Election signs remain in play

Roadside elections signs will return to Tauranga's streets as harbinger of the next local body elections – but they won't be around for so long.

Tauranga City Councillors voted to keep the signs this week, ending a campaign begun in June this year by Mayor Stuart Crosby.


Election signs from the 2010 Tauranga City Council election.

In future, the roadside election campaign signs can be placed four weeks before voting close, instead of six weeks.

The mayor wanted to get rid of them altogether. The issue went to public consultation with 10 submitters wanting to be heard.

Stuart says they were split about 50:50 on whether they wanted the elections signs.

Those who want signs have been personally involved in the local body political process and have stood as candidates, says Stuart.

The five submitters who didn't want the signs on public roadsides at election time had never been involved in the political process.

'If you are involved in the process, the majority want signs in public places, and if you weren't then you didn't,” says Stuart.

Public opinion outside the council process, letters to the editor and the like, is opposed to the signs, says Stuart.

Terry Molloy says the weighting of public opinion wasn't surprising when most people don't vote.

'When you consider 60 per cent don't bother to vote it's not surprising that 60 per cent see signs as detritus, rubbish on the side of the road.”

Only one submission says the signs are messy, which is the basis on which the council went out to public consultation. Two others say they are a distraction from driving.

One submission opposed the ban on signs saying the result in Rotorua hugely benefits sitting councillors.

Stuart doesn't agree with that.

'There's no evidence whatsoever that they create more participation,” says Stuart.

He says people vote on issues.

'So if there are issues, people participate, I think that's reasonably well known.”

He says people make up their minds on the brief 50-word biographies in the election papers.

'A mugshot on the side of the road and a slogan I don't believe creates any advantage for anybody. Depending on the picture, it could be a disadvantage.”

Murray Guy is firmly in favour of election signs.

'There is no question public space signage does provide the most cost effective branding for any potential elected member,” says Murray.

'It's about name recognition. Straight out commercial reality. Having established branding, people will look at the information in that little booklet.”

Acknowledging he is reasonably well know in the community Murray put up no signs in the last election and polled the lowest of the at-large elected members.

In the previous election where as part of Pick Six, he invested the most he has ever invested in an election campaign, he created a collective brand through election signage.

'And that's where I had the most successful response.”

Wayne Moultrie says they are a waste of time.

'There are so many more ways to get yourself elected rather than smearing the city with signs. And the best way in my view, is the level of contribution you have made to your community. It is far better publicity that having signs,” says Wayne.

Campaigners could go door knocking, attend election meetings.

'Rotorua and Hamilton don't have signs,” says Wayne.

'Is the quality of democracy any lesser because they don't have elections signs, or is it an indication that the intelligence, perception and understanding of the electors is far superior than those in this electorate who need to be reminded by having election signs.”

In an electorate with 43,200 voters, five wanted roadside election signs restored.

'Four were candidates who in the past had been defeated, and the fifth was from an organisation chaired by a person who in the past has recently been defeated,” says Wayne.

You may also like....

13 comments

Regardless of my, your, Wayne's opinion ..

Posted on 17-09-2011 08:47 | By Murray.Guy

... the facts speaks for themselves. A submitter who researched the use of signs clearly identified that those communities who had banned the use of public space election signs (including Rotorua and Hamilton) immediately had a drop in voter turnout and a higher percentage return of existing elected members. Staff confirmed that there would be no ratepayer saving by banning signs as all signs as no additional staff are employed and signs, regardless of the location, still have to be monitored in response to the inevitable complaints.


Bloody Mess

Posted on 17-09-2011 08:52 | By trish

I think these signs make the our city look so untidy. There are 100's of the bloody things. I am not allowed to put up a sign outside my own house so WHY can they. Once again they are a law unto their own.


Looking forward to the Boobs on Bikes Party Signs

Posted on 17-09-2011 09:45 | By Openknee8ted

Maybe we don't need an election at all. Since these signs are so influential, lets just count the signs and forget about voting altogether.


