Inexcusably, it seems that the CHB District Council fell asleep on the consent paperwork, requiring the HB Regional Council to step in and “project manage” the process. BayBuzz understands that the resource consent application will now be filed by the end of April.

The Regional Council is still hoping to plant trees this winter on the pasture blocks they are purchasing near the CHB settlement ponds. Once the system is operational, effluent from these ponds would be used to fertilize the trees. The Regional Council must purchase more land for the scheme than originally expected, since they now realize that high volumes of stormwater infiltrate the CHB sewer system during the winter, which has caused the settlement ponds to overflow into the river in the past. More volume requires more land.

Assuming the Regional Council doesn’t embarrass itself by rejecting the resource consent application it has largely orchestrated for CHB, it will still be up to CHB to actually commit the funds (which are in its long term plan) to get the new infrastructure constructed.

The way things are going, the on-land effluent scheme appears unlikely to be operational before the deadline already stipulated by CHB’s current consent from the Regional Council (i.e., 2014). In other words, little or no appreciable step-up in the clean-up schedule.

Tom Belford

P.S. In case anyone is still uncertain, at last check Tim Gilbertson is still a Regional Councillor. I don’t know how rumours to the contrary got started!

I can no longer pretend that I’m making a contribution on behalf of my CHB constituency to the conduct of the region’s governance. I had thought I might make it through a full three year term, but today’s point of order over who had the first right of reply on the amendment to the amendment pushed me over the edge.

I am happy to leave those matters to Eileen and Christine.

I have never really believed in the mission of the Regional Council and its ridiculous emphasis on protecting the environment. What nonsense! Time after time I have asked Council staff to produce just one dead body — from right here in Hawke’s Bay — as proof that people actually perish from sooty air or polluted water or contaminated soil … and not once has this evidence been produced.

And with the single possible exception of spending millions and millions of dollars in my district to harvest water — the best idea to hit Hawke’s Bay since refrigeration — I have yet to discover a Regional Council program that is worth spending a ratepayer dime on.

So for me to continue the charade of being a Regional Councillor is a burden I can no longer bear …

It’s like asking a vegetarian to be a butcher.

An atheist to be a pastor.

A drug dealer to be a babysitter.

Or in my case, an anarchist to be an elected official.

I apologize for deceiving the good citizens of Central Hawke’s Bay, who I might have inadvertently led to believe I was representing them as their Regional Councillor. Any reading of the proceedings of the Council will put that illusion to rest. I was just having fun.

I’ve now decided that the more honourable path would be to deride the Regional Council from the outside, rather than from within. Hopefully, I will be able to continue in my role as a columnist for BayBuzz Digest, although I suspect even they might find me over the edge.

I will also be available for hire as a salesman for super-phosphates, or as a lobbyist for water harvesting and irrigation. I hope in my lifetime to see the day when I can tramp down the middle of the Tukituki for its full length without getting my boots wet.

Naturally, I’ve thought about whether I would miss anything about being a Regional Councillor. Other than getting paid for marking time, and those terrific free lunches on Council meeting days, I can’t think of anything.”

I must confess that I am gutted to see Tim go. He was the Oscar Wilde of the Regional Council. A true wit and entertainer. But in these tough economic times, even Tim recognizes that his ratepayers deserve to get their hard-earned money’s worth.

Don’t worry Tim, there will always be a place for you at BayBuzz.

Tom Belford

Here’s what Paul says about the Old Crow Medicine Show, a country/bluegrass band performing March 20 at the HB Opera House. [As far as I know, he's not their manager.]

…

Heading north out of Atlanta, all I could find on the radio was Rap. It’s the testosterone metronome of urban indulgence and resentment. The unrelenting Hone Harawira vernacular was too much to bear and I was relieved on Route 365, north of Gainsville, when I entered another world.

To my dismay at the time, my radio became possessed by Country, Folk and Bluegrass.

This is a part of the U.S. that is not well known or travelled by New Zealanders. It’s the country featured in the movie Cold Mountain; the bottom end of the Appalachian Trail. It’s a remote and rugged place, where Eric Rudolph, the Altlanta Olympic bomber evaded U.S. authorities for more than 5 years.

The Declaration of Independence refers to ‘these united colonies’ and it struck me that’s it’s as true as it ever was. As you drive into the Great Smokey Mountains, you enter an eclectic time warp, into an old world of insular authenticity.

To call a something insular has such negative connotations. America is insular. Most of their young people seem to do their OE carrying an assault rifle, or not at all. But when it comes to art, insular is not so bad. Oscar Wilde once noted that England produced some of the greatest poets, because no one actually reads poetry. The wild rose in bloom does not need admirers to make it beautiful.

In all aspects of life, commercialism creeps in and mediocrity prevails. Italian food becomes Pizza Hut, the movies are soulless Hollywood remakes and the new musical phenomenon is just another Simon Cowell boy band. If you want an authentic experience, you have to look in the “out of the way” places.

The Smokey Mountains was that “out of the way” place in which I found Bluegrass and American Folk music and it’s worth getting excited about.

While the roots of this music might lie in Ireland, this part of America is a far cry from the cosmopolitan melting pot of Dublin. I can’t argue, there is something to be said for the hybrid vigour borne of melding musical styles. There’s also something to be said for sitting on the porch and playing a banjo, just for you and the critters.

This old time music has been brought to prominence by bands like Old Crow Medicine Show. Not since Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has there been a band so worthy of an acronym. The young men in OCMS demonstrate the musicianship that is only borne of years of hard graft. At the core of their music you sense an uncommon passion to preserve and develop the music they love.

Hawke’s Bay is hardly a bastion for such fringe musical styles, but OCMS have courageously included Hastings on their current tour.

But before you think this might be nice folksy stuff you could recommend to your grandmother, I should warn you. These young men may have moved on from their snarling adolescence, but their themes still commonly include drugs, liquor and related misdemeanours. They are now at the peak of their talents, straddling the divide between tearaway youth and the seasoned craftsman.

They are not to be missed.

Paul Paynter

OCMS play the Hawke’s Bay Opera House Saturday 20 March.

What was all the fuss about?

Well, it wasn’t over the 90% increase in staff costs over the last eight years.

No, it wasn’t over whether the new Clive sewage treatment plant will ever stop smelling.

Nor was it over closed-to-the-public consideration of a lobbying slush fund to help push the case for a velodrome at the sports park.

Nor was it any of the “big ticket” items in the $57 million in spending recommended by staff.

