight forward here - the council is not involved in the recount - (1) the electoral officer gives the votes to the judge, and (2) the votes are counted by the judge or his agents. While it might cost the City $70,000 to recount the votes the judge is free to choose a cheaper way.