Election signs remain in play

Posted on 17-09-2011 11:02 | By RobtDavies

I submitted against the draft Policy which would have prohibited signs from public land. I also stood unsuccessfully in last year's elections, although quite what that has to do with anything is beyond me. The issue isn't a lack of regulation - there's plenty of red tape restricting election signs - it's a lack of enforcement. The intimation that submitters opposed to the draft Policy (and who were also candidates last year) had vested interests doesn't hold water in my view. One of the five submitters in favour of the draft Policy was a previous councillor and unsuccessful candidate himself. That reduces Stuart's number of 5 to only 4. And Stuart is partly right when he says there's no evidence linking signs to participation, but only because there's really no evidence full stop. We're still very much in the dark around why people don't vote. But one relationship that's undeniable is the one between voter awareness and voter participation. Taking away signs adversely affects voter awareness and, on that basis, can't be good for rates of participation. Perhaps the Strategy & Policy Committee could meet next and discuss the very real issue of falling participation, and the level TCC considers acceptable before the legitimacy of results are questioned. We're at 44%. Should it be 38% like Hamilton, or lower?


THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL!

Posted on 17-09-2011 11:02 | By Secret Squirrel

The consent for TCAL's disaster project is about to fall on it's own sword and then all will be revealed about why Deputy Dave "mister yes man" Stewart resigned from TCAL. There are fights a plenty within TCAL management, One overly generous nobody Mike King, director has been causing all sorts of trouble for the other directors and especially about how much money has been spent with SGL and of course others. Something has to change fast there, the writing has been on the wall to long already, it has been obvious to many.


Secret squirrel

Posted on 17-09-2011 12:47 | By MASSA KISSED

That is interesting information, Mike King as director gets a fee of $40,000, and a lot of expenses for travelling all over Australiasia. As well as that Mike King is owner and director of SGL and paid heaps as a consultant to TCAL for Baywave then and now for the Hot Pools project. Records show that it is huge "six figure sums". When is the truth gunna be available for ratepayers.


Another no brainer solved

Posted on 17-09-2011 15:58 | By Investigator

Yes Robert Davies you have got it pretty well right and what you have not covered was very well addressed by Bay Regional Councillor Paul Thompson a few weeks ago in her Sunlive blog.Still I doubt the current TCC turkeys would follow all that.


For Life

Posted on 17-09-2011 23:10 | By tibs

It was beginning to look like we'd be headed towards a Mayor for life. There are a few who've been on council for an awful long time. Sometimes this long service seems like a life sentence to us.


FOR LIFE?

Posted on 18-09-2011 16:26 | By PLONKER

Then it is over due to leave, the pedigree of this mule is clear now and can not stay.


QUALITY OF DEMOCRARY?

Posted on 18-09-2011 19:52 | By WIDOWMAKER

that can only be achieved by Council presenting its apparent masters (the voting ratepayers) with an open and transparent truthful picture of what really goes on in Council, until then all is in the "LAP OF THE GODS" about who will be there or not.


@ WIDOWMAKER

Posted on 19-09-2011 09:42 | By SpeakUp

Exactly! And that's what CMC will do. We will publish an open and transparent truthful picture of what really goes on in Council, what HAS been going on, what's planned, all hidden agendas, implications and repercussions for the up-to-now unassuming citizenry. We will put faces to deeds, past, present and future. We will create awareness for the colossal debt burden this region's ratepayers will face due to the spendthrift of councils of the last two decades. We'll teach the councilors to spell ACCOUNTABILITY and INTEGRITY. Nothing will be forgotten, all will be remembered. -Citizens Monitoring Council-


@ SPEAKUP

Posted on 20-09-2011 18:21 | By PLONKER

You ave your head in the sand mate, "honest, transparent, accountable ..." like they do not have a clue what anyone of thse are nevermind if they remotely got close and all that. The nearest that is going to come to pass is reflected in the "Rogering of Ratepayers" when compare to the fate of the average Australian sheep.


Well, Plonker, that's the status quo...

Posted on 21-09-2011 08:36 | By SpeakUp

...but that doesn't mean that it won't change. We'll make sure of that. Become part of the movement...-Citizens Monitoring Council-


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.