No, heavier issues weighed on the Councillors and fueled their passions …

• Should photocopying fees at the library be increased from $0.10 to $0.20? After all, there’s $8,100 at stake.
• Should there be an inflation adjustment made to Hastings’ 50% share of the costs of the HB Cultural Trust … I forget the exact fiscal implication … around $7k as I recall.
• Should Councillors get more ratepayer subsidy for their “official business” computer and internet costs? [Although Councillors themselves are feeling the pinch on their household telecommunications bills, they didn't hesitate to sock elderly ratepayers living in Council flats with a proposed $5-$7 per week hike in rent!]
• And what about disturbing complaints that urban residents who cut “The Council’s” curbside grass in front of their homes have no place to put the clippings? [I'm not kidding!]

This is a tragi-comic scene repeated each budget year.

The staff recommends a nearly $60 million operating budget (no depreciation or capital expense in that figure) and then — I think for the sheer delight of watching what ensues — provides a list of about $1 million worth of “maybe’s” for the Councillors to hyper-ventilate about.

It works every time. The Councillors are totally distracted — I’d say happily — from the big picture.

Now for some good news …

At Thursday’s session, the Chief Executive reported on efficiencies that had been achieved in Council operations — in areas like energy use, fewer rates notices, less dependence on outside engineering consultants, outsourcing of nursery activities — accounting for a 5% savings in operating costs.

More than any other Councillor, Wayne Bradshaw deserves some credit for this accomplishment. With most Councillors yawning and fidgeting, Councillor Bradshaw insisted that this target be set during last year’s budgeting process. I’m sure the Chief Executive would say that he’s always looking for savings. But it never hurts to have the incentive of a mandated public target!

Says Councillor Bradshaw: “It was very pleasing to see the list of Efficiencies Achieved since the 5% target was introduced in last year’s LTCCP. I would congratulate the CEO and all the HDC staff for their positive efforts in this area. Whilst some of the savings listed as efficiencies could be debated as prudent management, it is still a positive step forward.”

“Setting a target creates a need to look for efficiencies. This helps lead to better practices and a change in the culture of the Council. In past years, the practice seems to have been ‘let’s tell the Councillors what we are going to spend’ rather than the other way around.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Napier and Regional Councils  followed Hastings’ lead on this one?

Tom Belford

You be the judge.

Sooo Last Century
By Andrew Frame

Art Deco Weekend rolled around once again a couple of weeks ago. One of the last big digs of summer for the Hawke’s Bay tourism industry. It’s a weekend when tourists flood into Napier and a large portion of the locals decide it would be a good time to stay at home, do the gardening, play cricket or see if Palmerston North is still worth visiting.

Beloved has wanted to take part in this faux fur fest for some years. I have told her the only way I would take part would be if she went as Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) and I went dressed as King Kong. A large portion of bananas would also be required to seal the deal.

This year I decided to dress up just a little. I even made my own costume. You may remember in my “Dear Santa” post, I wished for some printing gear to make my own T-shirt line? Well, I designed some tops that read “Art Deco is SO Last Century,” had a small run made and sold them.

Wearing mine up town over the weekend I got a dirty look from Bertie, and the photographer from Hawke’s Bay Today refused to take a photo of me, a life-long Napier resident, getting “dressed up.” He also made one of the people I sold a shirt to move so you could only read the “Art Deco” part of their shirt when photographing their shop’s window display. Hardly unexpected in either case, especially for the paper when you see how they’ve rallied behind the Mayor’s planned substantial signage surcharge. Trying to turn the city into some sort of living museum stuck eighty five years in the past at up to $500 per year, per shop.

Mostly I got funny looks and laughs (a number from people in period costume!) and a lot of positive comments. I even took a couple more orders. Not too bad at all, considering I was expecting to receive a fur stole or vintage cane upside the head before the weekend was out from some disgusted Deco-ite.

I like the buildings, love the cars and especially adore the Harvards in the air show. It’s just some of the people I can’t stand. Like the person who said: “On Art Deco Weekend Napier’s CDB looks like a vintage movie set except half of the crowd forgot their costumes.” I’m still not sure if that’s a compliment or not. Dressing up as they do, some people’s personalities change. “Pip-pips” and “Tally ho’s!” ring through the streets. The already overused “Sweetie, sweetie, darling, darling” gauge goes off the scale.

I find a lot of the events a bit of a double standard or pretentious. Towards the end of its original run, Art Deco fell out of favor for being too “gaudy and presenting a false image of luxury” (a lovely quote I borrowed from Wikipedia). Kind of like New Zealand in the eighties before the stock market went “Splat!”

Despite its depression and prohibition-era setting, there is very little to be depressed about other than a number of the events charging well over $50 per person, putting them out of the reach of many. If you do get a little “ho-hum” (damn, now I’m doing it) there are few “dry” events too. Many events on the programme featured something between a tipple and a torrent of liquor to wash your worries away. What would Elliot Ness think?

Beloved and I spent most of our time, as many do on Saturday night and Sunday, simply strolling through the streets, picnic, car and air shows, listening to the bands and watching all the dressed-up people watching the bands.

After watching “An Officer and a Gentleman” Beloved has a strange affinity for the Navy band which I find hard to understand. Their uniform is hardly flattering for the female figure. Speaking of which, the flapper style of dress which are everywhere over the weekend were designed to make the ‘bright young things’ (18 to 30 year old women) of the 1930’s look even brighter and younger (and ‘thingier’?). On the current women of that age, the recreations can look fantastic. On those who were 18 to 30 the first time around, not so much.

People will always say, “Art Deco Weekend is good for the city.” But how? Certainly hospitality and accommodation businesses rack it in, but while the visitors look at the buildings, cars and each other there isn’t that much spent in the city. I have even spoken to people in the Art Deco Trust who agree. Many retailers have their poorest days of the year this weekend. There must be some way to change this. It’s been the same for as long as I can remember and I worked in town for a number of Art Deco Weekends almost a decade ago.

Perhaps a counter-culture is called for. Maybe next year I could do a bigger run of T-shirts and a throng of people could wear them and celebrate “Non-Deco Weekend” No parades, no picnics; instead have a weekend long shopping spree!

Responds Robert McGregor, Heritage Officer, Art Deco Trust …

So Last Century?!

At last it’s becoming fashionable to take the mickey out of Art Deco. It‘s been a long wait, but we’re glad the time has come, for the true mark of success is when it becomes fashionable to deride what others see as A Good Thing. Oops – I should have said “for a few to deride”.

When he was googling Art Deco to see what Wikipedia had to say about it, Man About Town may have noticed that Napier is mentioned there in the section on ‘Surviving Examples’, with a photo of the Soundshell among the 5 that appear. And the second item that comes up in that search is “Art Deco Trust – Complete Information about the Architecture and Styles of Napier. NZ.” The third item is “Art Deco Weekend – Art Deco Trust”.

