Ngai Tahu Shareholders

This blog is a good start towards fostering democracy in the 21st century- locally, regionally, nationally and globally.  

I am reminded of the old saying 'freedom of the press is the basis of democracy' - and I guess these days, anything you post on the web is the equivalent to being on the front page of the newspaper. So bring it on!  I prefer the term 'shareholder' to beneficiary. In my view the Iwi is now a corporate entity, worth over $500 million. It is time every New Zealander of Ngai Tahu descent thought of themselves as ashareholder - with a stake in the future of Te Wai Pounamu.
I am almost relieved the debacle at the TRONT table has happened.It was inevitable. Thankfully our tribal wealth/assets are protected,and hopefully governed and managed at arms length from the political body. Albeit with the some very long fingers still in the pie.

Regardless of the current risks, the separation of the body politic
from the business arm has given us some much needed time and space.

So lets begin to debate the issues and explore ideas, with a view to finding an acceptable and workable political body (parliament). One that will serve Ngai Tahu whanau whanui into 21st century and beyond. Lets seize this opportunity, to explore the possibilities. Ngai Tahu has about 170 years experience of finding, creating, and adapting traditional Iwi/tribal structures and tikanga (ways of doing things) with democratising concepts and principles. So lets learn the lessons from recent events and move on. Lets dream.

Here are some questions to ask ourselves:

- How do we increase participation of our 40,000 or so Ngai Tahu whanau whanui shareholders?  

- How do we increase every registered Ngai Tahu shareholders (aka beneficiary) knowledge and understanding of their ability and duty to hold the TRONT trustees to account(vote)?
- How do we establish an open, transparent and robust voting process, which delivers a value adding board? (ie integrity, credibility, accountability, competency,diversity,acceptability, mana)

- How do we make sure trustees always serve the best interests of Ngai Tahu whanau whanui (shareholders)?
- How do we ensure the values and principles of NgaiTahutanga(tribalism) are promoted, while reducing the risks of nepotism and self interest developing?
- How do we foster a culture of debate, which recognises the value of oppossing views as the best way to find durable consensus?

That will do for now.   Tino rangatiratanga- Mo tatou, a mo ka uri ake nei.

Comments:
 Liz asks some very good questions that need debate. Lets hear what you think.

Richard

1. Summary The current disarray within Ngai Tahu is an insult to ordinary people within the Iwi.
   I find it hard to give respect to a table that has so much contempt for Iwi members that they choose to ignore a large number of members and take the cover of “In Committee”.
   I have witnessed many iwi members from all over New Zealand and well respected Kaumatua being ignored and left on the footpaths of central Christchurch locked out of a tribal meeting because it is “In Committee”.

   The Tail Wags The Dog.

   What is the reason for this vendetta against Mark Solomon and earlier Terry Ryan?
   What have they done to invoke the wrath of the TRONT table and to be subjected to continuous attack?
   Verbal assaults leveled at Mark and Terry have taken its toll on these two and has been damaging to the tribe to say the least.
   The iwi has quiet rightly voiced their support for or against these two who have given so much to the people, that to me is a democratic decision and those who have exercised that right are to be applauded, as such we must respect those views even though we may or may not agree or disagree with the reasons sometimes offered.
   I have no qualms with people offering their reasons for or against but are willing to discuss those matters with the wider whanau be it in print or kanohi ki te kanohi. (eye to eye)
   I find it hard to give respect to a table that has so much contempt for Iwi members that they choose to ignore a large number of members and take “In Committee” as a defense not to confront the Iwi on the issues surrounding these two.
   The iwi several times have rallied to these two men to give them support, but it is to no avail, the representatives at the TRONT table fail to give a reasonable explanation as to the reasons for wanting to get rid of them or why to their continuing attack on their integrity.
   Terry in his role with whakapapa over a considerable number of years, put there with the blessing of kaumatua who are no longer with us, until recently single handedly co-ordinate the whakapapa unit which is second to none and in fact the envy of Iwi through out our country.
   Mark who has gained for us the respected that Ngai Tahu enjoys within all the Iwi throughout New Zealand is a humble man in the mould of some of our most respected Kaumatua from years gone bye, he is a people person of the highest caliber.
   In both of these cases we have had a large number of iwi supporting them and in both cases has that support been ignored by the table.
   I have witnessed over the last three years the Iwi saying one thing and the table doing the opposite. I have witnessed many iwi members from all over New Zealand and well respected Kaumatua being ignored and left on the footpaths of central Christchurch, locked out of a tribal meeting because it is called “In Committee”.
   The forum of the Hui A Tau is a joke when it comes to a forum for the iwi members to voice their opinion, this is only a rubber stamp vehicle for the TRONT table looking forever to justify their large meeting fees and ineffectual communication to the people.
   They hide away from the ordinary members in flash hotels / motels, not for them the wharenui and sleeping bag and the direct talk and scrutiny of the people on an eye to eye level.
   They have come to believe that they are not ordinary people to do ordinary things they are of the caliber of people they see as their peers who sit in corporate concrete and glass monstrosities who are fawned over by minions who stroke their egos on a daily basis.

