Cutting back the C.U.C.

Press, 16 April 1984, Page 20

Cutting back the C.U.C.

For too long, the Canterbury United Council has been the subject of criticism from its constituent members, the councils that contribute to its membership and to its finances. This criticism, much of it undeserved, stems in part from the fact that work for the council is an added burden for councillors. Also, the council’s levy on local bodies is a slice from rating that brings no direct credit to the authorities that collect the funds from ratepayers.

The United Council must sometimes interfere, through the planning processes, with the ambitions of the local bodies. Just as the former regional planning body was sometimes an irritant to local authorities, the United Council, having absorbed the regional planning duties, often bears the brunt of local disfavour when it spends money or makes planning decisions in the broader interests of the region. Sensitivity to such matters seems to be behind the decision of the council last week to trim its proposed budget slightly. The planned expenditure already drew on a carry-over of funds from last year, and this means that next year the council’s levy on constituent bodies will probably rise significantly. if much the same amount of work is to be done in 1985-86. Opposing the cut in activity, the council’s chief executive made a plea for retaining the proposed work on regional planning. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that the financial axe has fallen — if only gently — on this part of the council’s activities. Councillors who supported the idea of trimming the budget seemed to emphasise the need to gain the respect of the constituent

bodies by performing efficiently and not by setting out to do as much work as possible. Their argument may be justified in time. Certainly, the United Council needs the enthusiastic support of jts members; otherwise the council will never grow into being an effective force on behalf of a substantial part of the Canterbury province. Worse, it will do its appointed job in a makeshift, cost-cutting fashion and will expose itself to criticism much better founded than any it has faced in the past. Now that the council has its own staff and its independent administration, it is at a stage in development that may be critical to its future. The best hope that arises from last week’s budget decision is that the council will soon win the backing of all its members and that its finances will be provided less grudgingly. United Council members should not be driven by some local bodies to adopt cheeseparing policies that will eventually bring the whole enterprise into disrepute. The tactical budget decision this year may well be what was needed to reform the attitudes of some complaining bodies. The cuts were small. Even so, they may not be repeated without risk unless the performance during this year shows that all the essential work can be done, or that the programme that was set still left money unspent. The council has a duty to decide what is essential and need do no more. Too mean a view of what is essential will lead to costs arising elsewhere. The council, and its contributing bodies, will not be thanked for this by the ratepayers or anyone else.