Not bad for a small Kiwi city. Still thinking of a weekend in Palmy, MAT? And it’s all free – promotion that Napier couldn’t afford to pay for, along with the scores and scores of articles in magazines and newspapers and the tv programmes that have been seen worldwide.

But Man About Town is not the first to jump on the put-down bandwagon. There have been a few texts from Weekend Whingers to the editor of HB Today in the last fortnight – and relatively literate ones too, for a change. [It appears from tonight’s paper that HB Today is now translating them from Tekspeak into English.]

One complains that there is no liquor ban on the Marine Parade over the Weekend while there is one on New Year’s Eve. Not fair. Another, on the same subject, claims that Napier citizens get the shaft, unable to booze in the streets except on Art Deco Weekend. You’d think they’d be grateful for that. Asks another – “was there a special license issued for these people”? Well yes, there was. Possibly because nobody acts irresponsibly over Art Deco Weekend – it’s just too uncool for the hoons to be seen there. Fortunately.

Another moans that the Council should forget about Art Deco and provide a decent Parents’ Room in the CBD. There are two, actually – one by the Soundshell and one in Memorial Square. Admittedly that’s a recent innovation compared with the one in Hastings, the first in New Zealand. Ours has only been there since 1925.

Another texter is sick of Art Deco and wants us to look to the future. Hmm. Not much of a market for 21st century heritage tourism so far. But in any case the Trust has always thought it was looking to the future: tourism = new money = jobs for your kids, grandkids and mine.

It’s puzzling that Man About Town thinks that Art Deco doesn’t benefit the city. Surely any man about town worthy of the name knows by now that tourism doesn’t just benefit the accommodation and hospitality sectors. The Art Deco Economic Impact Study has been trotted out ad nauseum, and if he hasn’t seen it by now then we’re not going to bore everyone with the details. But to briefly summarise, the total multiplier impact of Art Deco tourism year-round, four years ago, was $23 million, and the impact of the Art Deco Weekend alone, back in 2002, was $4.16 million.

To put it in a nutshell, a local hairdresser once said that “You don’t have to convince me about the benefits of tourism. I only have to compare my takings in the summer with those in the winter.”

“Not that much is spent in the city,” MAT says. All the income from those exorbitant $50 plus tickets is spent in the city. And if the Saturday of the Weekend is the poorest for retailers, then it can’t be our fault. We put thousands of people outside the shops, and if the retailers can’t get them inside, then it’s a bit tough to blame us. Perhaps we should move the car parade to Ahuriri or Taradale. No guesses as to how the retailers there would respond to that idea.

Man About Town is welcome to organise a non-Art Deco Weekend – but why bother? There are already 50 of them each year. Or doesn’t he get about town often enough to notice?

One would have thought that when he was getting about town over Art Deco Weekend, he would have noticed that he was surrounded by thousands of people who are Mad About this Town. Such a pity to spoil their fun!

No, MAT. You haven’t made a great case. But no matter – we don’t take you seriously, for we know that you only do it to tease.

Events and activities range from historical tours (including a cemetery tour) and presentations to a Civic Lunch at Black Barn on Saturday March 13 to a special choral service at St Luke’s.

Click here for details.

Tom Belford

TAS is a shared service used by a number of North Island DHBs to conduct “independent” reviews of program performance.

Since Hawke’s Bay DHB staff has dismissed complaints about Cranford as either “ancient history” or based on uninformed innuendo, but is nevertheless the entity to whom the audit will be delivered, it remains to be seen exactly how much impact this review will have.

The auditors are presently writing their draft report based upon interviews they conducted last week with nurses and others, after spending the weekend with Cranford management.

If there is anyone who would still like to come forward and speak with the audit team, they must do so by the end of this week. The lead auditor is Melissa Bailey. She can be reached at (04) 801-2783, 027-245-5235, or Melissa_Bailey@centraltas.co.nz

Perhaps contrary to what DHB Board members expect, the auditors appear to be operating from a very limited brief (the brief has not been made public).

The auditors say they are looking narrowly at the specifics of the complaints that were recently brought to the notice of the Health & Disabilities Commissioner. However, the specific complaints “officially” filed are merely symptomatic of an unhealthy management culture at Cranford supported by Presbyterian Services over a considerable period of time. Here is the brief BayBuzz recommended.

Whether or not the auditors will address the full range of management and governance issues — and how DHB Board members respond if they do not — is the million dollar question.

Once the draft report is written by the audit team, it will be submitted both to Cranford management and to DHB executives for their comments and response. Then a final report will be prepared. Left murky is how the auditors will evaluate management’s response. For example, the auditor would not confirm that the original complainant would have an opportunity to address any Cranford or DHB staff comments before the final report is completed.

And of course no one — auditors or DHB — have indicated whether they will release the final report to the public.

Meantime, we have learned that it’s business as usual at Cranford, with management — apparently presuming they will survive this immediate nuisance — threatening a full investigation into who on the Cranford staff has “leaked” information to outside parties like BayBuzz.

Another reason not to feel sanguine about this process.

Ultimately, whether this audit is deemed sufficient in scope and depth, as well as whether it is actioned, will be in the hands of the Hawke’s Bay DHB Board. They should have the final report in hand by the end of April, according to the lead auditor. May should be interesting.

Tom Belford

The scenario ultimately chosen as the Heretaunga Plains Urban Growth Strategy, and then embedded in District Plans (or possibly one comprehensive plan for the Hastings and Napier areas), is intended to guide land use decisions in much of the region for the thirty years extending from 2015-2045.

Given the significance of this scenario decision, how the public is consulted will be of paramount importance.

When the Councillors settle upon their consultation plan and the supporting materials the public will see, it is crucial that the issues are framed in a way the average resident can comprehend and respond to meaningfully … and that means NOT in the typical style of consultants and planners!

Here is what the public needs to easily see in any HPUDS consultation brochures, documents or web content …

1. How far-reaching is the recommended scenario geographically? People hearing “Heretaunga Plains” might not be aware that this plan will have significance for areas like Bayview, Te Awanga/Haumoana, Ocean Beach and Waimarama. Given the depth of controversy over Ocean Beach development, for example, many people might be expected to take a keen interest in what the preferred scenario says about that area. Same for Haumoana.

2. Precisely what parts of the Heretaunga Plains are to be protected from urban encroachment? Our politicians have emphasized HPUDS as an exercise to “protect the versatile soils of the Heretaunga Plains.” Therefore, in the consultation materials, it should clear beyond doubt to any Joe Blog — perhaps through a plain map with big bold red lines on it — exactly what land is to be protected and what is not.