   Is this what is happening to our representatives, is there manipulation by people behind the scenes who have hidden agendas and are stroking the egos of these reps?

   Is there some sinister ulterior motive to not front up to the democratic right?

   Is it not time to embrace the democratic right of all the Iwi to have an open transparent system that is accountable to the people.

   The time has come to introduce postal voting where all members of the tribe get to vote no matter where they live.

   The time is right for all members to vote on the office of Kaiwhakahaere.

   The time is overdue for a Kahui Kaumatua to be attached to the Kaiwhakahaere’s office, with the role of adviser to the Kaiwhakahaere and the whakapapa unit.

   We must move to a democratic system where the voice of the Iwi is heard and not ignored nor to have a whole section of the tribe dis-enfranchised because of were they live.

   The Time has come for all members of the Table to resign their positions and have the guts to seek a fresh mandate from the Iwi and stop being the tail trying to wag the dog

2. Keep up the good work my whanau appreciate the work you are doing in keeping the tribe informed.

"Failed leadership
The paralysis now gripping Ngai Tahu might not be terminal but it is damaging, says The Press in an editorial. (Thurs 5 April 07)After Monday's vote of no confidence in its chairman, Mark Solomon, the tribe lacks an effective leader and has no certainty of finding another one soon. For an organisation responsible in substantial measure for the well-being of most South Island Maori, and important in the region's economy, this is a worrying state of affairs. This week's events have been beneficial in one respect. They have ended the impasse of an evenly divided board. Solomon now has lost much of the support he had and a majority of board members want him to relinquish power. The problem is that the move was not decisive; its success depends on Solomon's willingness to serve out his term while having much of his authority removed. It is symptomatic of the board's inability to do much right that it did not foresee that Solomon was bound to reject such a humiliating proposal. He is a leader of mana who has fought tenaciously for his corner – a man unlikely to accept ignominious sidelining. Drawn-out dismissal further embitters Solomon and his core supporters and prolongs the crisis. A simple motion to dismiss him would have avoided these bitter manoeurvrings and opened the way to new leadership. The factions are still talking but so much bad blood and confusion exists that a negotiated settlement is unlikely. The board should act decisively to remove its chairman and then all members should resign. Tribal elections are the best way to speedily produce what Ngai Tahu needs – a new and united board capable of electing and backing a competent chairman."

 Comment: What this article is saying is that Tront have failed. Its now Tuesday 17 April 07. Tront met at the weekend and they have still not resolved anything. This is no longer a Mark Solomon issue. The issue is that Tront is no longer capable of governing and should therefore resign.    

Unbeknown to Tront, Steve O'Regan has been paid a retainer for "strategic advice". This retainer was instigated by Tahu Potiki the CEO of Tront. The retainer was only discovered by a member of Tront's Audit Committee when Potiki was questioned. The sum of course comes out of shareholder (beneficiary) funds. The retainer was cancelled in approx July last year. Interested to know what the annual retainer was.

Please, if you have information let me know. 

Retainers, are a thing of the past; a fee paid to secure services. Advice today, is generally by competitive tender, the results, and the value should be subject to audit.

What value has Steve added to the Ngai Tahu in recent years?         

