Once more, a Dunedin city councillor publicly chides other councillors for preventing unanimity in a decision.
Quoting ODT (https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/health/dcc-orders-study-hospital-issue) : “The fact the campaign did not have unanimous support from councillors was embarrassing, Cr Aaron Hawkins said.”
Embarrassing? Why exactly?
Similarly, Cr Newell said during a council meeting: ” Quite frankly, the contrary nature of some councillors is just getting a little bit boring. … we need to get together as a unit and progress this as a council and a city … : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0keiQMt9AY
Boring? Why exactly?
It is common for such views to be expressed by our council reps, including the mayor, who seems to often equate unanimity with harmony and good co-operation.
This is a moral argument: the ‘maverick’ or ‘dissident’ councillors ‘should’ be behaving differently, presumably in agreeing with the majority and not making trouble, causing waves, letting the side down and instead presenting a united front towards any external threats to the city.
Notice the ‘should’.
This argument might have some merit if a city council were a rugby team. On a sports team, all members should be pulling together so their team will win. But the goal of a city council is not ‘winning’; it is good decision-making. A city council is primarily a deliberative body.
There is a wealth of research and opinion about decision-making and various methods. The top two are majority vote, (which is used in NZ Parliamentary Standing Orders and DCC Standing Orders) and consensus decision-making (as Green Party members will, or should, know.) Both methods have problems and both are hard to do well, depending on the skill of the chair or the facilitator. Two desirable features of good decision-making are good outcomes and a fair process, which lets all involved or affected participate equally.
Decisions needed to run a modern city well are complex, often involving 'wicked' problems. The decision-makers usually need extensive accurate, up-to-date information and there are likely to be many varied aspects to each decision. What the council is deciding to do must be formulated into the precise words of a motion. If a majority of councillors agree to the motion, it becomes a council resolution which the Chief Executive then direct her staff to implement.
Anyone familiar with referendums knows wording is a tricky thing. The wording of the ‘anti-smacking’ referendum is a useful example. Who was going to vote against ‘good parental correction’? http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/36965/the-anti-smacking-referendum-2009
The wording of council motions is also critical and is often amended before the resolution is put. Council motions may be in more than one part e.g. paragraphs a, b, c, etc. These are not always voted on separately. A councillor in favour of most of a motion but not in favour of all of it may feel forced to vote against the whole thing.
An example is the Dunedin Hospital siting resolution, (which was not primarily a motion to run a campaign). This motion had four paragraphs which were not taken separately. On hindsight, it seems that, if they had been, Cr Whiley would have voted for the first three paragraphs, about preferred siting, but not for the fourth, about ‘asking for support’ , which led to a campaign costing over $14,000 so far. Watch the video of the Council meeting on 30th May 2017 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC-l1zA98Bc ) Cr Whiley starts speaking 1 h.29 m into the video.
All councillors should ‘be on the city’s side’ but it is their moral (and legal responsibility) to individually determine how to do that. The city is represented by a group of people, rather than an individual, precisely so that the residents are represented by a diversity of points of view. Differences of opinion and approach are to be expected, and, I believe, greatly valued, rather than criticized. If all councillors listen respectfully to views different from their own and do not jump to conclusions that anyone disagreeing with them is doing it solely to be annoying, disruptive or difficult, or because they are just a morally bad, anti-social and unreasonably uncooperative person, then the city is likely to get much better decisions-making with far greater scope and -depth.
We have twelve people on a jury for the same reason: to get a diversity of viewpoint. This means decision-making is hard work, a struggle and a challenge, but only then can it be well done.
Unanimity in council decision-making may merely be a sign of ‘group-think’ or, worse, some councillors not thinking independently for themselves at all. I would like to see all councillors respecting the right of their fellow-councillors' to exercise each one’s own independent judgement. This is the morally correct thing to do. It is also legally required and something which all councillors make a solemn declaration to do on taking up office.
Notes on deliberation, which show it can be expected to be difficult. Note the concept of ‘wicked’ problems.”
https://eight2late.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/why-deliberation-trumps-stan...
https://www.wickedproblems.com/1_wicked_problems.php