3. Exactly what parts of our community will growth come from … and how will the needs of those segments be handled in the recommended scenario? Indeed, the latest population growth estimates from Statistics NZ reported in HB Today last Friday say the region’s population will decline after 2026. So what growth are we planning for, after all?!

Less dramatic than growth in absolute numbers will be the changing composition of HB’s population … with much larger percentages of Maori and seniors over age 65. People in those groups in particular will want to know specifically how their unique housing and lifestyle needs will be met by the recommended scenario. In fact, that might be all they care about in this entire exercise. Also, what does the preferred scenario offer to the 30% of the Bay’s population who live in the region’s most deprived areas (deciles 9 & 10), and what is the role of state housing?

4. Similarly, each of us will want to know … how will the recommended scenario affect my own present neighborhood (and any future choices I might contemplate)? What if I live in Clive or Meeanee or Napier Hill or Bridge Pa?

5. Finally, how do the Councils actually expect to accomplish the land use and settlement goals expressed in their recommended scenario? Housing choices are the reflection of thousands of individual private decisions based upon lifestyle, financial means, and personal taste and values. And developers do their best to accurately read the market and invest accordingly.

Given that market-driven context, what tools and incentives might we expect our Councils to use to “steer” the community toward the settlement (and industrial location) outcomes the planners say are most sensible? If the public says “YES” to one or another scenario, how will that outcome be achieved?

I think these are the kinds of concerns average citizens will have about HPUDS. If the Councils can present their information in a way that frames and responds to these questions, the public consultation process will stand a chance of being meaningful. The Councils will have done their part … and it will be up to the rest of us to engage as if we cared.

Tom Belford

The trout have a black fungus growing in their gills.

One such trout apparently has been sent to a lab for analysis. A potential source of the fungus is sewage.

Meanwhile, we wait and wait for CHB to submit its resource consent application for an alternative sewage disposal scheme. You know, the one that’s supposed to dispose of their effluent on land … before 2014. Yet even with the Regional Council poised with its approval stamp in mid-air (effectively, it will be approving its own plan), CHB has dawdled over filing its application.

I wonder which will arrive first … the toxicology report on the dead trout or CHB’s overdue Tukituki clean-up consent application!

Or October 9th … election day!

Tom Belford

P.S. In addition, fishermen on the Tuki on Thursday report that the river is full of smelly algae, despite ample rains that might have been expected to flush the river.

P.P.S. Hey, Councillors McGregor and Gilbertson, you two are our protectors of the Tuki for that stretch of the river … what’s going on up there?

Our local Councils seem to struggle with the “social well-being” part of this mandate. They shrug off this responsibility, usually saying that the matters one might reasonably consider to constitute social well-being — for example, quality housing, poverty alleviation, preventive health care, crime prevention, among others — are actually the responsibility of central government agencies and their local/regional emissaries. “Not our job,” say the Councillors.

True, of course, there are dedicated agencies for addressing these issues.

Still, the people who most need these services in Hawke’s Bay are actually members of our community … not alien wards of some foreign bureaucracies. And they are the political constituents of our local elected Councils, from whom they should expect recognition, representation and advocacy with respect to their needs.

According to documents prepared for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy, fully one-third of the population in the study area lives in decile 9 or 10 areas … that is, the most deprived areas.

This one-third of the population should occupy our elected Councils at least as much as local farmers, retailers, developers, winegrowers, motel operators or environmentalists.

In Napier, Pat Magill, through the Napier Pilot City Trust, has been perhaps the leading advocate trying to get his Council to front up to its social well-being responsibilities. On Wednesday, he makes a presentation to the Napier City Council on the subject, and raises issues with respect to the failures of the Maraenui Urban Renewal Trust. [Here is his presentation: Napier Offers Hope.] In this, he has the support of BayBuzz.

As we get into the election year, it will be fair to ask of Councillors and candidates: What is your view of the nature and extent of responsibility Councils hold with respect to promoting the social well-being of the community … and particularly with respect to incumbents, what have you done to meet that responsibility?

Tom Belford

In a nutshell, the panel recommended firing Environment Canterbury, the area’s regional council. From its report:

“…the Review Group has concluded that ECan’s performance on water policy and management issues (allocation and quality) falls well short of what is essential. This failure requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being. Failure to intervene will lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury. The Review Group considers that a profound change in approach is required to existing institutional frameworks to address this matter properly.”

Wow! Granted, around 70% of NZ’s freshwater resource is in the Canterbury Region, so the situation and stakes are especially high there. The Report documents massive shortcomings in Environment Canterbury’s stewardship of water in the region, many of which are failures unique to that council.

However, as Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society points out (here):

“…water problems are not confined to Canterbury. Certainly that is the region with the most irrigation but water quality problems are evident around New Zealand. This report puts all regional councils on notice that they need to lift their performance and that government is looking for improved governance in freshwater management.

“I note that the Minister is not making any immediate decisions. That is wise. The Report should be considered by the Land and Water Forum which is examining freshwater management nationally to see if there are any New Zealand wide implications from the findings and recommendations.”

[Ironically, the same day this report was issued, John Key was in HB urging more irrigation and dairying. Perhaps he should get off that soapbox at least until the Land and Water Forum comes to some conclusions!]

I’m sure the Canterbury Report is now required reading at our own HB Regional Council. On the “Scale of Bungling” of regional water management, the HBRC does not appear to match the poor performance of Environment Canterbury. [Although some would say the chief distinction is that at least our Hearings Committee gives away our water more quickly!]

The Regional Council is moving, albeit in verrrry … sloooow … mooootion, on Tukituki and Mohaka clean-up issues. Maybe the staff is stretched too thin.

Yet we have $2 million “feasibility” study underway to explore the case for dams on the upper Tukituki to enable more irrigation (and more dairyng?) in CHB.

Let’s get serious here … who has ever heard of a Council spending $2 million on a “feasibility” study that concludes: “Hey, stop, the original proposition sucks!”? More accurately and honestly, ratepayers should consider this a $2 million down payment on a much larger infrastructure investment.

Perhaps the Regional Council should focus first on getting right the water management responsibilities it already carries.

Otherwise, it might simply provide more evidence for the Environmental Defence Society’s view (perhaps shared by some Ministers) … that management of a vital national strategic asset like water might be simply too big, too important, and too complex a job to be left to locals.