Te Runanga o Moeraki are planning to leave Tront frustrated after three years of infighting at the Tront table. See here a letter Whanau letter from Wayne Tipa Chair of the Runanga. This is a brave move with the sentiments being shared by many Ngai Tahu 

I emailed the following to Runanga on 4 April. While my last post was an analysis about what I think has been going in the last month or so I expressed an idea that whanui might wish to take up   

By now you will have received a statement from Donald Couch, Deputy Kaiwhakahaere, saying that Mark Solomon has been stripped of all his power and duties but retains the title of Kaiwhakahaere.

This was the "compromise" deal announced at the end of the Tront meeting on Saturday but the details were only released yesterday afternoon. Donald Couch said on Saturday that a compromise proposal would be put to Mark

This proposal was put to Mark by Donald in a face to face meeting yesterday and Mark declined the compromise  

Yet Donald then held a press conference and failed to mention Mark's rejection of the plan saying in "The Press" today:
 
" Couch, when contacted by The Press last night, said he was not aware Solomon had rejected the proposal, and planned to meet him today."

This apparent attack of amnesia by Donald Couch further tarnishes the already soiled reputation of Tront

Little should be read into the 14 Tront reps who voted for the proposal. This is a group so far removed from the wishes of iwi and desperate for a bandaid fix

The issue is not about Mark and never has been. Its about:
- lack of democracy and transparency
- a flawed democratic system exploited by unaccountable reps and others
- a politically active management

At an informal meeting last Thursday night at Rehua marae attended by approximately 80 beneficiaries I put the following suggestion that was well received. The formation of an Interim Governance Committee (IGC)- for lack of a better name - The purpose of the IGC would be to be to review the Ngai Tahu Charter and the electoral system. The IGC was to be made up of 50% beneficiaries and 50% Tront reps with an independent Chair. My reasoning was twofold
1. The Tront electoral committee of 5 - 4 of whom come from the opposing faction, should have had proposals out at the last Hui-a Tau but are dragging the chain. The four have no real interest in reform.
2.  There was an opportunity-an olive branch- for Tront to transparently restore the faith and trust of beneficiaries by allowing beneficiary participation.

I put this proposal to the Tront meeting on Friday and just like all proposals put that day it was ignored."

Background
For three years a group of nine Tront representatives have been trying to oust Mark Solomon as Kaiwhakahaere. The nine can provide no cohesive argument for opposing Mark. One of the things they do say is that Mark is not ‘good at chairing meetings’. I have heard told that if you were to be present at one of those meetings you would see that it is like trying to control an unruly school classroom. The nine “tight9”- as they have become known- Tront representatives who have consistently over the last three years opposed Mark are Maria Pera (Awarua), James Daniels (Waerewa) Lisa Tumahai (Waewae), Te Maire Tau (Tuahuriri), Terry Nicholas(Hokonui), Garry Waaka (Arowhenua), Koa Mantell (Moeraki), Charlie Crofts (Koukouratata) and the late Kelly Davis (Waihao). I have come to the conclusion that this staunch and unrelenting opposition is not about values and principles, but more about who has power and control over tribal assets and money. It would appear that there are external persons and other influences driving these nine at the table.

The ‘Buyout’
On Tuesday 6 March 2006, in an article in “The Press” it was announced that there had been an attempt to break the stalemate at the table by offering to buy out Mark Solomon’s contract for the sum of $300,000 (this sum comes from the media- so no accuracy is implied). Mark in fact, had rejected this offer by the time of publication. A similar report also appeared in the “New Zealand Herald”

Wally Stone, acting CE of NTHC, and Tront members Liz Brown and Maria Pera, led the “Group” of people who made the offer. Liz and Maria are members of Tront’s Contracts Review Committee who have the responsibility for Mark’s contract. Why Wally was involved in what would be an employment issue is unclear. He was employed as the acting CE when Robin Pratt resigned from this NTHC position in June last year. In this instance at least, it appears that he has extended his brief to the tribal political area.

The rest of Tront representatives had no idea this negotiation was to take place. The “Group” had no authority to spend any amount of money on severance from shareholders funds.

Mark was subsequently accused of leaking the offer to the media: This defies logic. Why would Mark or anybody in a similar position reveal to the media the details of an exit package?
Mark’s statement was in reaction to what others had leaked to the media.

