C.U.C. budget to be trimmed by $58,000

Press, 14 April 1984, Page 9

C.U.C. budget to be trimmed by $58,000

The Canterbury United Council voted to trim its proposed budget for this year $58,000 at a special meeting yesterday afternoon.

The exercise of revising the proposed budget and calling a special meeting to adopt it cost the council $5OOO, the meeting was told. The budget cuts were called for at the council’s meeting last month. Staff were told to prune the regional planning budget $50,000, or 10 per cent, and the general policy and administration account by about $BOOO, or 5 per cent. Under the new budget, the United Council’s constituent local authorities will provide $706,634 for the 1984-1985 financial year. The total budget for the year is $1.2 million with the rest of the finance coming from Government grants. Last year, the constituent local authorities provided $751,661. This year they will contribute an average of 6 per cent less than last year. In a report on the amended budget, the council’s chief executive, Mr Malcolm Douglass, said the staff were concerned that councillors proposed the

cuts without consultation on the details and on the effect on work programmes. By the time the special meeting to discuss the amended budget was held, the cost-cutting exercise would have cost $5OOO, he said. That money could have been better spent on urgent regional planning and policy activities.

Mr Douglass said cuts were made by dropping one staff member, reducing the time staff spent on regional planning, cutting back on costs for travel, and cutting the money spent on services such as specialist advice. The cuts would reduce the output and flexibility of both the regional planning programme and the policy and resources programme. The regional planner, Mr G. C. Miller, said that an ambitious regional planning programme had been proposed for this year. The cuts meant short-cuts would have to be taken and there would be a drop in standards.

The council would no longer have the staff time to help local authorities and other agencies with information and advice. It would not be able to

respond to new developments in areas such as energy. He said the cuts would have a significant effect on the council’s work and he believed the over-all effect had been underestimated. Cr O. T. Alpers attempted to move that the original budget be adopted, but his motion was not accepted. He said he opposed the amended budget because the cuts were so small as to achieve little, if any, benefit for the constituent councils. Yet they would have a grave effect on the United Council. Cr G. Stone said that cutting back on the quality and quantity of the council’s work would be irresponsible. A great deal of effort had been put into the budget to ensure that the council could meet all its commitments. The work programme that was recommended was essential. The council should study the work programme this year and make cuts next year if they were needed, he said. Cr B. R. Shackel said the proposed cuts were not insignificant. The United Council had a responsibility

to discourage the growth of bureaucracy and to help keep rates down. “I have no doubt the importance of regional planning is recognised by local authorities, but there is a limit on how effective it can be and how much the community will pay for it,” he said. Cr M. E. Murray said that local authorities would look more favourably on the United Council’s request for support for the Co-operative Development Forum Resource Centre if the cuts went ahead. Councils have been asked to contribute $25,000 to the centre, which was set up to help self-help job creation initiatives. They have agreed to contribute only $16,000 so far. Cr Murray also said that the United Council had to do its work well. It was the quality of work, not the quantity, that was important. The meeting, which lasted 25 minutes, decided by 14 votes to three to adopt the revised budget and to ask local authorities to contribute the full $25,000 to the resource centre in the light of the cuts.