Tom Belford

P.S. For a different point of view on Canterbury implications, here’s an excerpt from the Green Party’s release:

“These recommendations are an attack on local democracy,” Green Party Co-leader Russel Norman said. “If implemented, the people of Canterbury would have no democratically-elected regional council to represent their interests. Key decisions about water management would be taken away from elected councillors and put in the hands of a new Government-appointed board. This could be abused by big dairy and commercial interests as an opportunity to ram through new irrigation projects without due process.”

It will fascinating to watch our Regional Councillors make common cause with the Green party on this one … democracy is terrific, when it supports your position!

In his interview, More Initiative, More Flexibility, General Manager Roger Coleman explains how HBOH’s new business structure will enable the Opera House to plan a more ambitious performance schedule, while accommodating a wide range of community events.

And in The Art of Design, Elizabeth Sisson updates on plans to refurbish the HB Museum and Art Gallery … a two-year construction process that will hopefully begin in June.

Enjoy!

Tom Belford

How can one make an uncommon impact? By excelling in some field of endeavor. By influencing the direction of local government on a regular basis. By leading and motivating others to become involved in community activities. By financially, or by outstanding personal service, supporting community causes and human needs. By championing our environment. By modeling important values and behaviours to others in the community. By significantly driving the region’s economic, social or cultural development.

The point of identifying Top Buzzmakers is to celebrate such contributions to the community. To give recognition and show appreciation, to cheer them on to do even more, and to encourage other people to make similar contributions.

In the last issue, we actually only selected 90 Top Buzzmakers from nearly 200 individuals who had been nominated. Our thought was that our readers, seeing the initial list, might have their own notions of who should be celebrated as Buzzmakers. So we asked readers for their nominations for the final ten.

And we got a terrific response, with nearly 100 additional names recommended – educators, farmers, business people, community activists, environmentalists, artists, social service providers … even a few Councillors! All deserving … and all making the final ten selections just as difficult as the first ninety.

Just a word on Councillors. Because public service is their “job” – and there are so many of them – we felt it best in general to exclude them from consideration to leave plenty of room on the list for other people. Simple as that. As it has turned out, two Councillors received considerable support for contributions they make to the community well beyond their “official” role … in the first ninety, Henare O’Keefe; and in our final ten, John Cocking (as you’ll read below).

So, without further adieu, here are the final ten Buzzmakers, followed by the now complete list of HB’s Top 100 Buzzmakers.

Pat Benson
Director of Napier Computing Services and former junior All Black. Received a Spirit of Napier Award for his contributions to the city, including preservation and refurbishment of historic Art Deco buildings and his long-term support and commitment to sports groups and community projects around the Bay.

Wellesley Binding
Leading contemporary-style painter in HB. Lectures and coordinates media and visual communication courses at EIT.

Alistair Bramley
General manager of Environment, Conservation and Outdoor Education Trust (ECOED). Surprised at the critical state of kiwi locally, he initiated the Save our Kiwi Hawke’s Bay project, which has returned nearly 100 juvenile kiwi to the wild.

John Cocking
As “Bertie”, the city of Napier’s most visible, energetic and entertaining ambassador.

Isabel Morgan
Longstanding chair of Forest & Bird in Napier. Ardent conservationist. A member of Keep Napier Beautiful and Ahuriri Protection Society. Trade Aid Shop volunteer.

James Morgan
Retired newspaper editor, farmer, forester and administrator. Life member, Hastings Group Theatre; producer, Napier Operatic Society. As a trustee of The Community Foundation HB, he’s spearheading campaign to establish the Hawke’s Bay Digital Archive, which will use state-of-the-art technology to preserve historic photos, films, slides and oral histories of HB.

Murray Sawyer
Operator of HBTV, Channel 51 … the Bay’s gateway to a local and now national television audience. Locally-produced “Chatroom” offers a platform for HB political and community voices to be heard.

Neil Swindells
Principal of St John’s College in Hastings. Says an admirer: “Takes the ‘hard cases’ that other schools turn away, and makes them into something.”

Bruce Wills (and John, Fiona and Scott Wills)
Operates the 1100 hectare Trelinnoe Farm outside Napier, a model of best practice farming. Serves as national chair of Federated Farmers meat & fibre division. Trelinnoe is also home to a twelve hectare showplace garden and café, a favourite of tourists and locals alike.

Jenny Yule
Founder and Managing Director of award-winning PORSE, which trains people to provide in-home care and education for children. Named most outstanding business woman of 2008 by publisher of Her Magazine for NZ businesswomen. In 2007, HB Chamber named PORSE supreme business of the year.

With these additions, here are the Top 100 Buzzmakers of Hawke’s Bay for 2009/10.

In Focus on Youth, EIT’s Claire Hague reports on innovations at Hastings Girls HS and Wairoa College which seem to be pointing a way, not only to keep senior students in school, but to help them thrive.

In his article, In Good Health, DHB’s new CEO, Dr Kevin Snee talks about how the DHB will be meeting specific central government goals for improved health outcomes (we’re great at immunizations).

And in Cautious Optimism, the Chamber of Commerce’s Murray Douglas offers a slowly improving economic scenario for 2010, and prods Councils to do their part (i.e., amalgamate!).

Finally, in Looking Ahead, Hastings Councillor Wayne Bradshaw admonishes his Council to finish what it starts, instead of bouncing from one uncompleted priority and project to another.

Hmmm. Could Wayne be “jousting”?

As Mayor Yule said in his BayBuzz article, published yesterday: “2010 is the year of democracy and there will be a lot of attention on the local elections in the run up to October (and the elbowing for limelight, jousting over issues and the public colliding of personalities that inevitably go with it!).”

And as for “elbowing for limelight”, I noticed that occasional mayoral candidate Simon Nixon’s blog has recently sprung to life, with new articles on Venture Hawke’s Bay and — you guessed it — the airport!

Tom Belford

P.S. You can download and read a PDF version of the entire February BayBuzz Digest here.

Mayor Arnott, in a Pretty Good Year Ahead, paints the rosiest picture … it looks like clear sailing for the residents of Napier.

Mayor Yule, in The Year of Democracy, expects a more contentious year, with vexing issues on the Hastings agenda and heaps of political maneuvering by potential candidates.

Chairman Dick of the Regional Council, in Fighting for Survival, sees 2010 as a year for his Council to gain traction and move into action on key decisions made last year … for example, on clean-up of the Tukituki and Mohaka Rivers.

And in her Counterpoint column, Black and White, Anna Lorck carries the torch for amalgamation, applauds “cheerleader” Mayor Yule, and prods Mayor Arnott and Chairman Dick to get behind “a bigger and brighter regional future.”

So check out these articles for a preview of the political agenda for the year ahead.