A reporter told me two days after this leak that there were three people who could have leaked the information and named Stone, Brown, and Pera. The reporter then asked me who would I thought it was. I had no hesitation in naming Pera who could have channelled the information through one of her colleagues in the tight9. The reporter seemed to concur with my view. The tight9 have been responsible for many media leaks that have angered tribal members- I cannot see why they would have changed their tactics on this occasion. Liz Brown has an impeccable reputation as an intelligent person and representative for Taumutu. She succeeded her aunt the much-revered Cath Brown. Of the three, she is the least likely source of this leak.

Meeting 12 March, 2007
Wally Stone then called a meeting of Tront reps for the following Saturday – 12 March but excluded Mark. This is in direct contravention of The Charter that says no Runanga can be excluded from Tront meetings. Kaikoura, (Mark’s Runanga) sent a message to Wally requesting that a representative be present, but no reply was received. Wally’s later explanation to Tront reps was that Mark had wanted the meeting. This again defies logic. Why would Mark call a meeting that he knew nothing about?

Mark Accused Of ‘Bringing The Tribe Into Disrepute’
Following the above weekend meeting of Tront and without further consultation with Tront, Mark was given a letter signed by the “Group” making accusations that Mark had brought the tribe into disrepute citing, among other things, the allegation that he had leaked the ‘buyout’ proposal to the media. Mark rejected these allegations.

Again other Tront members had no knowledge of this letter or its contents.

Friday’s Call From Kaumatua
On Friday 18th of March “The Press” and the “NZ Herald” reported the following:
“The statement – jointly signed by Kaumatua Sir Tipene O'Regan and Rakiihia (Rik) Tau, and Wally Stone, chairman of the powerful Ngai Tahu Group Board – said Ngai Tahu's mana had been damaged "to a disastrous degree in the last two weeks”–
"It's been an appalling display of petty personality politics and it is not acceptable," Tau said.
The three blamed Solomon for damaging the tribe's reputation by breaching the confidential nature of his exit discussions.
“Last week, Solomon rejected a $300,000 exit package, after initially offering to resign in an attempt to solve problems at the boardroom table.”
The statement went on to say that “Te Marie Tau would resign if Mark did –“

Clearly Wally had exhausted other options and joined with O’Regan and Tau to make this statement on the eve of a Tront meeting to try and influence iwi and Tront members. The statement was interesting for a number of reasons:
a. O’Regan and Tau (the father of Te Maire) had finally, jointly, declared their hand in ousting the Kaiwhakahaere.
b. The statement to the media came out of the office of the Acting General Manager of the Office, the partner of Te Marie Tau.
c. Why do O’Regan and Tau have access to Tront’s media services when no other Kaumatua or beneficiaries do?

On the same morning there was the sad news of the untimely death of Kelly Davis, the Tront representative for Waihao. The Tront meeting was postponed for two weeks as a mark of respect.

At this stage it was clear to me Wally Stone’s goal was to eject Mark without consultation with and the authority of Tront. Tront, as the political governing body had lost control to a member of the executive. What is astonishing was that no Tront representative questioned Wally’s authority to act in this way.

 
A new Tront meeting was convened for Fri/Sat March 30 and 31. On the previous Thursday evening there was an informal meeting held at the Rehua marae of approximately 60 concerned beneficiaries worrying about the goings on at the table. They declared support for Mark, with some calling for the resignation of the whole Tront table.

During the formal meeting the next day (Friday) the morning was taken up with heartfelt submissions on the situation from Ngai Tahu beneficiaries from several regions.
The next day (Saturday), Tront spent all day ‘in committee’. Kaumatua and beneficiaries spent the day outside, waiting. During the ‘in committee’ time it was revealed that James Daniels knew about the ‘buyout’ negotiations the day these negotiations had taken place.

Early in the afternoon Mark left the meeting. At 4 o’clock Donald Couch announced the Tront table had reached a compromise solution about Mark’s position. This solution would be revealed on Monday, after Mark had been consulted. The ‘compromise’ as it turned out was one-sided- it simply stripped Mark of all his duties leaving him to remain as Chair in name only. Tront had voted 14-3 for the compromise.

This was significant for two reasons. Firstly Tront were desperate for a solution, and an acceptable compromise solution would suffice. Secondly, Liz Brown shifted her former allegiance away from Mark because she was, on the Saturday, persuaded that Mark was responsible for the ‘buyout’ leak. Because Liz is so highly respected this would have influenced other supporters of Mark towards an acceptable compromise solution.
Donald Couch held the media conference at 3 o’clock on the Monday as he said he would. Donald Couch did consult Mark on the compromise and Mark rejected it.  Incredibly, Donald went ahead with the conference without mentioning Mark’s rejection of the compromise proposal! Mark had been sidelined.

