Arriving in letterboxes throughout Dunedin is a glossy brochure outlining what the city council plans to spend in the 2012-13 financial year - and the impact of that spending on rates. For those who take the trouble to read the 34 pages, there is plenty of information about weighty issues - Forsyth Barr Stadium debt funding being the most contentious - as well as cost outlines of more than a dozen other major projects under way or proposed which collectively could add almost $100 million to our rates bills over the next decade.
At the back of the brochure is a form inviting ratepayers and residents to have their say. As the brochure says, council spending requires choices. The business of local government is all about us. If citizens want something we have to pay for it, either through rates, fees or charges. The annual plan process is our chance to prioritise one potential spending decision over another.
Except that is not strictly true.
The council is already locked into most of its spending. It must meet wages and salaries and other operational expenses, as well as the cost of providing essential services and infrastructure such as roads, water and rubbish collections. If citizens can influence anything, it will be spending on those items seen by some as necessities and by others as extras - libraries, swimming pools, parks, economic development units, events funding, community grants and, last but not least, multi-purpose covered stadiums.
What goes through the minds of Dunedin citizens when they see another invitation to comment on the council's spending?
As in past years, some - and there are usually several hundred of those annually - will seize the opportunity with both hands. The cynics will no doubt scornfully dismiss the suggestion submissions make a jot of difference to the decision-making process.
It remains to be seen how many submissions are received this year when, faced with a seemingly relentless onslaught of bad news about Dunedin's debt outlook, rate rises well and truly above the rate of inflation, and the likelihood of reduced dividends from council-controlled trading companies, there is a distinct possibility of ratepayer fatigue. The council's position will be that it has offered its citizens a chance to participate in the democratic process, although, as we all know, it is the 15 elected representatives who make the final decisions on our behalf.
The present consultation process was introduced only relatively recently as part of the massive local government reforms of 1989.
Those who can recall the pre-1989 era would probably label those years the "bad old days", when much of the business of a local authority was decided behind closed doors. But could the system be about to change again?
The "Better Local Government" reforms announced last Monday by then Minister for Local Government Dr Nick Smith - which he will not be overseeing personally since his very public fall from grace over Bronwyn Pullar and her negotiations with ACC - include a review of council planning, consultation and reporting requirements. The review will be overseen by a new group, the Local Government Efficiency Taskforce, which is being established immediately and which is expected to report back to the Government by the end of October this year.
The aims are laudable. Concerns about the time, cost and increasing complexity involved with the planning, consultation and reporting requirements of the Local Government Act, 2002 have been widely expressed for many years.
"Documents such as long-term plans and annual plans have become very voluminous to meet compliance requirements," the Better Local Government reforms state - a view with which elected representative, council staff member or local body journalist would not disagree.
Regular reviews of any process, structure or administrative system are important - indeed vital - as times, needs and community expectations evolve. But the Government must ensure its review, compressed as it is into such a short time-frame, does not result in the best parts of the present consultation system being abandoned or citizens' democratic rights eroded.
Whether citizens choose to opt into the consultation process or opt out, a system which at least encourages openness and transparency - and gives the bill-payers a say - must be protected.