Tom Belford

What kind of inquiry into the situation at Cranford Hospice will best dig into the issues, yield meaningful findings and recommendations, and produce outcomes that restore public confidence in the institution?

These factors need to be addressed …

Who?

The composition of the inquiry team, its genuine independence from currently involved parties, and its ability to generate confidence in the HB community are crucial issues in this process.

All clinicians, all from outside Hawke’s Bay, is not the answer.

While impartial palliative care experts should certainly be on the inquiry team, the issues raised at Cranford extend to more than whether a particular care-giving “regime” is being faithfully administered. Given the complaints raised, management practices and overall organizational functioning must be addressed. Judgments must be made about the workability of Cranford’s current culture, implying the need for “organizational health” and human resource management skills to be at the table.

The situation requires that all levels of management and oversight be reviewed – at Cranford, at Presbyterian Support, and at the DHB itself. Self-assessment by current players will not get the job done. And because some critics challenge the existing working and reporting relationships, the manifest defensiveness of certain parties, and the PSEC governance responsibility itself, participation by DHB Board members is also essential.

What?

The actual scope of inquiry must be expanded beyond what has been publicly signaled. Although DHB staff assert they are responding to a single formal complaint (whose scope has not been revealed), the reality is that broad and credible concerns have been raised and the full brief of any inquiry must be commensurate with those concerns.

While the Health and Disability Commissioner might pursue a narrow brief driven by the specific complaint received, the DHB Board arguably has more far-reaching issues to address to satisfy its stewardship responsibilities.

As suggested above, a broad range of issues have been raised that ultimately affect the quality of care given by Cranford. Certainly, the day-to-day care-giving regime must be examined and compared against quality of care given in the past. But also bearing upon “clinical” practices are organizational cultural issues, management style and attitudes, and fundamental responsibility and accountability for the governance of Cranford.

A more comprehensive brief would suggest a broader range of individuals to be interviewed and types of information to be gathered.

How?

The manner in which the inquiry is conducted must ensure that current Cranford staff are guaranteed confidentiality. The high level of distrust and fear of retribution that exists among Cranford staff make it imperative that they have the opportunity to speak out freely and candidly during any investigation. Without such guarantee of individual confidentiality, this process, without question, will fail to surface and resolve critical issues.

Whatever the Commissioner does, the DHB effectively has one shot to put this matter to rest in a manner that will win public support within our community.

Apart from who conducts the inquiry, what its brief is, and how the investigation is undertaken, the extent of public disclosure of findings and recommendations will be the final important element in restoring public confidence in Cranford.

Although individuals’ rights of privacy surely must be safeguarded, the situation calls for maximum disclosure of findings, not minimum or summary. Further, appropriate DHB leadership (i.e., the Board’s elected members) must be prepared to discuss publicly with their community the findings and any remedial actions to be taken.

The elected DHB Board members must “own” the outcome.

Tom Belford

Entrails is scribe Brendan Webb’s third installment in the saga. [Here are Part 1 and Part 2 if you need refreshing on the plot to date.]

Entrails

The warrior queen stood on the Hill of Bluff and stared down at the bustling port below.

Barbarus Arnottus, ruler of Napierion, watched as vessels from the land of the Great Dragon unloaded their cargoes. Sometimes huge ships brought large people from the fabled Americas, to the delight of local merchants. She enjoyed watching the seamen with their brawny arms and sweat-soaked muscular thighs.

But control of the Port of Napierion had slipped into the hands of a wily opponent, her predecessor Alanus Dickus.

She realised now it had been a mistake to allow Dickus to establish himself again inside the walls of her city. She had not anticipated his ability to transform a minor regional bureaucracy into a formidable power base. His unassuming headquarters had proved to be a Trojan horse.

The regional forum led by Dickus had accumulated a huge war chest by selling water rights to the Udderus Plentus, a clan of cow herders who had recently moved into Heretuscany. Dickus had used his fortunes to acquire vital assets in the region. His forum controlled the once-abundant waterways that had produced the crops on which Hustings had depended for its survival.

Once a thriving fruitgrowing centre, Hustings was known as the Dustbowl of Novus Zealandus. As debts mounted, its leader, Lawrencus Yulus, was desperately looking for a quick nuptial with Napierion and hopefully a hefty dowry.

In the coming months, Barbarus would have to deal with his amalgamation campaign, but Napierions had no interest in amalgamating with Hustings or anyone else.

However Barbarus was wondering whether the clumsy tactics of Lawrencus could yet be turned to her advantage.

Distracted by his vain bid for amalgamation, Lawrencus might be vulnerable to an electoral coup that could radically reshape his council table. There had already been mutinous mutterings in the wealthy Anglo Saxon enclave of Havus Northus about Lawrencus’ grandiose plans.

Barbarus had quietly decided that an alliance with Alanus Dickus against amalgamation could deal Lawrencus a crushing and humiliating public defeat.
Cleopatra had worked her charms on Mark Anthony. Barbarous would have to use all of her wiles to woo a veteran campaigner like Dickus.

She cracked her whip thoughtfully.

A group of men in striped blazers jumped out of the way of the blades on Barbarus’ chariot as she thundered along the Paradus Marinus. She slowed as she passed the site of the museum that would represent her crowning achievement.

Even now, Barbarus smiled as she recalled how she duped Lawrencus Yulus for one million denari for the building of her museum. She had promised him one million in return for his Lawrencian Colosseum, but had never made good, saying that she was obliged to respond to the thumbs down given to the proposal by Napierions.

Lawrencus had been incensed at what he called her “democratic cowardice”.

***
To the south, the man who now called himself Lawrencus Yulus Amalgamatus stared at the chicken entrails lay spread out on the table in front of him.

Lawrencus prodded a piece of blood-covered spleen with his knife. He had never understood how people could find omens from the gods buried in chicken bowels, but the Heretuscans had been doing it for centuries and had even taken to peering at sheep entrails for portents of the future. As a former shepherd, he had seen plenty of things come out of a sheep’s backside, and wisdom certainly wasn’t one of them.

But as he stared at the pile of fowl innards, Lawrencus began to see a pattern taking shape. A pile of intestine on one side vaguely resembled the ranges overlooking the Plain of Heretuscany. A knob of fat on the other side could, with a bit of imagination, represent Havus Northus, he thought.

Lawrencus felt his heart begin to beat faster. This was more like it. The gods were smiling on him after all, although he wished they wouldn’t post their messages in the backsides of fowls or sheep.

As he prodded with his knife, he spotted an ugly lesion. That must surely represent Napierion, he decided.

The viscera was proving visionary. A mucous blob, which he took to be Hustings, had oozed down the slightly sloping table until it had merged with the lesion.
That was it. The portent for amalgamation. The gods were finally on his side!