 But on the Sunday after the Tront meeting, a further meeting of concerned beneficiaries took place at Turhuriri with the intent of removing Te Maire Tau as its marae representative. The intent failed because it had not been a properly notified meeting. However, it was during this meeting Te Maire Tau said that Liz Brown had been set up to believe that Mark had leaked the ‘buyout’ to the media.

On the Tuesday after the press conference Mark asked for the minutes of the Tront meeting over the weekend. This request was turned down,  by the Office and the Secretary to Tront, Russell Caldwell. How humiliating!

There are a number of issues from this saga:
- Is it credible that Mark would have initiated a public hearing of a possible buyout of his contract when such negotiations are very private? I think not
- Would a member of the negotiating ‘Group’ leak the ‘buyout’ information to the media? Very possible, and because the negotiations had broken down there was nothing to lose except to discredit Mark.
- Mark Solomon has consistently denied the leak allegations. Whom to believe? Mark. We now know that James Daniels knew of the negotiations the day they were happening and that Te Marie admits that Liz Brown was set up. This subterfuge is not compatible with the way Mark Solomon operates.
- Wally Stone: What was his role? It appears he has a political agenda (totally unauthorised by Tront) to get rid of Mark. What was he doing teaming up with O’Regan and Tau in the media release?
- What has been the role of the Office in all this? Is it becoming further tainted by politics?
- Where is the mana of Tront in all this? We are all the losers.

Finally. Who leaked the the infomation to the media about Mark's resignation package?

It was Maria Pera - she confessed. But Wally Stone has his hand in this - this not the end of this saga.    

Tront got a terrible drubbing at the Hui a Tau in Nov last year from beneficiaries about their performance. The  message was clear- ‘Get your act together’.

But Tront have not got the message?

At their first meeting of the year  (Jan 2007) Tront granted themselves a 25% pay rise.

This (and also the previous remuneration) is based on the flawed assumption that Tront marae representatives have the same skills and commercial experience as Directors of NTHC and NTDC. This has never been the case.

The only dissenting voice to this was Mark Solomon.

Tront meets once a month for two days (weekends; one for formal Tront meetings the other for wanaga.) But time is not the main issue. Rather what value do Tront bring to the tribe?   Is it comparable to that of the directors and how does the value of marae reps compare in the setting of the  wider New Zealand economy?

The rise under discussion was from $24,000 per annum to $30,000.

The median (i.e. midpoint) annual income for New Zealanders is $21,900 and for us Maori is $20,900 –(Statistics NZ 2006). Do you think Tront rep remuneration represents appropriate value?

The background to my unease over this matter is that in the 1990’s a decision needed to be made about payment of Directors of the newly formed NTHC and NTDC. The discussion was widened to the question as to how much the marae reps on Tront should be paid. It was decided by a majority vote that reps should be paid the same as those Directors. I was strongly against this proposal and said so at the time.  We had little money in the late nineties but as the wealth has grown Directors have been rewarded with increases in an attempt to mirror what they would be paid in similar organizations with a wholly commercial base. Tront rep remuneration increases have followed each of these increments.

I believe there is a fundamental difference in skill base and responsibilities of the two groups. Directors are appointed for their expertise -commercial expertise in the case of NTHC- built up through their varied careers. Tront reps, on the other hand, are elected political reps whose role is represent their marae and beneficiaries, and to act as trustees. TRONT’s role is manifestly different and lesser to that of the Directors’ and that differential should be reflected by relative rates of reward.

Research I have done on this matter reveals the pay band for a similar position is between $5,000 -$15,000 per annum. Further, there is the question of whether beneficiaries feel that their own representative reflects their views adequately or not- do we know how satisfied Runanga are with performance? Do we know how many of our beneficiaries feel they are getting value for money?

Should Runanga introduce performance-based pay? Or simply pay their representative what they think he or she is worth!    

The big question remains: What processes underlie the apparent ability of Tront to peg their level of remuneration to that of directors? Does this behaviour reflect the level of transparency and democracy we need for Ngai Tahu?