Epitome of Coolness

Over the last couple of months, I have been watching council a bit more closely. Not in a magnifying glass kind of way, but enough to notice when something feels off.

And something does.

The Mayor appears to have two different voices online.

One that comes through official council communications.

And another that does not quite feel like the same person at all.

I know this because I was around during the election and worked closely with more than one campaign. You see a bit more behind the scenes when you are in that space.

And once you see it, you cannot really unsee it.

It starts to feel like two people are reading completely different maps.

One is in the council chamber.

The other does not even seem to be in the room.

Which brings me to a post shared on April 7.

A post written under the name “Mayor.” I say that deliberately.

In that post, the Mayor outlines his position on the Draft Joint Management Agreement. He says he supports the legal requirement to partner with the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board to protect the Waikato River.

That part is clear.

But then the message shifts.

The post raises concerns about “voluntary extensions” and suggests these would change governance around resource consents and land use. It goes further, stating that ratepayers could be governed by people they cannot remove through an election.

I was trying very hard not to get into the JMA here.

But this needs to be set straight.

So which is it, John?

I have read the draft agreement. Properly.

Not skimmed, not cherry-picked, not lifted out of context.

And here is the problem.

The document itself does not say that ratepayers will be governed by people they cannot remove through an election.

What it outlines is a joint management framework.

A structure for shared decision-making on specific matters, particularly around the Waikato River and Resource Management Act responsibilities.

That is not the same as handing over governance of the entire district.

Those are two very different things.

One is collaboration within legislation.

The other is a complete restructuring of who runs the district.

And they are being talked about as if they are the same.

If the concern is about specific clauses, then say that.

But do not rewrite the entire agreement into something it is not.

And I am not the only one saying this.

Councillor Wahine Murch responded on April 8, raising concern about how the agreement was being described.

She made it clear that the JMA does not transfer governance of the district, and that suggesting ratepayers would be governed by unelected people is a misrepresentation.

She also pointed out that council has not yet completed its full briefings or deliberations.

So why are strong public conclusions being drawn before that process is finished?

Because now we are not just dealing with different interpretations.

We are dealing with two completely different explanations of the same document.

And this is not new.

Similar messaging was being shared during the election period, well before John became Mayor.

The same themes.

The same framing.

The same concerns.

But here is where it starts to matter a bit more.

Because the tone, the wording, and the delivery do not always feel consistent.

And from what I have seen behind the scenes, not all of these posts appear to come directly from John himself.

Which brings me back to the same issue.

If the voice people are hearing is not always the person in the room, then what exactly are we responding to?

And this is not just about the JMA.

I have seen this pattern before.

Māori wards.

Election forums.

Council messaging more broadly.

Different issue, same problem.

What is being said does not always match what is actually happening.

And over time, that is what breaks trust.

I do think there should also be a clear Te Reo version of this.

Because this is a complex issue, and not everyone understands how legislation works at a council or government level.

I will try to explain the JMA properly in my next post.

Because right now, people are being asked to trust a version of events that does not always match the room.

---

Enjoying the read?
If this is hitting a nerve (in a good way), shout me a hot chocolate so I can keep going ☕
Because this rabbit hole is not done yet.