Now he would instruct his loyal clerks, the Numbus Crunchus, to produce a report showing that amalgamation would produce massive savings. With his partly-built Lawrencian Colosseum looking more like Stonehenge in Brittanica than imperial Rome, he needed some pretty fancy figures —- and fast.

***
Meanwhile, Alanus Dickus stood in front of his coffers. Golden coins glinted in the gloom of the vast vault.

He was back in Napierion, the city he had ruled as Alanus Caesar Dictatorious several decades ago. It had taken time to build up his new empire and he needed to reshape the region’s map before the Torus ruling party did it for him.

An alliance now with the Iron Maiden Barbarus might woo her into a sense of security and when the time was right, he would do his own bit of amalgamating, outwitting both Barbarus and Lawrencus.

He wondered what the gods had in store. Taking a couple of gold coins from a wooden chest, he told a eunuch to go and find a freshly killed chicken.

To be continued …

P.S. Don’t miss our unforgettable illustration of Barbarus Arnottus in battle attire. (3MB)

Cranford Hospice

If you’ve seen or heard any other media in the last 24 hours, you know that the DHB has launched a “clinical review” of care-giving at Cranford. Here’s DHB’s media release, as well as a statement from Presbyterian Support “welcoming” the review. DHB says it is responding to a formal complaint made to the Health and Disability Commissioner.

Perhaps. The fact that our BayBuzz article has already been viewed online by almost 2,000 readers since Sunday, with 10,000 BayBuzz Digest newspapers featuring the story yet to hit the streets, is — I guess — pure coincidence!

Critical issues going forward:

• The genuine “independence” of DHB’s review;
• Its actual scope of inquiry (e.g., in terms of focus and individuals to be interviewed);
• The manner in which it will be conducted (e.g., will present Cranford staff be guaranteed confidentiality vis-a-vis management?);
• The composition of the review team (e.g. all clinicians, all from outside Hawke’s Bay, is not the answer); and,
• The extent of public disclosure of findings and recommendations.

This matter is far from being resolved. Be assured, BayBuzz will remain on the case.

Not so publicized is the resignation Wednesday of Cranford’s Medical Director, Michael Harris. Here is Cranford Director Barry Keane’s memo to staff on that development, indicating that Dr. Harris signaled his intention to leave back in December.

Tukituki Development

In a much quieter development, Andy Coltart and Garth Paterson, applicants seeking a resource consent for intensive development on the banks on the Tuki, have requested and been granted an indefinite postponement of their scheduled hearing before the Hastings Council Hearings Committee.

Apparently the HDC staff recommendation that the consent be denied has left the applicants a bit groggy.

So, you can take next Thursday’s (the 18th) canceled hearing off your calendar. BayBuzz will keep you posted on this item too.

Tom Belford

[See previous BayBuzz post here on the proposal.]

Terrific news! The staff has recommended — courageously, in our view — that the application be denied … full stop.

Two principal reasons:

1) Staff concludes that the landscape and recreational values at Horseshoe Bend (about 5k up the river from the Red Bridge, along Kahuranaki Road) would be so adversely compromised by such intensive development that mitigation measures could not achieve the necessary protections required by the District Plan and the RMA.

2) Further, staff agues that granting this application would create a precedent conducive to additional, similar development along the Tukituki, which would run contrary to both existing and pending rural development policy for the District, which aims to protect the rural character and amenity of the Tukituki area.

[Here is the full report.]

As stated, this is terrific news for the Tuki. So far …

But now the staff recommendation goes before the Hastings Council Hearings Committee on Thursday, February 18th, where anything might happen.

The hearing is triggered by the efforts of adjacent landowner, Bruno Chambers, who filed a robust submission opposing the resource consent. Well done, Bruno!

I should note that this consent was processed by HDC under limited notification, which BayBuzz opposed. Ironic that the staff has decided that indeed the proposal affects a considerable stretch of the Tukituki, as well as recreational users … and consequently, one might infer, many additional parties after all!

The staff report, citing advice from the Regional Council, unfortunately was dismissive of potential issues surrounding water extraction (cumulative effects), wastewater management, and stormwater management. It would appear that the Regional Council takes a rather myopic view of the proposal, as opposed to stepping back and looking at the overall impact that consenting this project would have on development all along the Tuki.

One might hope that the Regional Council (our environmental protector) by now would have a bigger picture in mind when it comes to protecting HB rivers. But alas!

Fortunately the Hastings Council staff rose to the occasion this time, and provided the broader perspective on the Tuki the Regional folks lack.

Now we’ll see how Hastings Councillors on the Hearings Committee deal with the matter. Hopefully they’ll back the staff on this one.

If you possibly can, please attend the Hearings Committee session at 9:30am on Thursday the 18th at the Hastings Council Chambers. Let’s show our support for Bruno and the staff recommendation.

Tom Belford

Dying in Hawke’s Bay – Part 2
By Mark Sweet and Tom Belford

The Management
In January 2008 Shaun Robinson, CEO of PSEC, announced the recruitment of a new leadership team at Cranford.

Barry Keane, Executive Director, Dr Mike Harris, Medical Director, and Sandra Sanderson, Nursing Director. Keane and Harris worked together at Arohanui Hospice in Palmerston North. Dr Harris was relatively inexperienced in palliative care, and yet to qualify as a Palliative Care Specialist.

Barry Keane comes from a nursing background, and is currently Chair of the Palliative Care Advisory Group, which signals his pre-eminence in current palliative care trends. His enthusiasm for the Liverpool Care of the Dying Clinical Pathways was recognised at the outset. Sandra Sanderson was recruited from Scotland, where she worked as a palliative care co-ordinator with a background in nursing leadership, education, and facilitation, all within palliative care.

Our interviews indicated that another major player in the restructuring of Cranford was Diane Keip. Keip comes from a hospice nursing background in the South Island and was employed by Cranford, when Kerryn Lum was Medical Director, to help implement the HB Palliative Care Strategy, which Lum and her colleagues had developed.

Keip developed a close working relationship with Shaun Robinson, giving her access to confidential information, which caused distress to those involved. She now holds the position of Palliative Care Planning and Funding Manager with HBDHB, and is the primary day-to-day monitor of Cranford’s performance … relied upon by senior management to reassure that “all is well.”

With Shaun Robinson micromanaging, the new leadership team soon changed the culture of care that had characterized Cranford. Many people BayBuzz spoke to pointed to Robinson and Keane as the protagonists most responsible for creating a culture of distrust and fear.

Numerous incidents were related where staff have been treated with disrespect and intimidation. Many are convinced there was an orchestrated campaign of ‘constructive dismissal’ where abusive behaviour was employed as a weapon to move along old time employees. Only in past weeks has an employment action brought by three Cranford nurses been settled by mediation.

And in a 29 November 2009 letter written to HB Today (but rejected), Richard Grey, husband of Sue Grey, until recently a nurse at Cranford, with decades of experience, said:

“If the reorganisation is not going smoothly, management often react with an increase in discipline to assert their management role. The staff then believe that they are not respected, are being threatened, intimidated and can feel very insecure. This leads on to a down turn in morale, increase in sickness, more involvement in disputes and unions, along with a loss of employees. As well as increased costs and possible reduction in the services offered.

Much of the above was already beginning to occur whilst my wife was in employment at Cranford, so I strongly advised her to leave soonest. On reflection, the correct decision, even though she, as are the remaining Cranford nurses, felt torn by the strong bond of loyalty, commitment and allegiance first and foremost to their patients and then to their fellow colleagues.”

The clash of cultures, between the old Cranford and the new, is not just a matter of management styles, but also of systems and philosophy.

In a presentation entitled Rethinking Palliative Care Provision, Barry Keane asks, “But where have we come from? Reactionary movement – Cottage hospice – Charity base – Culture of ‘specialness.’” He then asks, “Has the nature of Hospice development been one of the barriers to progress?”

He obviously thinks so. Indeed, nurses at Cranford have been admonished not to refer to Cranford as “a Hospice … it is a Palliative Care Unit.”

Palliative care provision with a diminished hospice role would appear the direction Cranford is being steered, with an emphasis of spreading care for the dying more broadly by providing training to Health Providers in palliative care, including the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway (LCP).

”Over the last 12 months, 1100 staff in resthomes and hospitals have received specific training in the care of the dying through the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway project,” states Ron Hall in his open letter. Barry Keane describes LCP as “a tool designed to be used in settings other than a hospice, which enhances the skill and confidence of practitioners, and the quality of care.”

Listening to Barry Keane speak passionately about, “ensuring best practice in palliative care for the dying being available to all in need,” is hard to reconcile with the allegations of his insensitive management style. It’s unfortunate his tenure at Cranford has been mired in so much controversy, but from what Baybuzz has heard from the parties dealing with Keane, he has brought it on himself.

Shaun Robinson declined to speak to BayBuzz about “issues” at Cranford, quoting Ron Hall’s letter as PSEC’s “final word on the matter.” He did however reply to a written question: Has the CEO of PSEC any comment to make about the management structure ‘bedding in’ process?

”Given the stable and close knit culture within a traditional hospice like Cranford, organizational development and change can be difficult for staff, volunteers, leadership and the community… As a result of this situation, communication between some key clinical staff was adversely affected leading to some negative impacts on staff morale. Since that time additional effort has gone into communications and team development; workshops and meetings have been held with staff and volunteers to address their concerns about change and to work together on the way forward – this is an ongoing process. While change is always hard, the reality in February 2010 is a growing sense of positiveness within Cranford and a desire to keep progressing palliative care for the people of the Hawke’s Bay.”

Also the “reality” in February 2010: The situation remains sufficiently “negative” that a mediator has been brought in to help rebuild morale. So, while Robinson speaks of “growing sense of positiveness” and Mr Hall proclaims all is well, employment actions and mediator involvement suggest otherwise.

The DHB
The complaints are too numerous, too widely-known, too widely-shared, and too credible to be dismissed. Certainly the ‘open letter’ from Presbyterian Support is an inadequate response to widespread public apprehension.

In view of this, one might think that the Hawke’s Bay DHB, provider of 70% of Cranford’s funds and the contractor (through PSEC) of its services, might inquire vigorously and independently into the matter. Not so.

BayBuzz interviewed a member of DHB’s senior executive team, Ken Foote, General Manager of Planning, Funding & Performance. Mr Foote expressed nothing but confidence in PSEC, who he repeatedly discussed as a “contractor” satisfactorily delivering “outputs.” When issues were raised publicly last November, Foote said he and his team made inquiries of PSEC management and came away reassured that “there were no concerns in terms of quality of care affecting patients.” This is the message he passed to the DHB Board.

Said Mr Foote: “We have expressed our support for Cranford … We remain confident in the level of care … We have no cause for concern about the delivery of the contract and the quality of care.”

He noted that DHB’s contract is with PSEC and how they deliver their services is up to them … “unless we felt there was some threat to the organization that could make that contract difficult to deliver.” Clearly, DHB, through Mr Foote, sees no such threat. Why? Because PSEC has assured them there is none!

A routine “audit” of Cranford’s performance begins this month as part of a normal three-year cycle of evaluation of service contracts.

Recommendations
BayBuzz suggests several significant steps are required.

1. First and foremost, as 70% funder and possessor of requisite expertise, HBDHB, with active oversight by Board members, must investigate the situation fully and issue a public report indicating findings and any recommended actions.

The aforementioned “audit” can feed into this (as should the McLeod report), but cannot substitute. We believe the review team should include appropriate management & clinical senior officials (including some not in the cozy loop between DHB and PSEC), plus some elected Board members. The latter are necessary to signal a high level of concern by those directly accountable to the community and to reinforce the credibility of findings. The report should be discussed with the interested public in an open forum sponsored by DHB.

2. In this process, the management role of Presbyterian Support should be re-considered. Clearly the dysfunction at Cranford is linked to the management approach imposed by PSEC. As a community asset, Cranford is funded by our taxes and donations, and deserves to be run directly by a Board with one mission and with requisite experience coming from the community.

3. An evaluation program should be instituted to systematically ascertain the views of families whose loved ones have been treated at Cranford. If it can be done for hospital patients, it can be done as a sign of respect and concern for the families of those who die after hospice care. And of course to improve practices where necessary for the benefit of future patients.

4. The HBDHB must also take a more proactive role is educating the public about the HB Palliative Care Strategy, and specifically on how and where this care will be provided. In 2009, 499 patients were referred to Cranford. But clearly not all the terminally ill are or will be cared for at Cranford Hospice, whatever the public perception … both because the numbers will skyrocket, and because this is not the preference of all patients. So what does the future scenario look like? The public should be clear about this.

5. Finally, the Hawke’s Bay community needs to place its present funding relationship with Cranford “in escrow” until these issues are dealt with fully and publicly. The community has been tremendously generous to Cranford Hospice over the years. But unquestioning generosity would now be irresponsible until some substantially greater accountability and public responsiveness is brought into play.

You can find supporting documents at www.baybuzz.co.nz/issues/health/cranford